Posts Tagged ‘HHS-TAGGS grants database’
Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings [drafted Feb. published Nov. 11, 2018]
This re-post of data from an earlier one gives a look in the public interest at some of the organizations and program labels where tax receipts are going — at least a fraction of them as reported about five years ago…
Its awkward title, Title IV-A HMRF-Grants-Dependent CORPORATE Grantees Started Running Out of Acronyms Years Ago, but not, Steam…Or ® and (™)’s With Which To Sell Proprietary Trainings, [shortlink ends “-8E2”; started Feb. 15, 2018] stems from my desire to update a much earlier one, named:
Another Reason (Besides Its Innate Irrationality) to Shelve the “National Healthy Marriage” Movement: It’s Running Out of Acronyms…. [Case-sensitive short-link ends “-Zh.” First published Jan 11, 2012; last previously edited Nov. 23, 2013; Current edit (primarily formatting and checking for expired links, incl. to logos) is Feb. 15, 2018].
IT’S NOW NOV. 2018. I have a number of reasons for publishing it (finally) now, which I don’t feel like explaining yet, however (for a clue) recent Twitter is active with reports on “reunification” services in California’s SF Bay Area (and, “strangely” (given no mention of the AFCC with its 400-strong Ontario chapter is made in the report), also children exposed to it in Canada), particularly “Family Bridges.” (“No Oversight for Programs Advertising They Reconnect Children with Alienated Parents” (NBCBayArea.com, the “bit.ly” shortlink ends “2yQrCzL”)
The “to the contrary” (or at least another) expert quoted, Linda Gottlieb, who runs “Turning Point” program (similar idea) it turns out has prior connections to the Minuchin Center for the Family (see Salvador Minuchin, who with other authors including Bernard Guerney, wrote “Families of the Slums” in 1967, and became famous for “Structural Family Therapy”). Bernard Guerney shows up as marriage/family curriculum provider, and I caught this back in 2012, care of “NIRE” — National Institute of Relationship Enhancement® See above link for more information; but I discovered this (and much more about how “PAS-entrenched Gottlieb is and with whom conferencing recently, as well as a look at the gradual decline in revenues at the Minuchin Family Center) with some basic background looks. It had grabbed my attention long ago, but not in the reunification of alienated families contexts.
Other than this explanation and the next captioned image, this post (nice and short at under 3,500 words even with the table below) is published as it was last Feb. 2018.. Also be aware that the HHS table links probably no longer work as TAGGS.HHS.gov changed its database technology & user interface, it seems, back in 2013 (the post was drafted in 2012)…
Bernard Guerney of NIRE (screenprint from my 2012 post on “running out of acronyms” for marriage curricula.. Screenprint taken Nov 11, 2018. Click image above to enlarge if necessary
. . .
Image #1
Image #2
(Newsletter banner)
WHY DO THIS NOW?
One of the featured organizations on my 2011 (!) post showed up again, still running its classes, I guess, as published 2016 Winter edition of the Maryland Social Worker, which also featured a nice spread on the Family Transitions: Issues, Solutions and Policies Conference” article (Image#1).
In calling attention to that organization (NIRE®) Image #2), I remembered having posted on it, and related ones, years ago.
Looking up the older post and attempting a cleanup, I found the software got stuck — perhaps because of how the table below (taken directly from TAGGS.HHS.gov at the time), being fairly large (108 rows) came with so many extraneous excess codes,
[[My latest post, “Families Change: The Sentence..” comments on the conference and its presence in the newsletter in more detail]].
Full title w/ shortlink of that post:
Whatever the reason (possibly also my computer / device, or internet access where I was doing this) it just got stuck. This post was short enough (esp. without the table) and worth current readers taking another look at it, so I moved that table off-blog, used “global replace” on a text document to clean it up, and put it back here onto WordPress on a fresh post.
Disclaimer: These are still 2013 search results and don’t update for the interim years — and is just a snapshot of what was occurring back in 2011, with a 2013 (I saw) re-run at some point.
Excess formatting codes from TAGGS.hhs.gov Tables, for those who may have dared to copy them for personal study. Makes one wonder who designed it…
In light of imminent and current major restructuring of tax law and allegedly social services to the nation (see recent headline news), it might be time to “get vocal” on this type of activity: before cutting, say, “Food Stamps” for the hungry or needy, how about cutting the pork from this programming for the greedy and self-righteous? Take these 501©3s and others on the same funding stream off taxpayer subsidy, where they have been through this PRWORA-era, 1996ff, grants stream.
As the saying goes, “garbage (rationale, reasoning, justification) in, garbage out.” Congress (that’s who votes on the Budgets, right?): Quit dumping on the public at its own expense through this funding stream and calling the “for the good of the people!” (i.e., healthy communities, healthy marriages, and so forth). The rest of us: let’s describe what’s happening more specifically and more accurately using terms those who distribute the grants are already well aware of, but just not using so openly when selling the proprietary programs, or when preaching it’s time to cut back “services.”
These are services? Look at the table (and check out the 2011 post too!).
After the first images (how the earlier post began), here, I’m just reproducing one of the tables; the longest one near the bottom. I still recommend readers here return to and read the original post. It pre-dates coverage by the Tables of Contents by over a year and was written just under two years into my research for the blog (I started about March, 2009…).
