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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘“I C F International” (HHS version…)

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence Considering Its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show. (Started Jan. 23, 2020, Published May 20.)

leave a comment »

Post in transition — see below (extended intro).  This will change back to a shorter post, soon I hope.//LGH.  See current national news events and below.

This Post: For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20). (Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-c80,” that final character is a “zero” not capital “O”) (about 5,200 words). Minor copy-editing revisions May 29.

Explanation: Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.
This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then on my home page, Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then a page published Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

That Page:

Do you Know Your NGA? Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

Title probably should’ve read “1996” — not sure why I put in 1998 at the time. PRWORA was passed in 1996.  Certain fatherhood-related, Congressional resolutions, etc. were also passed in 1998 and 1999 while the nation was changing its entire Social Security Act funding (and along with it, distribution methods for child support) in the years after 1996. [//LGH 2020 comment]

Two images (snapshots of a few paragraphs each) from my 2017 Page, next below, give more content.  I also see on review that this page dealt more with the NGA, while today’s post with the NFI.  On seeing substantial overlap (i.e., the ‘NFI’ part I’d obviously planned to transplant here a few months ago), I’m going to remove it from the 2017 page to be replaced with a link here. //LGH 20May2020.

On this blog, remember that shortlinks for pages use a capital “P” as in “http://wp.me/PsBXH-4qs.  By contrast, short-link for this post would be “http://wp.me/psBXH-c80“.  I usually provide just the last three characters as I more often write posts than pages…


For this post, recognizing the acronyms “NFI” (see title) and “NGA” (for ‘National Governors’ Association,’) and “QIC-NRF” (the “Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers” — searchable on this blog, and my post on misleading* terms including “QIC”) would be helpful to know.  

*Why are such terms”mis-leading”?  When it comes to tracking public funds to their private (or other public) grantees or other independent contractors, to the extent this information is supposed to be made available to the public, it’s the ENTITIES that must file and to read what they filed, you must find their names to look them up.  A program (including a non-entity “Center” at some large institution such as a university — or federal/state department) is not an “entity.”  See “example” section, next, but the concept in this paragraph (stemming from the “QIC-NRF” term) continues after the marked section with a few images.

Some business entities are named “Center” “Institute” or “Initiative” (such as the NFI), but the use of those words on a website does not automatically represent a business entity, particularly those within universities.  Sometimes a similarly named nonprofit exists, most times it does not.


CAN YOU TRACK THE MONEY OR GET SOME FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THIS?  CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHO STARTED IT?  WHAT, REALLY, IS IT?

Example:  developingchild.harvard.edu (Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child; I blogged a year or two ago, several drill-downs because several organizations were funding it).

It’s so “normal” and good for sales to characterize a project, a collaboration, or a program as if it had real (corporate) personhood when it doesn’t, if you’re in that business or listed positively on their websites.  The basic process is distraction. — reframing any issue.  In this, Harvard’s great reputation is a plus, but thinking about how large Harvard’s endowment already is (one of the largest around) (or how late in its history it and other Ivy Leagues admitted women as undergraduates, or to some of its graduate programs, too), would be a negative, including for the many (also famous) sponsors of this “Center.” In the center (fine print, bottom links) is also a “National Council on the Developing Child” (as opposed to a CENTER on it?).  From its website (<~~link just provided), it self-characterizes as a multi-university collaboration, later (abstract from a “retrospective report“) simply a “group” and the project as translating science for the lay public and policymakers (specific fields of science listed among the members, including psychology alongside neuroscience, immunology, and specific medical fields):

For the past decade, a diverse group of distinguished scientists has worked to translate complex research about early brain development into language that is scientifically accurate, highly credible, understandable to nonscientists, and useful to public decision makers. Across the United States and around the world, in both public and private sectors, the work of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child has helped change the conversation about providing young children with a healthy, safe, and nurturing start in life.”

[Notice the three icons: “Relationship (adult**/child/abacus)” – Brain – Gov’t Building.” The woman in photo is not necessarily a mother, although the child is clearly a toddler.