It also, in opening statement, reflects my natural (bodily) gut responses to realizing what had been taking place politically and policy-wise while many women in my situation were dealing with surviving a relationship that involved battering, with (our) young children in the home.
Some called that “marriage.” Technically speaking, maybe, but I think other words would better characterize it. However such words are frowned upon almost the moment separate has taken place, in the courts. The “protection” switch is flipped off and the courts’ and associated professionals ceaseless demands survivors just “pretend” it didn’t happen and focus instead on better cooperating “for the children” with former abuser… is flipped on.
Which doesn’t take long to recognize, however, recognizing whose policy it was takes a little more study!
Remember that each grantee in the “organization” column is supposed to have a legal business incorporation, if a 501©3 (tax-exempt) file Forms 990 or 990PF as required — faithfully AND accurately, and make them available somehow for public inspection. They are supposed to have proper EIN#s (whether for-profit or not-for profit) and the data entered OUGHT to represent accurately the real business name of grantee.
This table appears to have been a search on any grantee with the word “marriage” in its name, but I cannot say for sure so many years ago. It is alphabetical by organization name. Just notice the organization name. Also, not all “CFDA” numbers are “93086,” the one assigned specifically to HMRF funding. CFDA#s are defined at TAGGS.HHS.Gov and probably also at “Grants.gov” (searchable) for more information.
Not all marriage/fatherhood grantees, obviously, would have the word “marriage in their business names (NIRE® certainly doesn’t), but it is symptomatic of alignment of purposes between the (mostly, I’ll bet) nonprofits and the programming.
Several of the grantees I have previously looked up (meaning, their tax returns and most likely corporate filings) and may have posted, so am not repeating that information here
SHARE THIS POST on...
Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”). [Publ. again March 29, 2016<~~].
You will notice that some grants refer to the “Special Issue Resource Center.” …
Given the column headings I selected, that of over perhaps twenty years, only THREE different women are shown: Ellen Pence and Denise Gamache headed up most of them as “Principal Investigator”, then in about 2000, mostly just Denise Gamache, and in 2016, I see a “Renee Gutman.”
Denise Gamache is now associated with “Battered Women’s Justice Project” (and was while working also at DAIP) which decided to “come out” (incorporate in MN) in the year 2013. I see that “Renee Gutmann” got her degree in 1993, and has worked for DAIP since 1993 (LinkedIn) and is characterized as “Accountant” for DAIP.
THIS POST IS:
Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”). [Publ. again March 29, 2016<~~] (short-link ends “-3ck”).
Part 1 (most recent post) explains why I’m re-blogging it with some updates. It was recently reblogged on Red Herring Alert, in an interesting juxtaposition of articles.
This version of the same post makes some charts more readable. The gist of the material is the Ellen Pence / Casey Gwinn connection (representing the Duluth, MN-based “DAIP” as it now goes by, and the Family Justice Center concept (now called “Alliance for Hope International” as a California nonprofit of which the “Family Justice Center Alliance” has become a program). It also intersected with Telling Amy’s Story, and got under my skin at the time, as it still does.
As does the entire “Family Justice Center” setup. I still remember “connecting the dots” on discovering that the San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation (it’s full original, corporate name) existed to funnel money to Camp Hope, Inc. — but Camp Hope, Inc. wasn’t staying properly incorporated. No matter, shut down one version, file for a new one, move the money. It was a minor, minor detail — charitable registration number was so close, and more recently realizing it’d changed names AGAIN, that got me reviewing the earlier tax returns of this operations. I have been living IN California before, during, and while, this business model was created, funded, and replicated. It’s worth an entirely separate blog to alert people to what, exactly IS that business model — but I am only one person.
The fuller background on the original (a) philanthropic private wealthy couple and (b) public funds behind the multiple names surrounding both the San Diego Family Justice Center and the associated “Camp Hope” theme, are another separate story which I also learned considerably more fascinating background on this past summer. By doing, the usual thing — scrutinizing tax returns and looking up the entities and people named in them. Some of this is exposed below in the section with light-brown-background and teal borders. Actually, influence from “Fuller Seminary” leadership may have been involved so, “fuller background” could be a pun, also.
“Getting” the reality of the Family Justice Center Alliance is, I’d say, as important as getting the reality of the Duluth Model, CCR, treat everyone and let us be the train-the-trainer people concept. So I will continue to bring it up, where it ties into the other subject matter. Both involve replicating BUSINESS models. A close diagnosis of the original models then, is always appropriate — and by “diagnosis” I mean, accounting-wise. This can’t be just one organization, but involve the various related organizations (translation: “networks”) to construct something of a picture of operations. Even for people who weren’t “there,” right on scene locally — it can still be done.
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Comment Submitted To:” (Supervised Visitation, Interlocking Nonprofits, in Minnesota)
I submitted today to:
Carver County (MN) Corruption // AFCC chart page
COMMENTARY ON THE COMMENT:
Conceptual Thinking (understanding systems) is Essential to Freedom.
Networking for mutual self-support groups is wonderful, but failure by support groups to scout why one needed them to start with, is suicidal, in the long run. Support groups simply go form their silos of information and shun information which doesn’t fit with the status quo.
This is a great way to overspecialize and become an extinct species. We HAVE to be able to speak a language that incorporates understanding of the systems that structure our lives. We aren’t. There are crackups, domestic violence, gang violence, and various kinds of “roadkill,” to which people have conveniently (for those who DO understand systems, and own them) self-separated into their groups by label: Protective Mothers, Battered Mothers, Fathers’ Rights, Family Values vs. Pro Choice, etc.
Have you ever seen skilled sheepdogs in action? Consider what they do — they face off with the sheep; one dog can control a sizeable clump. Now — who does the sheepdog answer to and who feeds and trains him?
Now, who pays the man (or woman, I suppose) who trains, feeds, and runs the sheepdogs?
The real question is, who owns the ranch. And that’s what family court reform groups (male or female) simply forget to specialize in, and train each other to respond to signals from, that is, to respond as the owner of the ranch might — not as the sheep might.
I don’t know if you can get a visual on this — but picture sheepdog trials, and a batch is let out at time, and the canine “middle mangement” of this operation called a ranch, who do a lot of the running around, but appear to be innately designed for this — they LOVE running the sheep — are running one clumped together focused on the sheepdog (not the farm owners) and facing it, either face-off and freeze, or running. Eventually they ARE going to be run into the pen, where after a long (Or short) and domesticated life, during which they will be sheared and produce more lambs — eventually they will be possibly eaten. Such a life!
Divide, shepherd, shear, and eventually eat. Control reproduction. Sort for desired qualities.
That’s for sheep, but it’s been applied on people. And the sheepdogs bark and posture. The sheep don’t even have a language to talk back with that means anything other than what sounds they are making on the way back into the fold (pen).
As human beings, if we want freedom, we need to speak more than one language, and understand which language one is hearing at a given point of time. We also had better get a lid on understanding systems, AND becoming a better judge of character.
I read tax returns and look up corporations not because it’s profitable, or inherently more interesting than other things I could do with an immediate (though very transient, in my situation) profit. I read tax returns and look up corporations (and ask others to) because it tells me about who is doing what in the commercial landscape. I think the basics are clear, and a lot of the continued lookups I may (and am) still doing, are part for personal insight — but moreso for demonstrating to others.
This kind of data (even as poorly sourced as the free databases are, and as unwieldy as they are to produce any kind of report from) — givesi us a headsup on which way the economy has been going, is going and on WHY certain groups and talk like they do. It is one way of standing a little aprt from the clump of sheep to consider the patterns of frantic running around.
As a domestic violence survivor, I have also believed that the middle of pack of sheep frozen in certain language patterns and dashing around the internet to bond with their own kind, producing more of the same kind of (outdated though still valid in parts) information is producing inbreeding –and doesn’t increase the defensive or safety position one iota.
SHARE THIS POST on...
In the Beginning, in Hindsight (more on early AFCC newsletters, SVN/CRC, and could we have prevented this?)
Just grabbed this section off a recent post “Why Supervised Visitation Sucks” after posting it. I’m a woman and I get to redecorate at will.
I’m trying to consider whether anyone could’ve then (and could, now) headed off at the pass the multi-state shape-shifting nonprofits involving public officials (such as AFCC, SVN and CRC, mentioned herein).
There’s no question they are networked, and fast moving; like a maurading invasive species. Such is the nature of how danged easy it is to incorporate anywhere, anything (A few bucks and a statement on a piece of paper), and how we, the public, still don’t know how to track down how our own public officials are being funded.
It seems to me quite intentional that the purpose was to bypass representative legislation through forming multi-state and international nonprofits up front, attracting funding, and holding conferencs where the sun don’t shine (actually meaning, out of state for the target jurisdictions; they have been known to prefer sunny climates for conference locations. Like, Hawaii, or Bermuda, or in Southern California…).
I wanted to reference the AFCC talking about starting up this field (or at least the SVN), and decided to add an inset on the infamous Viola Stroud… I wonder in retrospect, how things might have gone if more of the public knew how vital it is to follow the money, and watch the conference circuits of groups like AFCC and CRC, not to mention SVN, and then connect this to the federal funding. Instead of go with the social scientist crowd, and (while making a fine living off grants to evaluate these programs) quipping, well, it’s OK…. so long as they are well-trained and recognize a batterer or abuser when they see one? Let us see how we can fix that….
AFCC Startup Literature, and Viola Stroud/CRC (inset)
AFCC Newsletter Fall 1992 (Vol. 11 No. 4) leads off with announcement of the formation (previous May) of the Supervised Visitation Network in New York, and presenter Tim Ballew (see also below) explains how it was funded and run. This is in Indianapolis.. So now, I have three states (so far) in which SVN was incorporated: New York, Tennessee and Florida… Above all keep in mind it is a NONPROFIT CORPORATION (to the extent that SVN has been operating legally, which as it turns out, is hardly all the time) whose board members tend to run NONPROFITS that take FEDERAL GRANT SUBSIDIES for this field, which was heavily promoted for application to divorce, not just kids in placement (dependency, that is). Why stop a “great” idea when it’s started??