In very, very fine print at the bottom of the report (as well as on its title page) it’s mentioned that this National Council is in fact an initiative (not its own fiscal entity) of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard, which “Center” isn’t an entity either.  Harvard is.  Think you can find this center’s activities (and private grants supporting them) within Harvard’s overall financial statements? (if available), or on any part of an associated tax return (for Harvard)?


The intent is (basically) to affect early childhood of the nation’s children based on their shared scientific understanding of what makes for “successful” children, and a Core Story (helped by “Frameworks Institute”) of Child Development — AND sponsored by a series of foundations, which I also (after discovering this center) looked up and blogged at least some of the more unique and less well-known ones, the intent is that this collaborative science should rule over and run public policy — based on how distinguished, diversed, and scientifically accurate the funded scientists (esp. Jack Shonkoff) and collected interests represented here.  It’s also part of the continued attempts to blend in the more generalized fields of psychology and education with the more innately respected fields of neurology and medicine, which can be seen by looking more carefully at the people listed on the “retrospective report” in two columns, with “Former” not identified on that page as to what their PhDs were in.


With such intents, corresponding accountability should exist.  The practice of university sponsored “Centers” with collaborating private backers is routine; the practice of providing fiscal accountability to the public (whether it’s a private or public university, often federal grants are involved) is not.   The word “center”is routinely over-used.


In blogging earlier, on this “Developing Child” center (and associated funding foundations I also discovered and posted that a million dollars of grants over just three years went to a fake/non-existent entity which listed the wrong state on the tax return (grantor organization: “Alliance for Early Success”).   A million dollars may not seem like much if you’re Warren Buffet or one of his descendants, or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation (both involved), but to most of us this is not “chump change” — a small amount to be mis-placed.  What it did indicate, however, is an accounting gap.  And I found it by doing something deliberately “dumb.”  One tax return said they granted (repeatedly) to another, so I looked it up, and found a “dead end.”  No such entity. So where did that money go instead? (Off-the-record, most likely).

For the public, when it comes to accounting for where governments’ tax receipts go (the justification for ongoing taxation, right?), what really counts is at the accounting level –and for that, you need an “entity” unless they are dealing with under-the-table cash, trading favors (at what point does this become just “bribes”?) or intangibles.

When websites at universities like Harvard talk big, drop names (LOTS of names, whether of the scientists or the sponsoring entities, also many of them big names, but play “hard to get” about specifics — with home and other pages full of white space [the Harvard Center on the Developing Child], big pictures, icons, repetitions sound-bytes, and more links to more narratives or solicitations (and not links to numbers, and NOT what we need to know for accountability for groups seeking to influence something as nationally funded as “early childhood” (child care, head start, etc.)), that’s a problem, and it also signifies more where it came from


National Fatherhood Initiative EIN# 23-2745783 tax returns FYE 2016-2018 (which is FYs 2015-2017. Where’s tax return for FY2018, then? I’m looking May, 2020) shows about ½ million-dollar increase in (gross) assets.

For people who will actually crack open a tax return and think about its contents, I’ve provided several years of the NFI’s below, but this time did not call attention to the internal inconsistencies (for example, on Form 990 FY2011 (ending Sept. 30, 2012) between its Part VIIA, showing total Trustee/Officer/Director etc. total salary and checks off three “officers”, and where that same figure is supposed to be (but on the year I checked, wasn’t) incorporate) into Part IX, Statement of Expenses, Line 5.  

The amount off was that year’s CEO’s salary: $116K (not including the ex-President Roland Warren’s $135K).  Part IX, Line 5 showed no entry of any amount where this amount should show.

I see (running yet another update on the NFI EIN#) that for FY2016, the only paid officer is Christopher Brown ($172K) and FY2017  ($149K) and that main reported program service revenue is not revenue from actual program services but from sales of over $1M (for both years) which belongs on a different line in the tax return, as indicated when a negative amount for “cost of goods sold” appears (both years) under “Part VIII Revenues, Line 2 (for “program service revenues,” not  where it belonged, under the line-item (IRS form lists) inventory, which line is towards the bottom, Lines 10a (gross) b (cost of goods) and c (net).  

Putting the million dollars (main revenue) of NFI from those years where it belongs, however, would leave “program service revenues” (it seems, properly) blank, and reveal (for anyone who looked that far) that in fact it’s not really providing any program services, but just recording enough grants to be tax-exempt and selling product tax-exempt at over a significant markup (early years showed 100%).

How is that a legitimate tax-exempt purpose? It’s not a grant-maker (primarily), not a service-provider, it’s an entity with a website that sells product, with well-paid officers, and that doesn’t even fill out its own tax returns right.

I also found (then, now, and as ever) its subcontractors being themselves major U.S. Government grantees or participants (ICF International, The Advertising Council) and in general plenty of aspects of this single 501© organization (such as its legal domicile being in Pennsylvania, which I know to be a state that doesn’t require annual, or even frequent, filings of business returns, despite a Maryland address) and it being in the public relations and clearinghouse business overall — for “fatherhood,” of course, ah, …interesting.

Somehow this doesn’t communicate that well on Twitter…or ANY short-form media platform without a wrapt (or captive) audience.  But, I provided at least the links.

(Post title again):

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20).(short-link ends “-c80”.  Tax returns and some text compiled in 2017 on a Page; moved here with updates, January 23, 2020).

[Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.//LGH 20May2020. First image shows “AFCC” under “ChildWelfare.gov/organizations/….  The Child Welfare Info Gateway has plenty of “father-focused” connections. Protecting children’s mothers and children from dangerous fathers doesn’t seem to figure high on this website’s “To-Do” list]. 


The National Fatherhood Initiative isn’t the largest of the HHS responsible fatherhood grantees around, but its leadership was among the original instigators of that funding.  

Just a reminder:  it’s a private tax-exempt incorporation which must file tax returns.  Using the word “national” is just a name and may or may not relate to how “national” it is.  The part that’s really “national” involved here is the U.S. federal government whose welfare appropriations are national in scope and which runs regional operations, i.e., has regionalized the USA down from 50 states and territories/islands (see Region 9) to just ten regional offices and its own administrative parts, with which local states are encouraged to deal to develop relationships with (especially) tax-exempt private community organizations and state and local jurisdictions. (More at Footnote “HHS Organization in its own words and pictures”)

NFI’s  name continues to come up on federal websites, and when people here are casting around for the name of SOME “fathers’ rights” organization, not having researched from the federal grants angle or any concept of size, age, or position on the networks, this one’s name is easy to remember and may get quoted.

In fact the real “fathers’ rights” entity to be most concerned about, in my opinion, is the U.S. Congress which voted these appropriations into place in the first place.  And elite groups like the National Governors’ Association which think it’s OK to outsource not only the provision of government services to “places where the sun don’t shine” but also the decisions on what services those should be in places where, for most of us, “the sun don’t shine,” i.e., the private roundtables where “pay to play” (or even show up), often remote from the geography governed, is the name of the game.

Recently I was looking at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Children’s Bureau’s information service, “ChildWelfare Information Gateway” where the “NFI” was listed, and I’ve known for years that its influence on a “QIC-NRF” (Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers) listed on the same gateway existed, which I blogged.

As it turned out, the family court-focused association “AFCC” also was listed there (see above annotated image)

And, NFI’s tax returns do show “government grants,” while the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” I know has shown some direct grants to this organization.

So, for this post, on January 23, 2020, I removed a section of National Fatherhood Initiative tax returns and some previous discussion with a view towards re-blogging and for other media platforms, from my PAGE (not post) first published April 27, 2017.  

I hope as a teaching example it may alert people to government privatization and to pay closer attention to nonprofits involved in causes of interest and evaluate them based on their provided (or, if not provided where should be, on that) “financials.” The time invested will be not be wasted!

Again, where this information (below, most of it) used to be:


Do you Know Your NGA?Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

The “NGA is the “National Governors’ Association” which unlike some “associations” similarly named, isn’t actually a 501©3 nonprofit, but an “instrumentality” of government.  BUT, it owns one, called the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.  