Perhaps records don’t go back to 1992, however only a 2005 incorporated NEW YORK CHAPTER of the SVN actually shows up as a nonprofit. Search HERE, check status type ALL and search option “Contains” to view. A search of “Charities.NYS.gov” on “Supervised Visitation” pulls up only the “Little Angels” one (infamous for having involved a woman later convicted of robbing the estates of elders; with this corporation involved, aka Viola Stroud. Who was involved in the famous (to some of us) Genia Shockome case as a supervised visitation provider….).
SHARE THIS POST on...
ORPHANS: Where The Great Commission meets the Military-Industrial Complex [First Published May 18, 2013]
– – –
NOTE: this 3,000 word (you’re welcome!) post is out of sequence — belongs back with the “On the Road to Emmaeus” and “”Christian Social Services: Replenishing the Ranks of the Faithful (Bethany Christian Services posts, ca. Eastertime, 2013.
- 6723 Whittier, McLean, VA (Always Look Up Street Addresses!!!)**
…at one time or another these organizations (at a minimum) shared a street address:
- SHAOHANNAH’S HOPE (later “SHOWHOPE”)
- CONGRESSIONAL COALITION ON ADOPTION INSTITUTE (“CCAI”)
- CHRISTIAN ALLIANCE FOR ORPHANS (“CAFO”)
- ASSOCIATION OF FORMER INTELLIGENCE OFFICERS (“AFIO”)
File under, if you notice the details, What’s wrong with this picture?
SHARE THIS POST on...
Join or Start a Conversation on Family Court Matters. Jump in Somewhere!
[Looks like this one started around May 16, 2013; it was then left “pending” for a long while, and now being re-published along with original comments on November 16, 2013 (after some days of adding too much, then splitting off the added insight from later months after all). I apologize for the inconvenience and for not having figured out what the Contact Form was earlier in the blog!
Believe it or not, I do want feedback. Comments have always been open, and some of my ongoing network comes from people who commented; we are continuing to compare practices across jurisdictions and problemsolve, support, etc.
The “contact” form here raises general topics and asks for feedback for any post (or link) on the entire blog. Don’t miss the “drop-down” menu on one of the fields below. I have participated in “forums” before, but they are time-intensive and not usually set up for problem-solving. I’m looking for people who perceive issues, can state them, and want to do something about it.
Usually this is people who are already stuck in, or have been devastated by (current or past) the courts. Of those people, who else is ready to frame the discussion and can actually handle the existence and relevance of the material I blog?
If disagree — what’s the basis? If agree…..
I’m looking for better ways to organize and communicate the material, as well as better understanding of what does, or doesn’t communicate to people IN custody situations. I have a lot of personal feedback through networking, and from some people who took time to comment and I can tell from other groups who formerly resisted talking about some of these essentials who now, have had to — because their followers also read this blog. Word is getting out.
I can show which direction human beings are driving this entire system (the Titanic ship of state, including the courts) based in a common language of economics and evolving corporate structures. Whether or not that’s a good or desired direction, matters. Wouldn’t this knowledge be helpful for whether to start “fixing the broken courts” (tinkering with their settings) or dismantling them for other, different options?
In 2016 this blog (and my life) are at different states of awareness, and urgency. A significant 2016 insert follows because I’m going to either make this post “sticky” or re-post it, showing that three years ago, I was responding to the symptoms of what can now be better documented and defined — in part because I found documentation in the course of continuing to read, and in part because in the past three years, the means to continue changing the public perception of what “Paradigms” ought to reflect government itself, continue their expansive momentum, and showing more of their true character.
But First, As usual, “In My Opinion.” Please argue it if you disagree, or state your own elsewhere, including in the contact form! Bulleted commentary on, essentially, the conference circuit and its publications, may be helpful insight.
In my opinion, some of those who set this up maybe foresaw this day and have carved out other professional niches involving fewer judges, called “collaborative Justice.”
In other words, perhaps planning was made for the eventuality that the public catches on…. and shuts it down by simply refusing to feed the system, particularly as more of (us) start exposing how the system is actually fed, the funding… Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
National Top Domestic Violence/Child Custody Experts continue trying to Dumb Down Moms
This has been a long time coming.
I barely tapped the tip of the iceberg in January 2011 in asking “What Rhetoric Are You: Mother, Father, or Mediator?” after a recent Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference in which to my awareness, no one explained how the Health and Human Services (HHS) has been diverting welfare funds to marriage promotion, that things called “fatherhood practitioners” exist, or that Access/Visitation funding exists.
This post also barely taps the tip of the iceberg in how much lies BELOW THE SURFACE in the Coalition of Conferencing Nonprofit Professional (Leadership) among what I am summarizing as the “Crisis in the Courts” Crowd. Or, I may sarcastically refer to as the “Our Broken Family Courts Initiative.” Instead, this initiative is (my opinion, here) USING the emotional distress of mothers (which is genuine) and people who have been indeed assaulted and battered — by a partner, and/or thereafter the courts in association with the same battering partner, and/or ditched by their religious groups (where applicable) — to follow a certain blueprint which highlights the leadership organizations – not, impartially — the actual cause, effect, and potential solutions to the issues they raise.