The NGA came to my attention at some point for having promoted a statement, which I could personally attest to, on how domestic violence impacts a person’s ability to self-sustain; i.e., it has economic fall-out ramifications.  

Imagine my surprise to later (at some point in my long commute through the family court system, early 21st century California-style) to discover the same NGA promoting “responsible fatherhood” and state-level, statewide “fatherhood initiatives” as far back as 1994!

So, the above page deals more extensively with the NGA as it’d come across my path again during a time when I was studying national networks of non-profits focused on education reform (both political parties).  The topic came up …. education (as a field) and psychology (as a field) and the family courts (as a forum) are connected.

So are plenty of the major foundations who’ve chosen to “invest” in the same long-term, and whose tax returns too often, in too large numbers (millions of dollars at a time) often showed symptoms of “money missing in action” as, these days, standard practice / business as usual and etc.

Read the rest of this entry »

HHS — Contracts Awarded 8/30/2012 = $156 million. Just for today, August 30, 2012, that is.

with 2 comments

Our relationship to “government” needs to be looked at.  Particularly, why so many people put up with it and haven’t figured out something better than putting lawyers and judges in charge of the place, as facilitated by a Congress which has plenty of people who used to be lawyers in it, no doubt.


 

A glance at this post should clarify that, by and large, we don’t know what the US Government (I mean, “federal”) is doing — although who’s helping fund it?  Wake the hell up and start looking up some CAFR‘s – -it’s the worlds largest contractor, and there are these other issues about Jurisdiction which keep cropping up also.  You cannot SUE this government, really (11th Amendment) unless it consents to.  while we had this Constitution, it appears to me that under Bankruptcy (which the US has never been out of, to date, to my awareness) it no longer applies.  If it did, and one engaged in commerce with the USA (which it’s almost impossible not to), you just became a contractor (u.S. Citizen = no unalienable rights) and shareholder in that thing in Washington, D.C.

WOMEN IN PARTICULAR should be cautious about citizenship.  A woman in our area called police for help “domestic dispute” which ended up in a vigorous chase, the other day, the guy fled.  They didn’t know an toddler was in the car.  He was killed in a hail of gunfire, after which it was reported that this was actually a woman’s BROTHER, not the perp, and he had been I think helping her get his niece (her child) away from the aggressor.  Now, he’s dead.  Did I mention, he’s also Hispanic? (Wikipedia informal list of people, mostly men, some during domestic disputes, killed by officers.  It’s a very very long list…)

Or you could go to a divorce, and have a judge over the domestic violence court (long-term presiding) and the judge tell your young self, a mother (about 23 yrs old, this one), to “go work it out” and no restraining order.  Finally they were in judge’s chambers, and the judge informed the father (a Marine) he would have to pay child support.  The young man (age 29) stepped outside the door, walked back in again, and cold-cocked the mother of his kids, knocking her unconscious immediately on the floor, some black eyes, a broken jaw.  He was finally tasered into submission, and THEN the judge believed that the guy was dangerous.  That apparently didn’t stop him from assigning shared parenting, though (along with jail and $1million bail).  THAT is our country (and it was in 2011 Florida:  (see comments for links to the story, another blog “AmericanAmnesia

MOVIN’ ON . . . .

I mentioned FEDMINE.com to an acquaintance the other day, and have on the blog before.  Its access is more timely (and probably far more accurate) than what is given the average person who looks things up on some free site which isn’t even proofread, but is designed for public consumption, like, say, “http://TAGGS.hhs.gov

It think this figure is worth posting, without too much commentary.  Per FEDMINE.com, the top agency obtaining contracts today was — hardly surprising — HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES.

WITHOUT HUMANS THERE WOULD BE NO MONEY TO FUND THESE STUDIES SO WHAT, PRECISELY, ABOUT HUMANS IS SO FASCINATING THAT THIS AMOUNT OF MONEY, ON A GIVEN DAY, WOULD BE DEDICATED TO A BUREAUCRACY STUDYING THEM?