Women — mothers — are highly motivated, intelligent, and have tremendous energy, commitment, and leadership potential. The movement encouraging them to wear loss and victimhood like a badge and tell their stories — has diverted a tremendous energy from the real story behind this — which is Who Altered the Courts, How, and Why? Instead, they are to rally, report, trust, and follow according to the blueprint laid down for them by simply another set of experts. Proper skepticism and critical thinking — outside the platform being fed — is always in order in situations of this magnitude.
[[Comments welcome; the matter I’m raising here IS a matter for debate! Make up a name if you want… but let’s talk about this! See form…]]]
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Few FAQs on Major Family Court Programs (NYEve 2012 Reflex on the Gender Gap)
I am, to tell the truth, having an awful day, struggling with computer issues, web access, and, apart from the electronic struggles, with grief.
Also the long-term effects of chronic, for lack of a better term, Family Violence — in its ugly, needless, heartless, dishonest, deceitful and extortionist self. People reach a limit, and because I am NOT of the inclination to behave like those who have a conflict with me — i.e., my faith doesn’t endorse the criminal behavior part — I am finding it just this much family violence, all this just too much.
Normally this article wouldn’t be much of my concern — it’s talking about “Wage Gaps in MBA Programs” — I mean, a woman that has got through an MBA program is not likely facing the same issues I have been.
But from my perspective (year after year, there has been a return to literally begging status around the court fiascos, which is hardly unintentional from a systems, or my ex’s part; I’d been promised before separation that he knew how to get out of paying child support (wonder where learned it from….), but well, I just didn’t know at the outset of the program how many other parties profit from this. In fact I didn’t know til I revisited Liz Richards’ NAFCJ.net site and worked through the basics — almost no one else at the time was talking about the grants incentives…..
So what happens when WAGE GAP is multiplied by REPEATED WAGE DISRUPTIONS AND DECREASES (when an employee has to miss too much work, move for safety, return to court to try to contact one’s kids — often — deals with stalking and has to re-arrange work life for protection from it, has to take into account client/employer safety in future business dealings, and word gets around that the individual has “family problems” which interfere with work problems, and that’s chronic? The main concept behind having a sustainable work life is that it’s sustained. Or moves are strategic, or for exploring different options?
So, look at this from SFGATE.com (San Francisco on-line, it was also in the print edition, page A1):
“MBA Wage Gap between Men, Women Grows” Dec. 29, 2012
[Alison Damast is a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. E-mail: adamast@bloomberg.net] Ten years ago, the wage gap between men and women graduating from top MBA programs appeared to have been nearly erased. {{that’s astounding, considering the rest of society..}} That suggested that women would launch their careers on an equal footing with men and then experience a gender-blind sprint up the corporate ranks. A decade later [i.e., NOW], a far more sober picture is emerging: The pay gap among graduates of elite business schools is widening, according to new research from Businessweek’s biennial survey of MBA graduates. On average, female grads from top MBA programs now earn 93 cents for every dollar paid their male classmates.
{{that still didn’t grab my attention. At least they are working!!}}
At about a third of the top 30 U.S. business schools, women earn less than men – sometimes considerably less. Female MBA graduates from the class of 2012 at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, for instance, earned 86 percent of male wages, while those at Stanford Graduate School of Business earned 79 percent.
{{Now, that has my attention. (I’m also remembering that Catherine Austin Fitts attended Wharton. Of course she had a lot of other things going for her personally as well, I saw some MIT in the background, time in China — she’s no slouch…)…Two more short sections of this article here:}}
“The gap numbers at the beginning are not very large and can be mostly accounted for by differences in grades, course selection and the fields people are starting in,” says Marianne Bertrand, an economics professor at University of Chicago Booth School of Business, citing results of studies on compensation among female MBA graduates from her school.
“What is much more striking is how much that gap grows over time.” The pay gap is especially wide for women heading to finance jobs.
A study of 2010 census data by Bloomberg found that among the six categories with the largest gender gap in pay were insurance agents, personal advisers and securities sales agents.
Women in those jobs earned 55 to 62 cents for every $1 men pulled in, the census data showed.
In 2010, research from Catalyst, a nonprofit group that focuses on expanding opportunities for women in business, found that female MBAs were being paid, on average, $4,600 less in their first job than men, a disparity that grows to $30,000 by mid-career, says Anna Beninger, a senior associate in Catalyst’s research department.
{{Add to this the fact that the dollar is hardly stable, you can imagine it makes an increasing difference!}}
Even women placed in high-potential leadership development programs often miss out on what are considered hot jobs, or projects most critical to career advancement, Catalyst found. Says Beninger: “Women’s careers lag behind men from day one.” . . . .
[Alison Damast is a Bloomberg Businessweek reporter. E-mail: adamast@bloomberg.net]
SHARE THIS POST on...