ALSO, SEE HIGHLIGHTS FOR SOME ONES SIGNIFICANT (at least that I’m aware of) in this Family Law Field.

If you see I have linked the company name (other links probably not valid) there may be a brief description if you hover the cursor.

COMPANY NAME POSTED TODAY
08/30/2012
YTD FOR AGENCY
049508120  –  WESTAT INCORPORATED 230,376 9,710,743
019121586  –  DELOITTE CONSULTING L.L.P. 1,593,527 32,298,506
072654999  –  VANTAGE HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES INCORPORATED 511,792 511,792
091500090  –  JOHN SNOW, INCORPORATED (out of all of them, this one actually seems involved in HEALTH.  Founded 1978, internationally 106 offices, see “In Memoriam” link) 626,838 5,654,941
021873740  –  HUMAN TECHNOLOGY, INC 511,792 547,006
009399247  –  UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND 85,082 122,852
623214020  –  CONCEPT SYSTEMS INCORPORATED (3796) -4,941 -8,221
947300372  –  CLIFTON GUNDERSON LLP -102,382 -102,382
152149191  –  MC DONALD WALTER R AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED 0 2,789,442
825229318  –  MCKINSEY&COMPANY, INC. WASHINGTON D.C.

1920s | 1930s | 1940s | 1950s | 1960s | 1970s | 1980s | 1990s | 2000s
 (check out the firm history/mgmt consulting; 1959 London office, etc.  2nd leader (1st died early) was Harvard MBA…
631,181 9,499,045
154308522  –  MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH INC 364,999 14,398,928
088656512  –  IMPAQ INTERNATIONAL LLC(founded 2001 by a couple with govt background, Social Science Research, in MD. He’s economist,she’s History/Educ, he used to work for “Abt”) 415,623 5,197,316
146014373  –  ARSERVICES, LTD 650,102 650,102
183818145  –  CAPITAL CONSULTING CORP 64,557 961,723
197325277  –  LEWIN GROUP, INC., THE**(link is to someone from this group presenting at a 2007 AFCC conference.  Since 1970, they are Health and Human Services consultant; you can look it up). 630,811 4,396,810
127687093  –  CHILD TRENDS INC 1,011,927 1,686,523
072648579  –  ICF INCORPORATED, L.L.C. {{see below}} 500,000 13,942,449
622811847  –  STRATEGIC HEALTH SOLUTIONS, L.L.C. [woman-owned, Omaha, services Medicare & Medicaid] 3,198,739 8,861,059
127149784  –  HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC 1,281,472 3,970,432
929125818  –  C2C SOLUTIONS INC 6,323,200 18,091,004
611835203  –  TEYA TECHNOLOGIES, LLC 178,013 894,928
781844808  –  SEAMON CORPORATION 197,200 885,831
143208069  –  FRONTLINE HEALTHCARE WORKERS SAFETY FOUNDATION, LTD 81,697 245,090
803935261  –  PROFESSIONAL TESTING, INC. 363,302 361,395
136201493  –  CONSUMMATE COMPUTER CONSULTANTS SYSTEMS LLC -56,190 0
929219772  –  CONTRACT SUPPORT SOLUTIONS INC. -32,171 164,690
175291061  –  THE KEVRIC COMPANY INC 100,871 2,428,892

(I will kind of color-code by background color.  Obviously I am scanning here; the main point is — how little most of us realize, how large is the US Federal Government.  See recent posts on CAFR and USA, Inc. & Bankruptcies, etc.  If you are not a “scanner” this post will probably drive you crazy…)

Not starting with the largest one in “the Lewin Group,” but it does run close to the subject matter of this blog — the marriage/fatherhood movement through federal funding:

THE LEWIN GROUP

(FROM USASPENDING.GOV — THEY GOT (FROM ABOUT 2000 forward I think on this database):

Ranked by $$, the largest shows up as about $4+million (in 2005), “Marijuana Cultivation Study.”  They seem to have plenty in the $2 and $3 million ranges as well.  Fairfax, VA -close to the source, right).

Total Dollars:
$172,544,874
Transactions: 1 to 25 of 740 (most are contracts,only 1 is a grant.
That’s a lot of money…Also most (677) are HHS).
Their founder, Lawrence Lewin just died this past may (age 74); he was Princeton, Harvard MBA, and Marines..– this obit shows his influence and Medicaid connections; another Washington Post 2009 article ties the group as very influential in Affordable Care, and some possible”dirt” (Scandal) related to the United Healthcare (or someone) that bought it in 2007. As part of Ingenix owned by “UnitedHealth” it is a consulting firm owned by one of the largest insurers around that got in trouble with NY Attorney General and the AMA for shifting costs to consumers with skewed data.  not The Lewin Group, but the group it was part of since it got bought.  Apparently Republicans like it?:
Lewin Group, Insurer-Owned Consulting Firm, Often Cited in Health Reform Debate
By David S. HilzenrathWashington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 23, 2009

The political battle over health-care reform is waged largely with numbers, and few number-crunchers have shaped the debate as much as the Lewin Group, a consulting firm whose research has been widely cited by opponents of a public insurance option.To Rep. Eric Cantor (Va.), the House Republican whip, it is “the nonpartisan Lewin Group.” To Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee, it is an “independent research firm.” To Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (Utah), the second-ranking Republican on the pivotal Finance Committee, it is “well known as one of the most nonpartisan groups in the country.”Generally left unsaid amid all the citations is that the Lewin Group is wholly owned by UnitedHealth Group, one of the nation’s largest insurers.

An Evaluability Assessment of Responsible Fatherhood Programs

August 1997

DHHS, Office of the Assistant Secretaryf or Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

Analysis of site visits to five newly formed responsible fatherhood programs find a series of steps can be taken to improve their viability and evaluability. Program managers can develop core definitions of what constitutes a responsible fatherhood program; conduct process evaluations to define program objectives, activities and best practices; building basic MIS capacity; and stabilizing and enhancing funding.

(This one combines what looks like an HHS? grant to the Lewin group (97FM0122) with an HHS Contract to . . . . combined with a Ford Foundation Grant headed up by Ronald Mincy, wich name is significant (look it up).  Lewin were simply the enablers and to make it look (or be) more scientific and respectable.  This being only 1997, it shows just how much intention and planning to completely continue expanding “FATHERHOOD” as a field (regardless of results) was made — and this of course depended on major foundations like FORD working with WELFARE money.  FYI, Ford Foundation are not the good guys here in the US …)

This gives me a very squirrely feeling (esp. knowing that by 1998 somehow Congress passed a “fatherhood resolution.”)

But on ca. page 110 of this report (link is the title) you see a list of “Experts Consulted” (Two are from Child Trends, the others are also significant).  Johns Hopkins involved also.  The whole thing makes me a little ill, given the impact of this trend on my life, personally, and my (DAUGHTERS’, not son’s) futures! ! !  I made it pink just for “spite,” given the subject matter is the opposite gender…

***II. Purpose of this Report

The increased interest in programs that promote responsible fatherhood and the limited information currently available on the services provided and effectiveness of these programs has generated interest in the systematic evaluation of responsible fatherhood programs. For this reason, the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Ford Foundation funded The Lewin Group and Johns Hopkins University to conduct an evaluability assessment of responsible fatherhood programs.

Fatherhood programs and emphasis on male parenting are relatively recent phenomena in the social service sector. Many of the programs currently in place are either very new or, if established, have been experimenting with new interventions or changing the program focus over time to meet the interests and objectives of funders. It is generally the case that fatherhood programs have not adequately documented their performance. This may be because of limited resources, a lack of experience with methods of measuring performance, or simply because the focus of program staff has been on serving fathers rather than proving that methods are effective. While program staff may believe that their activities are helping fathers and resulting in positive impacts on society, others, particularly funders, may be skeptical of evidence of program effectiveness that is limited to anecdotes.

Evaluations of responsible fatherhood programs can serve two important functions:

• provide information to outside agencies and organizations regarding the objectives and the effectiveness of their interventions, which may be used to attract and justify fundingfrom these outside sources; and• provide information to program staff that may be used to modify program design to more efficiently and effectively serve the fathers who use their services.