CUT it OUT!! — NO MORE!!! Federal HHS Grants to: Evangelical Church Plants, Abuse-Excusers, New Age Gurus, Spiritual Psychologists — ALL of Them! (Publ. Oct. 12, 2012)
THIS POST TITLE IS:
CUT it OUT!! — NO MORE!!! Federal HHS Grants to: Evangelical Church Plants, Abuse-Excusers, New Age Gurus, Spiritual Psychologists — ALL of Them! (Publ. Oct. 12, 2012) (case-sensitive short-link ends: “-1aZ”)
(Post Title w/ Shortlink only added to the body of the post added ten years later… Well, April 9, 2022. And I added the date to the Title itself (a habit established since then), limited the width to 700px, added the dark red border, and hope for the best. One of the most significant tables (on Grant 90FM0001, which changed handlers (and states) mid-way, I added some background color because it sitll extends past the right margin. For those who will be more offended by reading Bible verses than by outrageous uses of federal grants and the laughable (literally) pretexts for doing so, you’re forewarned. I quote Bible — but as a contrast to what many faith-based (sic) grantees’ owners and religious networks are (a) saying and (b) doing.
And, read the title — these grants aren’t limited to only the religious. Anyone with a mind to exploit the opportunity seems welcome.
Personally, I find it sickening, as I found marriage to be one of THE most dangerous undertakings I did: and I’ve driven cross-country alone, taken long-distance (multi-state) bike trip alone, and (as of this update) got into a car with what would fit in it (at age 65…) — because I had to get out of the state fast and had already been put out of my housing — and drove East (alone) until several states were between me and (by then, my own) family line; only stopping when I was ready to, and in state I’d NEVER lived in before and had only one known contact in. //LGH
I got really irritated on looking a few of these groups pushing marriage curricula, and networking with their out-of-state-buddies (and HHS), and basically so long as the grants come, who cares about the integrity of the subject matter?
I’m a woman. I also am a mother.
The problem is Bipartisan — and neither political party is my friend right now. Hypocrites!
Have you ever heard of “The RIDGE PROJECT” in Ohio? I looked them up. You should too. there’s a reason it’s the wife’s name as principal grantee (principal investigator on the grant) here, and not the husband’s. Using that DUNS# to get the total:
| Recipient Name | City | State | ZIP Code | County | DUNS Number | Sum of Awards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RIDGE Project, Inc | Defiance | OH | 43512-2575 | DEFIANCE | 141622105 | $ 8,543,666 |
| RIDGE Project, Inc | Defiance | OH | 43512-2575 | HENRY | 141622105 | $ 5,909,994 |
Why would a single entity with the same DUNS# in just one (probably small) Ohio town show up on TAGGS under two different county names (Defiance, Henry). Hmmm. Just asking (I asked this question during 2022 update when I noticed it.//LGH)
Why should this family receive $13 million of federal grants (not even loans), and my kids forfeit overnight, basically 100% of their child support arrears (about $10,000 at the time) during custody switch, and me – my self-sustaining profession and contact with them — because our Administration has bought the gender-based value system? Huh? I committed no crime, neither did my kids.
But this woman’s husband (below) was in jail. I guess that means he can be used. Forming this nonprofit, and doing as they were told, helped provide for her family.
Guess what he was in jail for…
To make this narrow, I”m leaving out the “Grantee Name,” all are RIDGE Project, Inc
| Fiscl Year | Prog Offc | St | Award Title | Action Issue Date | CFDA | CFDA Program Name | Principal Investigator | DUNS | Sum of Actions | |
| 2012 | OFA | OH | KEEPING FAITH (FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY) | 09/27/2012 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE M TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 2,500,000 | |
| 2012 | OFA | OH | KEEPING FAITH (FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY) | 09/28/2012 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE M TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 131,666 | |
| 2012 | OFA | OH | KEEPING FAITH – KEEPING FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY | 09/27/2012 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE M TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 1,500,000 | |
| 2011 | OFA | OH | KEEPING FAITH (FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY) | 09/26/2011 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | Catherine M Tijerina | 141622105 | $ 2,500,000 | |
| 2011 | OFA | OH | KEEPING FAITH – KEEPING FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY | 09/28/2011 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | Catherine M Tijerina | 141622105 | $ 1,500,000 | |
| 2010 | OFA | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/27/2010 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 412,000 | |
| 2009 | FYSB | OH | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 09/13/2009 | 93010 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 570,994 | |
| 2009 | OFA | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 08/21/2009 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 412,000 | |
| 2009 | OFA | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/24/2009 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 103,000 | |
| 2008 | ACF | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 06/06/2008 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 0 | |
| 2008 | ACF | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/14/2008 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 412,000 | |
| 2008 | FYSB | OH | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 08/28/2008 | 93010 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 600,000 | |
| 2007 | ACF | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/21/2007 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 412,000 | |
| 2007 | FYSB | OH | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 09/16/2007 | 93010 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 600,000 | |
| 2006 | FYSB | OH | HRSA AE CONTINUATIONS | 06/29/2006 | 93010 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 800,000 | |
| 2006 | MCHB | OH | SPRANS COMMUNITY –BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 11/04/2005 | 93110 | Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs | MRS. C. MARIE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 0 | |
| 2006 | OFA | OH | PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD | 09/25/2006 | 93086 | Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 400,000 | |