{{Interesting how “ATTRACT AND JUSTIFY FUNDING” COMES FIRST… AND IT DOESN’T EVEN SAY, HELP THE PROGRAMS REACH THEIR STATED SERVCE, BUT “PROVIDE INFORMATION TO PROGRAM STAFF.”}}

Systematic evaluation of fatherhood program outcomes is crucial to both program design and funding. Conducting rigorous evaluations using standard scientific methods . . .[[will provide continued income for the Lewin Group, the Fatherhood practitioners and organizations, and many other people, not including the children that these program are supposed to help by encouraging and enabling their Daddies to “man up” and support their offspring]]


Some of these groups hang together at times.

 the Lewin Group at a 2007 AFCC conference:42. Healthy Marriage Projects: The Influence of Marriage on Child Support Enforcement

The Administration for Children and Families’ top goal in the last few years has been to encourage marriage for unwed low income families through marriage education, community outreach and demonstrations. This panel will discuss the status of Community Healthy Marriage Projects being financed by the Office of Child Support Enforcement, “Building Strong Families” marriage demonstrations being financed by the Administration of Children and Families and the importance of former marriage status or unmarried status on subsequent child support enforcement out- comes.

  • Barbara Devaney, Ph.D., Mathematica, Washington, D.C.
  • Michael Fishman, Ph.D., Lewin Group, Falls Church, VA
  • Hillard Pouncy, Ph.D., Princeton University, Princeton, NJ
  • Moderator: David Arnaudo, Office of Child Support Enforcement, Washington, D.C.  (a.k.a. HHS/OCSE)

(this presentation for sale — only $15.00)

One reason they may be interested to conference at AFCC — AFCC has judges.  Some Family Law judges get to mandate parenting education, etc.  Dr. Fishman is now with MEF, and his bio shows a close connection to welfare matters, and HHS.  I’m sure the personal connections didn’t hurt either.  He has a masters in “organizational psychology”  which is probably the way to go if you want a government career these days, and an MPA from USC..  Hardly suprising, the new company is also into (among other things) and is in Alexandria, VA.

Marriage and relationship education

State Policies to Promote Marriage
This report inventories state policies directly focused on promoting or supporting marriage. Using secondary data sources, the authors compiled information across states documenting the presence of marriage-related activities in a variety of areas such as campaigns and commissions; divorce laws and procedures; marriage and relationship preparation and education; tax and transfer policies; marriage support and promotion programs.

  • State Policies to Promote Marriage, Karen N. Gardiner, Michael E. Fishman, Plamen Nikolov, Asaph Glosser, and Stephanie Laud. With the assistance of Theodora Ooms, September, 2002

I googled “The Lewin Group, AFCC, Fatherhood” but apparently I’m one of the few people catching on to it, per Google anyhow.  One association with the Abstinence Group, “WAIT” (Joneen Krauth — plenty on that on this blog too, I actually looked up their corporate records history in Colorado.  What a group — associated with NARME, etc.  What a racket, too!):  This showed up under “pipl.”  The site AAHMI is African American Healthy Marriage Initiative which is, by any other name, HHS…  Basically…  DNR if this was at Hampton Univ. or where.

The Lewin Group is pleased to share these materials developed for the Joneen Krauth RN, BSN — NEW. Executive Director of The Abstinence and [ Speakers List – www.aahmi.net ]

Title, logo, and menu

“Reference in this web site to any specific commercial product, process, service, manufacturer, organization, or company does not constitute its endorsement or recommendation by the U.S. Government, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the Administration for Children and Families (ACF). ACF is not responsible for the contents of any “off-site” web page referenced from this server or from private, third-party, pop-up, or browser-integrated software or applications.”

NOTE:  A long while ago, I remember this particular AAHMI and some closely associated nonprofits I was looking up, was one key to understanding just how much the HHS is reaching out with money to set up “mouthpiece” nonprofits or groups (including with key speakers) around the country.  I figure HHS at this point is about as criminally-run a US Dept. as HUD is alleged to be, by someone who knows well enough as she used to be near its top.(C.A. Fitts, late 1980/1990s).