| 2005 | FYSB | OH | HRSA AE CONTINUATIONS | 07/07/2005 | 93010 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | CATHERINE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 800,000 | |
| 2004 | MCHB | OH | SPRANS COMMUNITY –BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 07/15/2004 | 93110 | Maternal and Child Health Federal Consolidated Programs | MRS. C. MARIE TIJERINA | 141622105 | $ 800,000 |
Four million in one year, two different grant series, if someone will go “fatherhood” as coached to:
| FY | Award Number | Award Title | Budget Year of Support | Award Code | Agency | Action Issue Date | DUNS Number | Amount This Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2012 | 90FK0026 | KEEPING FAITH (FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY) | 2 | 00 | ACF | 09-27-2012 | 141622105 | $ 2,500,000 |
| 2012 | 90FK0026 | KEEPING FAITH (FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY) | 2 | 01 | ACF | 09-28-2012 | 141622105 | $ 131,666 |
| 2012 | 90FO0005 | KEEPING FAITH – KEEPING FAMILIES AND INMATES TOGETHER IN HARMONY | 2 | 00 | ACF | 09-27-2012 | 141622105 | $ 1,500,000 |
| Fiscal Year 2012 Total: | $ 4,131,666 | |||||||
(Without going into more detail, this as an unusual case, and I did read a lot about it. There’s also family strife between Catherine and her family over the matter). I could be reading it wrong — but if a judge puts a man, a father, in jail at the state level — then why should a federal agency come in and essentially communicate to him, his wife, and his kids — that’s OK, we don’t really consider it legit? and pay off Mom to start this nonprofit promoting fatherhood? From the Linkedin on C. Tijerina:
Nonprofit; 11-50 employees; Individual & Family Services industry
January 2000 – Present (12 years 10 months)
The RIDGE Project is a faith-based organization serving fathers, families and youth** in Ohio. Our mission is to establish a path of honor, discipline and integrity by way of education, motivation and inspiration in order to lead families into a future defined by hope, peace and righteousness for generations to come. We currently serve over 30,000 Ohio residents annually.
**$13 million focused on fathers for ONE nonprofit?
It’s also openly religious and into training, of course. This is what I mean by “proselyte.”
“The RIDGE Project offers support to other like-minded organizations, and provides training to other family-oriented programs. Additionally, we strive to inform individuals, communities, the media and local and national policy makers of the importance of strong families. Our outreach is founded on Jesus Christ and based upon biblical principles. We focus on reaching people where they are and training them to address the everyday challenges they face”
They’re working on the store/merchandise page (note: I blogged this earlier, I think. It had items for sale. Maybe their income has warranted a website facelift?)
Here’s another federal grantee in Tennessee (First Things First, Baumgardner) also related to NARME (where they help get each other HHS marriage, etc. grants), helping promote other grantee recipients. I caught two on this page, including Tijerna:
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Federal Designer Families: How Californians got their “CFCC,” CRS Year 2000 Report on Access Visitation
with 4 comments
This post is about 10,000 words. Enjoy!
I have about six posts in the pipeline, all of them timely to some recent indicators (developments) in the “protective mothers” field. All of them, as usual continuing to emphasize a functional vocabulary in discussing the family courts, and pointing out a few significant historical developments affecting them that those IN them rarely point out to clients, which I find strange.
By contrast, the developments in the “responsible fatherhood” field seem to be moving ahead with the usual momentum, and under-reported among “the commoners,” i.e., the general public and most family-court reform groups, who, apparently, don’t consider worthy of notice that this network even exists, or is a priority to understand.
However, it does. In fact, if you check some of the post-PRWORA-propped up nonprofits, centers, institutes, programming and the “same old, same old” hotshots, there is apparently nothing more important to talk about than what they have done, are doing, and how much HHS is going to pay them this time (sometimes that refers to a five-year, multi-million-dollar grant) to further strengthen and extend their communications, technical support, outreach/ recruiting and funding pipelines already set up in the “Fatherhood” network. (Recent example) Using federal funding to a university. One of team members historically associated with AFCC, another thing family court advocacy groups are averse to talking about.
There are also certain chronic weaknesses and vulnerabilities within this “HMRF” field (but also present, to a degree, in the domestic violence prevention field also), which would be excellent leverage to address some of the problems protective mothers are having in the courts, and I have yet to hear any legitimate (if indeed any) explanation why no significant protective mothers organization, or their featured professionals, has seen fit to raise the topic seriously with a view to DOING something about it, for at least the past dozen years, even when after a certain point, the leadership surely became aware that “outside” information on the responsible fatherhood field, HHS grants and AFCC was somehow “leaking” into the field of vision of some of the “fix the courts” promoters. One whitepaper did come out over a year after I, literally, did several posts (on two blogs) naming names of the “Let’s JUST not talk about it!” groups and proving which personnel at least knew the whole time.
Nearly two days of technical (keystroke processing speed almost at a standstill) problems with my computer slowed getting them published. Meanwhile, working out that situation, and concerned about output at this time, I decided to re-publish a 12/5/2009 FamilyCourtMatters post which is STILL more relevant than the average conversation I see on the family court reform in 2016, original title “While You Were Sleeping,… How Congress got into the Family Law Business.”
I have not yet extended the “Table of Contents” back to 2009, so “While You Were Sleeping” was probably missed by most people who may read or follow this blog. It is not the kind of information one tends to stumble across in general search terms on the family courts or its handling of situations and allegations of criminal behavior such as domestic violence or child abuse. Last month, I felt this post was important enough to clean up (formatting) and link to it, now I am actually re-posting.
It references by name key elements in networks I am blogging consistently on — public/private partnerships, and HOW does the federal government got its hand in into the state-level cookie jar without quite getting caught at it, and vice versa, while the courts themselves contribute to an ever-expanding and increasingly dependent on social services population.
**Mostly, these posts-in-the-pipeline again review some basic vocabulary with which we can talk about things which both the protective mothers’ perspective, and definitely in the fathers’ rights perspective have for years resisted discussing on-line in anything approaching a coherent manner, using accurate and relevant terms to describe the infrastructure and how it networks to promote either their own perspective, or the perspective for which they want “systemic changes” or “a paradigm” change for [divorce law, family courts, child support] because it’s: unfair to fathers, unfair to mothers, dangerous to children, or gender-biased against men (or women), is destroying the American family, human rights,civil rights, etc.
We who are concerned, afflicted by, or discussing the problems in the family courts, should ALL know and talk what top-level state institutions (such as the California Judicial Council), federal deliberations courtesy of CRS (Congressional Research Service) (“Should the Federal Government get involved in Family Matters which are under State law jurisdiction?”) (unsaid: “HOW can we get our fingers into family and divorce courts without getting caught on it, or held responsible for any negative effects after we have?”) ….. (And “WHO will help us do this?” some of which this post shows who actually did) are actually involved, or, for example, just how one state ends up copying the court (privatization and outsourcing) practices in another.
For example, I had years of personal encounters through the courts before I became aware of the information in just this excerpt from that 2009 post below. The publication talking about it came out in the context of a state-level, state-wide evaluation of the ruling body of the courts published around May, 2012. Take a look at this excerpt, which will be repeated below, without the olive-green background:
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:
A Statewide Office on Families was merged with a Center on Children and the Courts. Consolidation, Year 2000
…
Notice input from the National Center for State Courts [NCSC] in 1997, a “needs assessment” and that it was first aimed at JUVENILE DEPENDENCY — not the entire family law system. Notice the title in 1997 didn’t yet include the words “Family.” Anyone that is running (sponsoring, calling for) a “needs assessment” may very well already have an intended “solution/fix” in mind. These are rarely 100% neutral. [[The National Center for State Courts is a 501©3], technically speaking, in the private sector, despite its name. It files a Form 990]]
Collaborative Divorce has been an ongoing theme promoted by AFCC members. This can be seen in some of the nonprofits formed, by looking at who formed them. Not the topic of this post….
Did you know that in apparently about Year 1983 (but not continuing, I think), the NCSC also served as the “Secretariat” for the organization AFCC? I believe it’s on my sidebar in one of the AFCC newsletters of that year.
If you’ve gotten this far in this dense post –and are even reading my blog — do I need to spell this out further?…
SUMMARY: The Courts in the State of California have increasingly centralized control and operations over time, other parts of the report also show. The timing of some of the special divisions seems to correlate to increased federal funding for programming that these divisions seem to control — from the administrative sector…. Good to keep in mind…
But notice, they first set up two separate elements — a division within the AOC, and a Statewide Office. Then, they combined them. Then within the State-level office are links to the private, tax-exempt sector encouraging business with it. Any entity (which is to say anyone running an entity) which wants excellent, authoritative, advertising then is helped by connection to a state-level promoter within (here, as an example) the CFCC section of the Administrative Office of the Courts. “Coincidentally,” it appears that key members of the CFCC (such as Charlene Depner, and I believe, Shelly LaBotte as to the Access Visitation grants management) are also long-time, loyal members of AFCC. AFCC as an organization has certain interests that not all Californians, or Americans, may necessarily agree with, and in its own website claims responsibility for many so-called positive innovations in the family court field.
They are also pretty good at setting the stage for creating new professions at the expense of the courts (the public) and parents (also, the public), one of the earlier ones pushed was mediation, one of the later, “parent coordination.”
Another reason I would question any advocacy group who, knowing about this organization, didn’t talk — and keep talking — about it.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Like this:
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
May 26, 2016 at 9:43 am
Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)
Tagged with "CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND VISITATION: SHOULD THERE BE A FEDERAL CONNECTION?" (CRS Rpt 97-590 updated 6-20-2000), "Outflanking the Nation-State: David Mitrany and the Origins of Functionalism", AFCC, AFCC CFCC AOC Judicial Council, Carmen Solomon-Fears, CRS Rept 97-590, CRS-Congressional Research Service, Due process, Elements of the Network, fatherhood, Global Pound Conference of the IMI, HHS-TAGGS grants database, History of Access and Visitation Legislation, House Ways and Means-Human Resources Subcommittee (Jurisdiction - Titles I ~IV ~VI ~X ~XIV ~XVI ~XX and related provisions of titles VII & XI of the Social Security Act per 112th Congress rules), IMI - International Mediation Institute (Dutch/UN Consultative NGO), men's rights, murder-suicides, obfuscation, social commentary, Statewide Office of Family Court Services (in Calif in 2000 merged into a "CFCC"), Studying Humans, U.S. Govt $$ hard @ work.