[[2016 updated material from LewinGroup.com]]

Viewed at “lewin.com” 4/11/2016 during blog update

(Their “About Us” page, main content):

The Lewin Group is a premier national health care and human services consulting firm. We understand the industry and provide our clients with high-quality products and insightful support.

Why Choose The Lewin Group?

Proven History

We have nearly 50 years’ experience finding answers and solving problems for leading organizations in the public, nonprofit, and private sectors.

Objective Viewpoint

The Lewin Group is committed to independence and integrity in our work. We combine professional expertise with extensive knowledge and a rigorous approach to analyzing and solving problems to deliver value to each of our clients and to the larger community as well.

Real-World Experience

Our strategic and analytical services help clients:

  • Improve policy and expand knowledge of health care and human services systems
  • Enact, run, and evaluate programs to enhance delivery and financing of health care and human services
  • Deal with shifts in health care practice, technology, and regulation
  • Optimize performance, quality, coverage, and health outcomes
  • Create strategies for institutions, communities, governments, and people to make health care and human services systems more effective
Who We Are

The Lewin Group employs more than 140 consultants drawn from industry, government, academia, and the health professions. Many are national authorities whose strategies for health and human services system improvements come from their personal experience with imperatives for change. The Lewin Group is an Optum company, a wholly owned subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group. We’re editorially independent, but through partnerships with Optum, we can tap into a vast body of data and resources. Optum is an analytics, technology, and consulting services firm that enables better decisions throughout the health system.

The Lewin Group provides its clients with the very best expert and impartial health care and human services policy research and consulting services.

 Learn about our independence
 Meet the leadership team

OTHER 2016 observations on The Lewin Group: Street address:  3130 Fairview Park Drive #500, Falls Church, VA — is right near “Acentia, a Maximus Company” which is same street address #800.  Maximus, we may remember, contractor to manage child support, Medicaid, other health-care related record-keeping, collections & distributions in a number of states (and at least one other country).

(3130 Fairview Dr #800, Falls Church, VA. Viewed 4/11/2016 during blog update)

Acentia, a MAXIMUS Company, is a premier employer who provides software, information technology, and management solutions that produce successful programs of national significance, while consistently demonstrating a partnership of trust and value to our federal customers and the American taxpayer.


[Holistic Data Analytics….]

Centers of Excellence” (options:  Analytics / Cloud / Mobility)

“Acentia offers a holistic approach to Big Data and Analytics. Traditional analytics can tell you what happened and why, but leading organizations are using predictive analytics to understand what could happen and prescriptive analytics to choose the next best action.”

…..


 ICF INTERNATIONAL, LLC

(SEE LINK in chart above; Wikipedia gives the history. Started in 1969 by a former Tuskeegee Airman as inner city venture capital, but it changed direction, bought and sold various companies and now is like, LARGE).

I blogged earlier (ca. 2011)

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
I C F, INC  FAIRFAX VA 22031-6050 FAIRFAX 072648579 $ 2,477,256
Award Title Sum of Actions
2011 ACF I C F, INC NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE $ 1,500,000

(NRCSPHM — what did you think it sood for?  🙂  )

(PJ Media — Dr. Phyllis Chesler writes or wrote on there — was kind enough to print my comments here; the 2nd comment mentions ICF).

I profiled this company before, particularly when TAGGS.hhs.gov decided to bastardize its name on the database.  It’s in Fairfax VA with background in Defense, Energy and in 1988 it acquired a division of Kaiser (engineering) and got REALLY large.  It’s currently #64 of Forbes top 100 companies, is traded on the NYSE, and etc.   HHS hired to to do even more (stuff) to promote marriage, whch is the acronym.  ON this blog somewhere, no doubt:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
VA
$1,500,000
Icf Incorporated, L.L.C. is a general contractor in Fairfax, VA. In the top 10% of 15,898 Northern Virginia contractors.
%d bloggers like this: