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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘ICF International

Red Herring Alert’s “Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner/HMRF funds,” and about those funds…

leave a comment »

Dakota County is in Minnesota:  look for the Twin Cities (St. Paul/Minneapolis) metro area.

That RedHerringAlert (blog) post, Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner Chair Nancy Schouweiler Posted on April 26, 2016Dede Evavold’s continued attempt, with assistance, obviously from the individual over at LionNews …

Image from Lion News

…to communicate to a County Commissioner (image below-right, red suit) that it’s high time

Dakota County Commissioners (image from the RHA blog post 4/26/2016)

to make some crooked things straight and for Dede to refuse to submit to being (my disclaimers:  “possibly,” or  “apparently”) framed for criminal activity and forced to show up without information sufficient to defend herself, as is required by law to be provided her.

Underneath that detailed, case-specific information and posting of correspondence on that ‘Conversation,”and neatly tied into it under things that County Commissioners do — like “authorize receipt of federal/state funds on healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” — was the bottom half of the post on the same, which I discovered while myself in a somewhat sleepless state from having just learned  about, ah, er, some yet still more recent “developments” in my personal, legal, and safety-focused saga of separating from certain, ah, “individuals,

I am again seeing just how far certain kinds of “individuals”*  may go in assuming multiple persona (and often bringing others with similar schizoid, multiple-persona-issues proclivities (=habits!), referring less to things psychological, but than things incorporation-al) in the process of smoke-screening (his/her/their) own (“apparently” or “possibly”) previous unethical/negligent/illegal activities vis-a-vis (as regards) the targeted individual — which is more appropriately understood as “ANY AND ALL RESOURCES POSSIBLY ASSOCIATED WITH AND UNETHICALLY OR ILLEGALLY OBTAINED/ EXTRACTED and/or even EXTORTED FROM THE TARGETED INDIVIDUAL  FOR FUN, INCLUDING KEEPING ONE’S TECHNIQUES IN THIS SHARP, and the THRILL OF HAVING GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT, etc., AND PROFIT. “

Part of this includes not just obtaining more, but safeguarding existing profits (obtained legally or illegally, ethically or unethically).  For protecting that status quo, threatening to engage, or engaging in pre-emptive litigation strikes against any further public exposure of what has, known to the same, been taking place for months or years previously, under their aggressive initiative or, as it may be, chronic, passive negligence, whichever mode (“Passive/Aggressive”) suits the overall strategic goal of — building income-producing, ideally, tax-sheltered and not in one’s own name (in case of guess what else? litigation from the targeted individuals — or competitors) assets for fun and profit and in part by defrauding others.  The “not in one’s own name” is where the “Multiple-corporate-persona” comes in.

So, the unethically, illegally at times will include “fraudulent” which in essence is what in common terms would be called lying.  For added bonus and impact, such blatant lying is also psychological attack on the other, and asserts a position which the targeted individual may very well know is false, but it is intended that the eventual audience (in the intended theatre — whether a courtroom, a police station, or elsewhere — whose influence is desired to bring up on the targeted person. It’s a form of bluster and boasting, and it keeps the other side busy (and lawyers in business), calling them out) either does not know, or chooses not to admit that they know, participating in the charade, for THEIR fun and profit..

For the term “For Fun and Profit” I have to credit Catherine Austin Fitts’ analogy of “Sam and Dave Unload Boatloads of White Agricultural Substances.”  The shortest summary of this is that those who operate above-the-board legally are hard put to compete against those who completely evade corporate and/or personal income taxes by  operating under-the-table in the criminal sphere.  I wrote and posted it, get this:  12/12/12 (Dec. 12, 2o12) over at another blog, Cold, Hard Facts.  “Nothing Complicated Here: Want Real Change?  Enact This!”  Huh, another Presidential Election Year, then, too…..  within a few paragraphs, it makes its point (and links to the Fitts article too).

(Continued at bottom of the post under FootnoteUnethicallly or Illegally Obtained for Fun and Profit through Targeting Specific Individuals“)..

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.


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.

049508120  –  WESTAT INCORPORATED 230,376 9,710,743
019121586  –  DELOITTE CONSULTING L.L.P. 1,593,527 32,298,506
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

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
803935261  –  PROFESSIONAL TESTING, INC. 363,302 361,395
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:


(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:
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.


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.”



(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

(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:


ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
Icf Incorporated, L.L.C. is a general contractor in Fairfax, VA. In the top 10% of 15,898 Northern Virginia contractors.

Faith-based Offices, Initiatives, Grants, and Groups: The Handwriting is Already on the Wall*

with one comment

This post begins my trial of “citation” format — a “footnote section,” pending my ability to put this information in visual diagram format. It’s good advice.  So for any [FN#] section, references are at the bottom, under “FOOTNOTE SECTION,” separated by quotes in red font from related FN.   However, this ain’t no research paper, and won’t get several drafts either.  Footnotes may be out of order in the text (wordpress has no auto-numbering system I’m aware of).  Deal with it…

I have been looking at some of the reports coming out on the lavish parties following the Baptism of the ‘Faith-Based Office” in 2001, and its expansion throughout government (as per Bush Executive Order in 2001), and what they do with their grants, as well as what is planned (overall) to do with what’s left of the US Legislative-Executive-Judicial branches.

The speed of the spread of independent offices at the highest levels of state government (i.e., Governor’s Offices), and what they have been doing once there has astonished me.   I’m not prophet, but the handwriting is already on the wall.  Here’s what’s up ahead — without targeted & informed protest, it is going to get worse.  Most nets are set in private, and there is NO sense on relying on “MainStreamMedia” (and a good deal of Social Media too) which are owned, as a source of truth.  Look at the financial and corporate track record.  How do groups handle money, wealth, etc.

I believe the handwriting is already on the wall for this country, written by elected (or in the case of Administration 2001-2009, probably not) Presidents and others who influence them.   I heard that our country’s debt is now 100% of the GDP — where do you think the leaders will go when this collapses?  Will they be without options?  I doubt it. ..  They think and move internationally, and try to tell others how to think about their work, lives, marriages, parenting, reproduction, education of youth, and especially what to buy (consume).   People who protest can be incarcerated on frivolous causes, and are being.


In species, the most specialized thrive in certain species niches, but humans (among the most generalized of animals — no claws, no fur, we don’t have the best sight, smell, or hearing, nor are we the strongest or fastest species around — but we know tools, language and how to use animals, environment, and other people (as animals, many times) to achieve imagined ends.  We make up gods to worship and kill others who don’t worship the same ones in the right way — habitually.  We devised money.  What a species).

What we don’t get too well is something called limits, and something called contentment — without ruling the world. . . .  And we too easily acquiesce, buying comfort for not having to continually fight the current alpha males, who seem to want (with the associated females around them) too many privileges.

The lesson of the “faith-based organization” is an important one.  Who knows what it is?  (can You define it?  There is no separate category given in the TAGGS databse (HHS) for “faith-based” all they have long lists of Grantee Types, and Grantee Classes.  “Faith-based” was not added as a field in 2001.  See?


Grantee CLASS can be:  City Government, County, Federal, Foreign Nonprofit, Foreign Profit, Individual. International (US & Foreign or 2 Foreign), Non-Profit Private Non-Government, Non-profit Public Non-Government (??), Other (Towns, Villages, American indian Tribes), Private Profit (Large Business), Private Profit (Small Business), Special Unit of Government (??), Sponsored Organizations, State Government.

Grantee Type:  [about as diverse a list, go look yourself]

At no point does it say “Faith-based organization.”  But for a decade now, the category has existed — and grants are supposed to go to them.  If the public is to know — do we have to look up every (damn) grantee and figure out who they are?  We can run all these kinds of searches — and unless there is a field to indicate “FB” or “There is no God” (:   we can’t see how many of which grants are being steered where.  These are searches one can do on the HHS database, plus there are many reports that can be run also (pre-fab searches, basically):

Search By Recipient Name Keyword (would work if spellcheck were run consistently, and grantees weren’t changing names every few years).
Search By DUNS and EIN  (but in detail, neither field will display; probably good as I’ve found grantees that have no EIN#!)
Search By Type and Class  (Categories I mentioned above)TAGGS AWARD SEARCH
Search By CFDA Program  (there is “marriage & Fatherhood” and “abstinence educ.” which are clues — but there is no CFDA Program “faith-based”)
Search By CFDA Program Numbers
Search By OPDIV
Search Keyword By Award TitleTAGGS LOCATION SEARCH
Search By Domestic Location
Search By Foreign LocationTAGGS ADVANCED SEARCH

In essence, “faith-based” means, either a group that has already been doing some kind of charity before 2001, or one that resulted from HHS officials (and DOJ, etc.) soliciting leaders of [name your religion, but predominantly Christian/Catholic/megachurch for sure] and helping them file for incorporation.

It also means favoritism to the point of breaking and skirting laws for application of grants, as a 2008 Investigation of the head of the “OJJDP” found out.   Justice Official Fired; Bypassed Grant Deadlines June 25, 2008 by Patrick Boyle.  Mr. Boyle’s series of articles led to a Congressional investigation of the grants process under Mr. Flores, which should be read.  In this article, McGarry (OJJDP employee) let applicants submit past the deadlines.

A federal juvenile justice official who was fired on June 24 had helped selected organizations apply for Justice Department grants past the deadline – a significant violation of department policy – and directed employees to help a favored organization win a grant, according to federal documents.

Michele DeKonty, who served as chief of staff at the U.S. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), played a central role in grant awards that are under congressional investigation. She recently took the Fifth Amendment (!!) when asked to speak with investigators from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which is probing whether OJJDP awarded grants based on political favoritism and personal connections.

OJJDP Administrator J. Robert Flores offered no explanation in announcing her departure in amemo to staffers on the morning of June 25, saying, “Yesterday, [DeKonty] ended her tenure with our Office.”

Last year, DeKonty – a graduate of Regent University, which calls itself “America’s Preeminent Christian University” – helped faith-based organizations apply for mentoring grants even though the deadline had passed, prompting a senior Justice Department official to fire off an angry rebuke

You can expect more of this, and multiplying, not simply adding, players.  FYI, the OJJDP has a “Council” – -the “CJJDP” — one member of which is called CNCS, and a woman featured in today’s post, from Ohio’s “Governor’s Office of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives” (GOFBCI), Krista Sisterhen — went from that office to the CNCS in ITS “Office of Faith-Based” (from what I can tell).  These patterns have shown up, and are reasons to force a stop:

  • This was Bush’s first abuse of power on getting elected — it was not run by the people. For that matter, it seems his election wasn’t, either.
  • Group Incorporates for the purpose of getting grants, may not stay incorporated; may or may not file with their own state.
  • Some groups appear to be merely front groups, moving money (actually, to the contractors, for-profit).
  • Groups often “Takes the Money and Run” then leaving the next officials to pick up the pieces (frequent).
  • The sheer concept of something “Faith-Based” concept RADICALLY transformed how all government departments & agencies do business (spend money), creating more work and costing more to lay out the red carpet.
  • Does not bear up under scrutiny — what does the term mean?
  • There is no database label for the public of “faith-based” or not “faith-based” groups, meaning, we have taxation without representation.
  • It must be important — because it was the FIRST TWO Executive Orders by GWBush in 2001.  (Why are we ignoring this?).  Basically, it sets up parallel yet independent operations WHEREVER IT GOES.
  • The Offices are grants & business conduits.
  • Some of the Faith-based Organizations chosen are reprehensible to start with (especially for women) and their leaders have already been subject to lawsuits from their own members for fraud, domestic violence, molestation of young boys, and sometimes tax evasion — not to mention flat-out greed.
  • Those that don’t fall into this category still use government funds to proselytize, which is the mission or purpose of the church (i.e., Dominionism), and do not really hold allegiance to the U.S. in high regard, or its laws.
  • Some denominations or religions actually CAUSE the social service need they are relieving, and historically this has been so.  The last thing we need is uniting government and churches!  Both entities are prone to abusing the people they historically serve.
  • As with Catholic authorities that tried to cover up abuse by priests, switching them to new jurisdictions, THESE SAME GRANTS ADMINISTRATORS // RECIPIENTS, WHEN CAUGHT; SIMPLY MOVE ON TO ANOTHER STATE.  THE MOST THEY WOULD SUFFER IS A JOB LOSS, and there’s usually another crony to pick them up.

One cannot straighten out such a situation.  It’s a national network which intends to force a top-down system change through government (similar to what the National Fatherhood Initiative also did, starting in 1994).


I don’t think enough people are reading “The Handwriting on the Wall” on this topic — and so am going to spell it out.


*This phrase comes from a Bible passage; Daniel 5.


Daniel being a youth that was carried away to captivity in Babylon, rose to prominence, and lived through several different reigns.  The book of Daniel tells of his faithfulness, of miraculous rescues because of this (Daniel in the Lion’s Den) and in his longing to know what was going to become of his people, several visions and prophecies that are central to Judaeo-Christian heritage.  It’s quite dramatic, including here.

From Daniel 5.  This is a florid language, so pull up a seat and imagine you are being given an oral history, from the People of the Book, about the exile, and the heroes and forefathers.  Because (though it’s written), you are.   And afterwards, we will judge by looking, whether those on the “faith-based fast-track” are behaving more like Belshazzar the King, or like Daniel.  Look at attitude, assets, and acquisitions — where did the wealth described here come from?  Where does the wealth come from for faith-based groups nowadays, and what are they doing with it?  Do they respect its origins, or is it party time?   How current is this tale?  (Very!)

<< Daniel 5 >>
King James Version

1Belshazzar the king made a great feast to a thousand of his lords, and drank wine before the thousand. 2Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which his father Nebuchadnezzar had taken out of the temple which was in Jerusalem; that the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, might drink therein. 3Then they brought the golden vessels that were taken out of the temple of the house of God which was at Jerusalem; and the king, and his princes, his wives, and his concubines, drank in them. 4They drank wine, and praised the gods of gold, and of silver, of brass, of iron, of wood, and of stone.
{{Party time, with the loot… using things that were formerly sacred to the conquered country}}

5In the same hour came forth fingers of a man’s hand, and wrote over against the candlestick upon the plaister of the wall of the king’s palace: and the king saw the part of the hand that wrote. 6Then the king’s countenance was changed  {{I’ll bet!!}} , and his thoughts troubled him, so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another.

{{Trouble in Tahiti.  Maybe he had a conscience after all, and it was trying to reach him:  the man was freaking out.  IN such times, what else does the top leader do but call in the expert counsel?}}

7The king cried aloud to bring in the astrologers, the Chaldeans, and the soothsayers. And the king spake, and said to the wise men of Babylon, Whosoever shall read this writing, and shew me the interpretation thereof, shall be clothed with scarlet, and have a chain of gold about his neck, and shall be the third ruler in the kingdom8Then came in all the king’s wise men: but they could not read the writing, nor make known to the king the interpretation thereof. 9Then was king Belshazzar greatly troubled, and his countenance was changed in him, and his lords were astonied.

{{“Make my problems go away, and I’ll reward you well” (with my loot).   In this version, they acknowledged they were clueless — can you imagine any of today’s experts doing the same?  Certainly not; they’d just recommend another council, commission, task force and executive office initiative, plus funds to staff it ,set it up, evaluate its own reports and publicize its own reports by a “resource center.”}}

10Now the queen, by reason of the words of the king and his lords, came into the banquet houseand the queen spake and said, O king, live for ever: let not thy thoughts trouble thee, nor let thy countenance be changed: 11There is a man in thy kingdom, in whom is the spirit of the holy gods; and in the days of thy father light and understanding and wisdom, like the wisdom of the gods, was found in him . . . 

(interesting, the queen wasn’t there to start with, but nearly everyone else was….)   and she continues saying…

Forasmuch as an excellent spirit, and knowledge, and understanding, interpreting of dreams, and shewing of hard sentences, and dissolving of doubts, were found in the same Daniel, whom the king named Belteshazzar: now let Daniel be called, and he will shew the interpretation.

{{which of course he was, and I’ll spare you the repetition}}

Then Daniel answered and said before the king, Let thy gifts be to thyself, and give thy rewards to another; yet I will read the writing unto the king,[FN2] and make known to him the interpretation. 18O thou king, the most high God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father a kingdom, and majesty, and glory, and honour: 19And for the majesty that he gave him, all people, nations, and languages, trembled and feared before him: whom he would he slew; and whom he would he kept alive; and whom he would he set up; and whom he would he put down.

(== pretty much where it’s at in our justice system today, would you agree?) 

20But when his heart was lifted up, and his mind hardened in pride, he was deposed from his kingly throne, and they took his glory from him: . . .


And thou his son, O Belshazzar, hast not humbled thine heart, though thou knewest all this23But hast lifted up thyself against the Lord of heaven; and they have brought the vessels of his house before thee, and thou, and thy lords, thy wives, and thy concubines, have drunk wine in them; and thou hast praised the gods of silver, and gold, of brass, iron, wood, and stone, which see not, nor hear, nor know: and the God in whose hand thy breath is, and whose are all thy ways, hast thou not glorified:24Then was the part of the hand sent from him; and this writing was written.

25And this is the writing that was written, MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. 26This is the interpretation of the thing: MENE; God hath numbered thy kingdom, and finished it27TEKEL; Thou art weighed in the balances, and art found wanting28PERES; Thy kingdom is divided, and given to the Medes and Persians.

Whatever the hell that term means!  Ever thought about it?  I mean, is a church (mega, Catholic, or your local brick) or a synagogue or a mosque a “faith-based” group?

The 2000 Election and the 2001 Executive Orders of Pres. Bush are linked.

9/11/2001 eclipsed discussion of either and now we are stuck with the results; it has become “status quo” to even take seriously the term “faith-based” either as to the faith, or as to the corporations formed to gobble up the grants, and laws passed to change the process of government to accommodate this.

I plan to talk about WHO and WHAT we are dealing with since that man took office.

This article from Common Dreams, highlights the election of 2000 and 9/11.  I am highlighting, in that context, what came inbetween — the first and second executive orders issued on taking office, and how those horses have bolted out the gate, so far.

The 2000 Election must Not Be Forgotten (Published 11/1/2001 by John Nichols by In These Times)

Historians reflecting upon America’s rough transition from the 20th to the 21st century will identify two crises on which the nation’s future turned. Both will be recalled to have arisen with little warning, to have exposed fundamental flaws in the political, legal and bureaucratic structures of the nation, and to have demanded dramatic responses that would change forever how the United States conducts its affairs. And historians will explain, with the wisdom of time, that it is unnecessary to debate the relative consequence of these two crises; rather, they will argue, it is vital to recognize the clear consequence of both. . . .

He then relates the wish to silence the debate (because the nation is in crisis) to Alice Paul, Woodrow Wilson, and women getting the vote, finally:

. . .But what of a debate about the very quality of the democracy for which Americans are said to be fighting? What if the debate directly challenges the man sitting in the White House? Should this debate not be put aside until a more convenient time?

Alice Paul would tell us not to make that mistake. At the opening of World War I, the women’s suffrage movement faced a critical test. Moderates argued that women would win the right to vote only by appearing to be more patriotic than men. But Paul and the radical suffragists of the National Women’s Party refused to compromise their demand that President Woodrow Wilson endorse a constitutional amendment granting women equal citizenship. They picketed the White House daily with signs that identified Wilson as a hypocrite for sending American soldiers to “die for democracy” when America was a democracy “in name only.”

The women were attacked in the streets, taunted as traitors and branded “Bolsheviks” by theChicago Tribune. Wilson ordered the suffragists arrested. More than 200 were jailed. Eventually Paul led a hunger strike so embarrassing to Wilson that he was forced to release her in December 1917. Barely one month later, under continued pressure from Paul and her allies, Wilson announced his support for women’s suffrage. The next day, the House narrowly endorsed the Susan B. Anthony Amendment. Within three years, women had the vote.

Alice Paul would tell us that, in challenging leaders in a time of war to make real their talk of democracy, we practice the truest patriotism. In an oral history, conducted toward the end of her long life, Paul recalled the “radical” sign that stirred so much controversy outside the White House during World War I. It read: “Democracy should begin at home.”

John Nichols is the author of Jews for Buchanan: Did You Hear the One about the Theft of the American Presidency? (New Press), a book on the 2000 election debacle.

©2001 The Institute for Public Affairs

I am a woman, I have been a Christian, I see what the “faith-based” executive order has done to our country and our government.  It sucks, and I’m ready to keep this debate going, fiscal crisis definitely relates to it, as does the use of the income tax.  While I was married and raising small children (and working, days, nights) Christianity was used as an excuse for abuse, while faith-based people and agnostics did next to nothing to intervene.

AFTER I got out, and was actually happy, safe, and prospering (no one was forcing me out of jobs — yet) again – the same Christianity became a liability for me, both from the useless onlookers (during years of abuse) and the husband, who tried in court to portray me as a religious zealot engaged in bizarre practices, none of which he documented or proved.   I worked for Catholics — for the purpose of work — it was used against me, although the US Government seems to get along just fine with plenty of Catholic groups.

I have come to the conclusion that, whatever my personal faith, places of worship these days are either nonprofit corporations that should be forced to manage their money as others do — or, they are informal organizations that exchange plenty of money without bothering to register with the IRS like their individual congregants have to.  After which they talk about Community, One Body of Christ, or the “Family.”

This is just the beginning of my ongoing exposure of this phenomena.  I’m going to let us know WHICH family this is all about and show groups who go for the bait from the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives (then, or now, federal, community-based, or state-level) – are indeed relatives, and behaving about the same as George W. Bush did, from the start.

There are plenty of ways to satirize the situation, but the closer one looks, it is no laughing matter.

I’m talking about, when these are in the Governor’s Offices, after invited into the White House in 2001.  Since I printed this list, Kansas (Gov. Brownback) has established a similar office, only under the SRS department — after choosing Robert Siedlicki to head up this department.  Gov. Brownback did this immediately — as a “governor-elect.”

Brownback tags SRS, KDHE heads  Siedlecki to head SRS; Moser to lead KDHE

Posted: January 3, 2011 – 1:56pm  The Topeka Capitol-Journal, by Tim Carpenter (CJonline.com

Gov.-elect Sam Brownback nominated Monday a former federal attorney assigned to faith-based programs to lead the state’s social service agency and selected a University of Kansas physician to preside over the agency responsible for environmental and health regulation.

The new secretary of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services will be Robert Siedlecki Jr., who is chief of staff with the Florida Department of Health. He is former legal counsel to the Task Force for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives in the U.S. Department of Justice under President George W. Bush.

. . . .

The KDHE and SRS appointments came one week before Brownback is scheduled to be sworn into office as governor Jan. 10. Brownback will officially surrender his U.S. Senate seat Wednesday.

 . . .

Siedlecki, a divorced father of two girls, said he was eager to work for a governor with “strong convictions, courage to fight for those convictions and the will to make a difference for his fellow citizens.”

SRS has 6,000 employees and operates six hospitals for the developmentally disabled and mentally ill. Its budget exceeds $1.7 billion, making it the third-largest in state government, behind the Kansas Department of Education, which distributes aid to public schools, and the higher education system.

SRS oversees foster care for troubled children, with its workers assessing whether children should be removed from their families over allegations of abuse and neglect

. . .

Our administration will work for a strengthening of healthy marriages, a decrease in the percentage of children in poverty and protection from threats to our state’s families’ well-being,” Brownback said.

Sure they will …..  let’s look at what some others have been doing:

(search on grantee institutions which use the term “Faith-based” (or I gather “Faith”) in their names – which is only a fraction of the recipients).

Year Grantee Name Recov
St Grantee Class Award # Award Title Budg
CFDA # Principal Investig. Action$$
2011 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ NON OH State Government 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 5 93086 GREG GREG $ 0
2010 Governor`s Ofc of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives REC AL State Government 90SN0033 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 1 93711 LISA CASTALDO $ 0
2010 New Jersey State Office of Faith Based Initiative NON NJ State Government 90EJ0121 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) 1 93009 EDWARD LAPORTE $ 0
2010 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ NON OH State Government 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 5 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 446,675
2009 Governors Office of Community & Faith Based Initiatives REC MI State Government 90SN0021 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 1 93711 GREG ROBERTS $ 250,000
2009 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives REC IA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90SI0016 ARRA – STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES FUND – NON-PROFIT CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 1 93711 DARYL VANDERWILT $ 1,000,000
2009 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ NON OH State Government 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 4 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 543,371
2008 Faith-Based Solutions, LLC NV Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations 90EJ0108 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 2 93009 LAUREN SOULAM $ 500,000
2008 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Government 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 3 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 544,140
2007 Faith-Based Solutions, LLC NV Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations 90EJ0108 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1 93009 LAUREN SOULAM $ 500,000
2007 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives IA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90IJ0859 THE COMPASSION CAPITAL (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM-RURAL 1 93009 DR DARYL VANDERWILT $ 50,000
2007 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Government 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 2 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $ 150,399
2006 Alta Vista Faith-Based Initiative Corporation TX Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations 90IJ0624 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 1 93009 ROBERT CHAVEZ $ 50,000
2006 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Government 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 3 93009 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $ 1,000,000
2006 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Government 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 1 93086 KRISTA SISTERHEN $ 544,140
2005 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Government 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 2 93009 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $ 1,000,000
2004 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 3 93647 EARL W HAMILTON $ 525,000
2004 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Government 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1 93647 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $ 750,000
2003 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 2 93647 BISHOP HAROLD CALVIN RAY $ 525,000
2002 Faith Based Community Development Corp. CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90ED0060 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING PROJECTS – PA 4 1 93570 DANIEL SCOTT $ 75,000
2002 National Center for Faith Based Initiative *** FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1 93647 BISHOP HAROLD CALVIN RAY $ 700,000
Results 1 to 22 of 22 matches.
Fiscal Yr Grantee Name Recovery Act? State Grantee Class Award # Award Title Budget Yr CFDA# Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2010 Governor`s Ofc of Faith-Based & Community Initiatives REC AL State Gov’t 90SN0033 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 1 93711 LISA CASTALDO $0
2010 New Jersey State Office of Faith Based Initiative NON NJ State Gov’t 90EJ0121 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) 1 93009 EDWARD LAPORTE $0
2010 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ NON OH State Gov’t 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 5 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $446,675
2009 Governors Office of Community & Faith Based Initiatives REC MI State Gov’t 90SN0021 ARRA-2009 SCF-STATE, LOCAL AND TRIBAL GOVT. CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 1 93711 GREG ROBERTS $250,000
2009 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives REC IA Non-Profit Private Non-Gov’t Orgs 90SI0016 ARRA – STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES FUND – NON-PROFIT CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM 1 93711 DARYL VANDERWILT $1,000,000
2009 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ NON OH State Gov’t 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 4 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $543,371
2008 Faith-Based Solutions, LLC NV Non-Profit Public Non-Gov’t Orgs 90EJ0108 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 2 93009 LAUREN SOULAM $500,000
2008 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Gov’t 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 3 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $544,140
2007 Faith-Based Solutions, LLC NV Non-Profit Public Non-Gov’t Orgs 90EJ0108 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1 93009 LAUREN SOULAM $500,000
2007 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives IA Non-Profit Private Non-Gov’t Orgs 90IJ0859 THE COMPASSION CAPITAL (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM-RURAL 1 93009 DR DARYL VANDERWILT $50,000
2007 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Gov’t 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 2 93086 ALAN BANNISTER $150,399
2006 Alta Vista Faith-Based Initiative Corporation TX Non-Profit Public Non-Gov’t Orgs 90IJ0624 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE 1 93009 ROBERT CHAVEZ $50,000
2006 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Gov’t 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 3 93009 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $1,000,000
2006 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Gov’t 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 1 93086 KRISTA SISTERHEN $544,140
2005 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Gov’t 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 2 93009 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $1,000,000
2004 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL Non-Profit Private Non-Gov’t Orgs 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 3 93647 EARL W HAMILTON $525,000
2004 OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ OH State Gov’t 90EJ0037 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1 93647 KRISTA R SISTERHEN $750,000
2003 National Center for Faith Based Initiative FL Non-Profit Private Non-Gov’t Orgs 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 2 93647 BISHOP HAROLD CALVIN RAY $525,000
2002 Faith Based Community Development Corp. CA Non-Profit Private Non-Gov’t Orgs 90ED0060 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT/PLANNING PROJECTS – PA 4 1 93570 DANIEL SCOTT $75,000
2002 National Center for Faith Based Initiative *** FL Non-Profit Private Non-Gov’t Orgs 90EJ0005 COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM 1 93647 BISHOP HAROLD CALVIN RAY $700,000

Notice the first two were in Florida.  Keep reading, as Bush’s election was contested, and finally won, in 2000 Florida, and his brother turns out to have been on the board of the “The Project for New American Century.”

Sample — this group got awards for 2002, 2003, & 2004 and shows no “DUNS#” as all federal contractors and grantees should have to.

Recipient: National Center for Faith Based Initiative
Address: 2101 North Australian Avenue
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: PALM BEACH
HHS Region: 4
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations


Showing: 1 – 3 of 3 Award Actions

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
National Center for Faith Based Initiative  WEST PALM BEACH FL 33407 PALM BEACH $ 1,750,000

EIN = 65-1004025  Existed as a corporation til dissolved (for nonfiling) around 2011 – but look at the IRS returns:








National Center for Faith Based Initiative Inc. FL 2006 $7,354 990 18 65-1004025
National Center for Faith Based Initiative Inc. FL 2005 $89,994 990 18 65-1004025
National Center for Faith Based Initiative Inc. FL 2004 * * * $250,112 990 16 65-1004025
National Center for Faith-Based Initiative Inc. FL 2003 $145,262 990 20 65-1004025
National Center for Faith-Based Initiative Inc.  FL 2002 $31,472 990 18 65-1004025

Tax Return Year 2004:

Government grants this year were $732,021, program service revenue only $19K.  Looks like a flash in the pan group, but made the list of honor at ACF’s “Compassion Capital” roster.  Program Service Accomplishments mention “welfare to work” and expenses of $585K and grant of $99k.

The Bishop Harold Ray this year earned $60K — and $28.5K “Expense account and other allowances” and this time, (unpaid) Bishop Eddie Long (Decatur, GA) was on the Board of Directors!  Plus a program director, $71K (Earl Hamilton).  His FL address apparently was typed wrong (“Rivera” for “Riviera Beach”) and has something to do with housing initiatives in West Palm Beach also.   [“Firm: REDEMPTIVE LIFE FELLOWSHIP URBAN INITIATIVES CORPORATION
Contact Name: EARL W. HAMILTON’]

Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number

Looks like ALL of these were dissolved for failure to file report, some in 2006 and some in 2010, and one lasted less than a year (10/29/2010-9/23/2011).  Not the kind of pattern for someone to be managing program funds, seems to me….  Redemptive Life Fellowship Urban Initiatives Corporation bears the SAME address as “National Center for Faith-Based Initiatives” and (in 2004) has Bishop HOward Calvin Ray as the signing officer and on the Board.  I’d be curious to know whether some of the $1.75 million (of public money for the purposes — read on) of this group as “intermediary” then went to an organization on which the same original incorporator sat.    This one seems to have been around since 1992, but Florida reads that reports were filed in the years 2010 and 2011 only (?).

Bishop Eddie Long is a story unto himself and came under investigation for financial fraud, violence towards his ex-wife and accusations of molestation of young men as well. This apparently didn’t stop him from being featured as a 2009 keynote speaker at the launch of an (HHS-sponsored) enter at the “National Center for African American Marriages and Parenting” at Hampton University, Virginia, whose leader, Dr. Linda Malone-Colon also was found meeting (behind closed doors, group flown in at public expense) with the new head of SRS (I think) in Kansas, also.

By Christian Boone and Ty Tagami The Atlanta Journal-Constitution (posted in “DeKalb County News” 9/29/2010)

Bishop Eddie Long’s ex-wife claimed in divorce papers that he was physically abusive, alleging he beat her when she was seven-and-a-half months pregnant with the couple’s only child…

Dabara S. Houston said she was the victim of “cruel treatment” and was afraid of Long’s “violent and vicious temper,” according to Fulton County Superior Court records. She and her son “had to flee [the couple’s Fairburn home] in order to ensure their safety,” the documents say.  The couple was married in 1981 and separated after a couple years, according to the documents.

  • Sexual Misconduct with Young Men

Long was accused of sexual misconduct in September 2010 by four young men, all former members of New Birth. They filed a lawsuit against the pastor claiming that he had lavished them with gifts, trips and money while coercing them into sexual contact.

Long denied the charges of sexual misconduct and vowed to fight them, all the while maintaining that he tried to serve as a father figure to the young men and offer them support, financial assistance and guidance.

 A fifth alleged victim, Centino Kemp, tried to commit suicide after the lawsuit was announced.  He says his alter-ego helped save his life.  Can you spell “D-i-s-s-o-c-i-a-t-i-o-n” as in, split identities to preserve the original, under abuse?   Apparently the accusers were paid handsomely to shut up, broke confidentiality and so their attorneys dropped them as clients (part of settlement includes not talking about the case….)
  • Financial Fraud / Investment Scheme (seems a common thing among some groups)

Bishop Eddie Long ACCUSED Of Targeting Church Members With Ponzi Scheme  (2011)

  • Bishop paid off accusers, was not removed from his position, didn’t lose his wife, and seems virtually unscathed.  What gives? says editorial.

http://www.huliq.com/12079/bishop-eddie-longs-wife-stands-her-man-today Submitted by Roz Zurko on 2011-06-19

  • Long still has his position in the church, his million dollar mansion and two Bentley cars provided through the church and now it sounds as if his wife and family are still intact. This man has suffered no consequences from this incident. Other than a media frenzy, which is already winding down, nothing has changed for him. This is in great contrast to the Anthony Weiner scandal occurring in Washington today. Weiner had an online scandal with grown women via the Internet. His inappropriate pictures and texts have ruined his political life. He never touched these women, it was a sexual relationship of words that he is guilty of and the consequences for this has been life changing and humiliation. Not so for Long.The Bishop on the other hand, is accused of grooming young boys for sex and then engaging in sexual relations with the boys when they turn 16, which is the legal age of consent in Georgia. This appears very calculating on his part, but none of this matters anymore. The scandal is over for Long and will soon fade into history as he emerges untouched. Long will continue on as if nothing happened. The inner workings of this Mega Church appears to be more powerful than what we see in politics.
In short, what a nice character (Bishop Long) to have on the board of a “national center for faith-based initiatives” to Jumpstart the series, eh?
. . .

It received “compassion capital funding” and probably existed only to shunt grants to other groups; ACF calls it an “Intermediary Organization.”  Is it even an organization?  Who is “Principal Investigator” “Bishop Howard Calvin Ray”?  (The word “Bishop” is a clue):

kd banner

A dominionist minister — read the blurb please, and I’m really beginning to believe the legend of the stolen election, which ushered in a red carpet to:

What is the Kingdom Dominion Network? Kingdom Dominion Network of Interdependent Churches and Ministries (The Network) is an association of churches and ministries affiliated from throughout the domestic United States and foreign countries for the greater purpose of creating the synergistic interdependence necessary for empowerment of local churches for impact upon, and effectiveness in the 21st century. In Essence it is a “network” of “Apostolic Networks”: an essential ingredient for the release of authority and impartation so vitally necessary for Kingdom Dominion in the 21st century The Network provides meaningful resolution for those seeking fraternity while acknowledging the need for fathering. It is designed to foster commitment to interpersonal relationship, while simultaneously commanding interdependent responsibility.

Why do we need such a network? The imminent arrival of the 21st century mandates a new level of urgency and insight by the church to exercise its dominion in the earth. Major paradigm shifts in cultural, governmental, familial and socioeconomic spheres are already well underway, regrettably too often without any meaningful influence upon or impartation by the church. While the church certainly must not abandon, forsake or neglect its primary mission of declaring the Gospel and birthing essential spiritual transformation of individuals, the Church must also awaken to its vital role and clarion call to develop practical mission fields and create economic synergy within its own ranks. The basic physical needs of our communities mandate internally controlled economic empowerment to match our spiritual fervor

But they are not above taking public funding from atheists and nonbelievers to fund this….  Apart from the gobbledygook talk, this is pretty close to Administration policy anyhow, so why not invite more dominionists on board and help them get grants

Notice — no loyalty to the US Government even required, no oath of office, is taken, nor are leaders of these groups required to file conflicts of interest forms (?) — as judges are in the U.S., and which can be used as a means to recuse or depose authority for the sake of justice.  I recommend finishing the link, to see the goals.  Let’s see how long the corporation lasted, from Florida’s “sunbiz.org” corporation search:

Corporate Name Document Number Status

(I was curious about the 2nd group.  It was formed for “any and all lawful business” on 9/14/2011, with one name on it).

(“the Corp. is organized for the purpose of (i) creating 21st century economy synergy among a historically economically disenfranchised people, (ii) distributing the benefits derived from said economic synergy to facilitate comprehensive and holistic revitalization of local communities through faith-based initiatives; and (iii) any other exempt purposes.”)  Pretty good foresight, before the 2001 Office had even been invented.  Incidentally the list of 8 members doesn’t include a single representative from a female of the disenfranchised people.

http://www.racematters.org/rayofhope.htm  This line is out pretty straightforward — a March 2000 article featuring Bishop Howard Calvin Ray’s recent trip to meet with Republican Leaders in Washington (and that he is a former lawyer who founded a church in 1991).  For a former lawyer, the groups sure had serious trouble filling out basic corporation forms correctly, and keeping them current.  But this is the plan:

The month-old National Center for Faith Based Initiative would link black congregants with corporations and government, hoping to turn out savvy consumers and black entrepreneurs, and construct a black church that operates like a business.

The plan is still developing; it has no corporations signed up, and a planned $5.4 million headquarters on Ray’s 19-acre lakeside campus is still just a drawing. But Ray has attracted the support of 10 of the most powerful black pastors in the country to serve as governors for the center. It was their enormous clout and legitimacy that helped attract the interest of the Republican congressmen. The center’s governors include the Rev. Floyd Flake, former six-term congressman and pastor of Allen AME in New York; Bishop T.D. Jakes of Dallas and his highly successful TV and book ministries; and Bishop Charles E. Blake of West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles.

With their giant churches, tens of millions of dollars in book and video sales, and huge national TV ministries, they help Ray offer access to millions of black churchgoers — and their pocketbooks.

“What they’re talking about doing is long overdue,” said the Rev. Mark Lyons of the 6,000-member Mt. Olive Baptist Church in Fort Lauderdale. “If they’re serious and sincere, they’re going to wield major power with the type of combined access and influence they control.”

With the shadow of a scandal in the backdrop, the center could face some skepticism from the troops it seeks to help. Last year the Rev. Henry Lyons, a longtime pastor in St. Petersburg, was convicted on state and federal charges of stealing $4 million from the coffers of the National Baptist Convention USA during his term as its president. Lyons was also convicted of defrauding corporations that wanted to do business with the convention’s millions of members. The Rev. A.B. Coleman, who was chairman of the Florida General Baptist Convention during Lyons’ reign, said the scandal has left him and a lot of black churchgoers wary of any large-scale, centralized effort to mix church and business.

“The concept is a laudable one, but the problem with this sort of thing is, historically, it ends up benefiting the people in control, not the people in the pews,” said Coleman, 22-year pastor of St. Andrew’s Missionary Baptist in Jacksonville and a board member of Florida Memorial College in Miami. “I need to understand how it is to be controlled, what safeguards are in place.”

Listen to how this former attorney dismisses the young man’s (legitimate) concerns.  Did I mention, before forming the church, Ray filed for bankruptcy?

Ray, a supremely confident man, is unmoved by such talk.

That’s debilitating to my time, and I’m not going to waste one minute of it on ulterior motives or speaking out of ignorance,” he said. “We cannot allow the failures of the past to prevent future success.” Ray’s plan is to hire a Fortune 500-style chief operating officer to manage day-to-day operations,** and to hire outside auditing, tax and accounting firms to do the center’s paperwork. Legions of researchers, economists and lawyers also would be hired to direct the vision laid out by the center’s governors and Ray, who will (of course) be chief executive officer.

. . .

Ray grew up a deeply religious boy in a 150-member Pentecostal “holy roller” church in Joliet, Ill., which he recalls as smaller than his office is today. It was the kind of church he tried to help with tailored legal advice in 1982 as a Notre Dame-trained lawyer in private practice in Dallas.

“I saw so much potential there if only they’d organize. But I think it was all a little scary for them,” Ray said. “They loved me, I loved them, but they weren’t ready.”

He left for the lucrative world of medical malpractice law, and was moving in social circles peopled with the successful.By 1986, he was ordained by the Church of God in Christ and married to American Airlines ticket agent Brenda Pikes. Today, his wife is known as Pastor Brenda.

He attracted the attention of super-lawyer Willie Gary of Stuart.

{{Willie Gary’s Boeing 737 “Wings of Justice II” gold ‘n all…) (at least Mr. Stuart seems to have earned the status of super-lawyer)(One of 11 children of Turner and Mary Gary, Willie Gary was born in Eastman, Georgia and raised in migrant farming communities in Florida, Georgia and the Carolinas.  “Attorney Willie E. Gary earned his reputation as “The Giant Killer” by taking down some of America’s most well-known corporate giants on behalf of his clients. He has won some of the largest jury awards and settlements in U.S. history, including more than 150 cases valued in excess of $1 million each. Gary’s amazing success has earned him national recognition as a leading trial attorney.”}}

Also:  Youtube Attorney Willie Gary Accused Of Sexual Assault (sounds like possible extortion by the plaintiffs, DNK),

Both adult sons (one, an attorney, the other growing marijuana) in trouble with the law, and (@ May 2011) Willie Gary and one other are on the top hit list of unpaid property taxes in the area.

The Florida Bar reprimands Sekou Gary, son of prominent Stuart attorney Willie Gary

by Nadia Vanderhoof on May 31, 2011 @ 4:53pm

 Sekou Gary, son of prominent Stuart attorney Willie Gary, was publicly reprimanded by The Florida Bar following a Feb. 17 court order. …
In April 2010, Gary’s other son, Kobie O. Gary, who pleaded guilty to conspiracy to grow and distribute marijuana, was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison by U.S. District Court Judge K. Michael Moore. . . . .

Sewall’s Point resident Willie Gary and digital design mogul John Textor of Jupiter Island were at the top of the list among those the tax collector recentlypublicized as having the highest unpaid property taxes in Martin county. [FN5] Some of those among the late bills, such as Textor’s, have since been paid.

Others, like Gary’s, remain outstanding.

It was a heady time, and Ray was flying all over trying cases, sometimes with Gary, speaking at conferences and spending a lot of money.

Two months before he accepted Gary’s invitation to join forces in January 1990, Ray filed for bankruptcy with debts of more than $100,000.

“We have been transparent about our financial problems, and we have worked ourselves out of indebtedness,” Ray said. “We preach about that: ‘Let’s go up. I’m going to work out of it and you can, too.’ Just be faithful, tithe and manage your finances

(**would that be Earl W. Hamilton?  See below for how that went, at a $71K salary….)

Corporation Filings for the National Center:

The churches involved (then) besides Bishop Ray’s (see above!) included “COGIC” (Church of God in Christ), Pentecostal Church of Christ, New Birth Missionary Baptist,

File notice shows that in 1999 they had not spelled name consistently throughout the document and forgotten to include a principal place of business.  However the first Governors listed include 8 “Bishops”  from various churches — in FL, GA, OK, TN, NC, OH, LA, and L.A. (Los Angeles).

The Tulsa one has an interesting Wikipedia Description for Carlton Pearson: who was from San Diego, mentored by Oral Roberts, campaigned for Bush, ran a Mega-Church in Tulsa, and eventually was thrown out for failing to believe in the doctrine of eternal hell; he said, we make hell here.  Really — read it! I also searched OK sec. of state (by this name) to find fully 23 businesses (nonprofit, most but not all) including a “Child and Family Services Development, Inc.” inc. in 2000; interesting:

Although the USA is supposed to be inclusive, some of the church groups have no such intent, particularly for homosexuals.

In March 2004, after hearing Pearson’s argument for inclusion, the Joint College of African-American Pentecostal Bishops concluded that such teaching was heresy.[1] Declared a heretic by his peers, Pearson rapidly began to lose his influence.[8]Membership at the Higher Dimensions Family Church fell below 1,000, and the church lost its building to foreclosure in January 2006. The church members began meeting in the nearby Trinity Episcopal Church as the New Dimensions Worship Center.[9]

The New Dimensions Worship Center

In November 2006, Pearson was accepted as a United Church of Christ minister.

In June 2008, the New Dimensions Worship Center moved its meetings to the All Souls Unitarian Church in Tulsa. On September 7, 2008, Pearson held his final service for the New Dimensions Worship Center, and it was absorbed into the All Souls Unitarian Church.[10][11]

[The Christ Universal Temple (Chicago)

In May 2009, Pearson was named the interim minister of the Christ Universal Temple, a large New Thought congregation in Chicago, Illinois.[12] On January 3, 2011, it was reported that he had left this position.[13]

That’s just one of the 8 involved in the National Center for Faith-Based Initiatives, betting back to which:

By 11/1/2001, it appears they have a Washington, D.C. Attorney , Colby M. May, who helped clean up the language (after another administrative correction in filing) and specifies what to do when it’s dissolved. On 10/26/2011 Mr. May was testifying before The Judiciary Committee / Subcommittee on the Constitution (!!), in his capacity as “Senior Counsel and Director of the American Center for Law and Justice’s Washington Office (ACLJ),”** saying:  my testimony today is provided in that capacity. The ACLJ defends religious liberties throughout the world. Nowhere is our effort more profound, however, than here at home. This nation’s founders cherished religious liberty. In fact, the Founding Fathers built this nation with the assurance that an American would be free to practice the religion of his or her choice without the fear of government interference

**which just opened the year before.  For “ACLJ” think Jay Sekulow — “TIME Magazine: Sekulow is one of the 25 most influential evangelicals in America; ACLJ is a “powerful counterweight to the liberal American Civil Liberties Union,” etc.

LET’s LOOK AT THE IOWA GRANTEE — does its web presence bear out in corporate filings?  Who is Dr. Daryl Vanderwilt?

2007 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives IA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations 90IJ0859 THE COMPASSION CAPITAL (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM-RURAL 1 93009 DR DARYL VANDERWILT $ 50,000

and in 2009 (=from same source, cut & pasted differently)

FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
2009 Iowa Center for Faith Based & Community Initiatives  W DES MOINES IA 93711 1 0 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 1,000,000 

(the 2009 grant series it got is a “Strengthening Communities” part of “ARRA” and usaspending.gov says $46 million of grants were given out …TAGGS lists all of them (I just looked) under “report” (CFDA 93711 as you see here. )  They go to cities, governor’s offices of faith-based, ministerial alliances, the Conference of Churches (?), Counties, Departments of Welfare, and a number of groups.  The 91 awards might be worth a closer look. Oh yes, and Catholic Charities.

“ICFBCI” does NOT show as a corporation under this name OR “Strengthen Rural Iowa” on the SOS Corp. search database.  Look for yourself.   Iowan  corps and nonprofits have to file in-state, just like any other states require groups to….   How did. Dr. Vanderwilt get this particular series, then?

EIN is 30-0302858

Iowa Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Inc. IA 2007 $33,728 990 18 30-0302858
Iowa Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Inc. IA 2006 $40,181 990 15 30-0302858

This Taggs.hhs.gov site indicates that the areas in yellow are the grantee’s responsibility to fill in, as to ‘ARRA’ grants (grant series cited by GAO for failures to file income taxes, etc., possibly owing the IRS more in taxes than the total amount of grants altogether).  This group’s Grant detail is filled with Yellow “to be supplied” fields throughout but at least shows a “DUNS”# 189950996.  (This is just a worksheet.)…

HHS Recovery Act Recipient Reporting Readiness Tool

Step 4. Review and Copy the Grant Awards Data

TAGGS provides some – but not all – of the data needed for the Recipient Report. Recipients are responsible for directly collecting and reporting all required data to FederalReporting.gov. Data that HHS does not currently collect are highlighted in yellow. Do not copy this highlighted information. Please enter the appropriate data for your organization in these required fields. For assistance with entering these data please contact (etc.)

The IOWA Center for Faith-Based Initiatives self-describes as a 501(c)3 supported by HHS — not a part of a Governor’s Office as some other groups (OH, NJ) seem to be.

Strengthen Rural Iowa (SRI) was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009, Strengthening Communities Fund – Nonprofit Capacity Building Program.    The SRI project consisted of two cycles: Cycle 1: April – December, 2010 and Cycle 2: January – September, 2011.

Collaborating partners include:

Iowa Department of Human Services

Wendy Rickman, Division Administrator, Adult, Children and Family Services

Awardees from 2010 Cycle include a Kids University Children’s Counseling Center, some anti-violence agencies, some churches, and various nonprofits

It was formed as a nonprofit in 6/2005 but is not (yet) found on the Iowa Secretary of State Corporations page.  We are in 2011.  Description from the site of Director Darryl Vanderwilt (portion relating to this group only):

As Executive Director of the Iowa Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives he has, within the past 5 years, led staff in attracting nearly $2M in grant funding for major projects designed to assist small Iowa nonprofit organizations gain greater capacity for serving the state’s most vulnerable citizens. Daryl and his wife, Suz, are avid travelers and most recently visited India, Pakistan, Tanzania and its territory Zanzibar. While in Tanzania he threatened to scale the 19,000 foot heights of Mt. Kilimanjaro, but his lemonade froze the first night out forcing bitter retreat. Things are much better now.

How cute.  The 7 staff listed are ALL MEN, in fact all middle-aged to elderly Caucasian men (while I’m on the topic) with an elderly woman volunteer at the bottom.  One of them is very interested in children’s groups, it seems. Only the ED mentions having a wife (?)

Resources Acquisition.   Since 2005, the Iowa Center and its affiliate, Prevailing Strategic Resources, have developed grant projects to assist non-profit organizations and agencies acquire:

  1. $1,850,000 to conduct capacity building for nonprofit organizations throughout the state (Strengthening Communities Fund, Targeted Capacity Building, and Compassion Capital Fund grant programs, (OCS/ACF/DHHS);
  2. $1,780,000 for mentoring children of Prisoners, Second Chance, and School-Based mentoring grant programs;
  3. $1,275,000 to fund Rural Health Care ServicesOutreach Grant Programs for health care institutions and schools;
  4. $16,230,118 to assist the Iowa Communications Network in developing partnerships and a proposal to bring Broadband capabilities to all 99 os the state’s counties (Broadband Technology Opportunities Program (NTIA/Department of Commerce).
(THAT #4 sounds like a good project for sure).

But where is its incorporation in Iowa?

OHIO Office of Faith-Based:

This one is a little sickening, and I’ll let another writer report it:  WeCare America (contractor) had ties to the Bush Administration.  After squandering grants, mis-using them (it seems pretty clear) — you follow the trail — WeCare America (Virginia group) closed up shop and now its invoices are being handled b an Assemblies of God church.  Sisterhen had already moved onto other work by the time the 2007 Ohio Governor caught up with the scandal.

Inquiry Launched Regarding Religious Social Services in Ohio (Updated)

The Roundtable on Religion and Social Welfare Policy has an important story on an investigation that Ohio governor Ted Strickland has launched into some of the dealings of the Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-based and Community Initiatives under the former administration.  (As the story notes, “[u]nlike faith-based offices in other states, Ohio’s office is unique in having been established permanently by state law, rather than being the directive of a particular governor.”)   Since taking office, “Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland has replaced staff in the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives and ordered an investigation into a contract awarded to a Virginia-based organization called We Care America that was paid to administer a program providing grants to small faith-based and community nonprofits.”

Self-explanatory:  http://www.uaprogressiveaction.com/node/758

Sept. 12, 2007 official report of the Investigation from State Office of Inspector General: on allegations of Contract Steering Fraud.  The report was finished in four months (pretty quick):

While not allowing that claim (I think) it does note:

The Office of Inspector General (“OIG”) received information indicating that there may have been contract irregularities involving the contract We Care America (“WCA”) had with the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (“GOFBCI”). As a result, the OIG opened an investigation. The OIG reviewed records and conducted several interviews during the course of the investigation. The OIG also requested that the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (“ODJFS”) Chief Inspector’s Office conduct an audit of the WCA contract, since ODJFS is the designated fiscal agent for GOFBCI.

As a result of our investigation, we determined that GOFBCI followed the proper procedures to secure their contract with WCA. We found no evidence to indicate that the selection of WCA was the result of political pressure or other improper influences.

We found that GOFBCI and ODJFS should have exercised more due diligence in monitoring WCA activities and in processing WCA’s invoices to ensure that WCA had actually provided the equipment and services they were billing to GOFBCI. Consequently, the ODJFS Chief Inspector’s audit revealed discrepancies in the WCA invoices that resulted in findings for recovery totaling $125,622.35, and an additional $485,094.95 in other “questioned costs.”

Our investigation found acts of omission occurred when GOFBCI and ODJFS failed to exercise proper due diligence in monitoring the WCA contract, and when contract management training was not provided to their employees.

THis nice discussion  — from the fraud investigation — shows how Like President Bush, thus goes Ohio:


Background In January of 2001, President George W. Bush signed an executive order establishing the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. As a result, Ohio became interested in creating a similar office on the state level that would marshal the assets known as Ohio’s faith-based resources.

Subsequently, State Representative John White introduced H.B. 175in the 124th Ohio General Assembly, which set up the Task Force on Nonprofit, Faith-Based, and other Nonprofit Organizations. The bill passed into law in June 2001.

To review:  The President signs an Executive Order in January 2001, and by June, a State Rep has a Bill for a Task FOrce to copy this, voted into law.

Did I mention the Year 2000 election was hotly contested, one of the most hotly contested elections since about 1888, as we know, a recount was demanded and in process in Florida, but was stopped by a 5-4 vote of the U.S. Supreme Court, making Bush president!

The Controversy Over the 2000 Presidential Election Results  “In 2000 George W. Bush eventually won the electoral college by the smallest margin ever witnessed, with 271 votes compared to 267 votes for Al Gore. The state that proved pivotal for the delayed over all outcomes of the presidential election results was Florida.”

Read more: http://newsflavor.com/opinions/the-controversy-over-the-2000-presidential-election-results/#ixzz1exhijhqs

This site (the 2000 Election Must Not Be Forgotten) describes how the Sept 11, 2011 “terrorist attacks” quenched the discussion of how Bush got elected:  And I found a chart of which states Bush crushed Gore (% of votes) and which the reverse was true.  I noticed a parallel between states with marriage movements & faith-based offices and Bush-Friendly ones.

DISCUSSION (from the investigative report of 2007), continued:

. . . In October 2003, Governor Taft selected Krista Sisterhen as the first director of the new agency. After her appointment, GOFBCI was charged with pursuing programming to address three primary social issues:

1. Ex-criminal offenders and their families, 2. Vulnerable youth, ages 16 to 20, coming out of foster care or incarceration, and 3. Strengthening marriages and preventing out-of-wedlock births.

(Ohio already had in place a “Commission on Fatherhood” specifically targeting counties with lots of single-female-headed households….)

Staffing for the agency consisted of GOFBCI employees, as well as employees on loan from ODJFS and the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

In order to accomplish its newly established priority programs, GOFBCI launched two major initiatives involving different funding sources. GOFBCI initially received $625,000.00 from a federal Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Title 20 (“TANF”) grant for fiscal years 2004 and 2005.

As in Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, the first thing this office did was to GRAB TANF FUNDING.

GOFBCI was again awarded $625,000.00 for fiscal years 2006 and 2007, but the funding source changed from federal TANF dollars to state general revenue funds.

Note:  Ohio also has put in place (check year), a “Families and Children First” setup which specifies how much it loves flexible funding, relating to accessing money from the general fund, bypassing legislative restrictions.  (too tired to look up again just now).

GOFBCI applied for, and was awarded, a $1,000,000 grant from the United States Department of Health and Human Services to fund the Ohio Compassion Capital Program. 

Well, Krista Sisterhen who had previously worked with the Mayor of Indianapolis, Stephen Goldsmith, who had previously worked in Bush Admin, I suppose had nothing to do with it. ….

The report goes on — really it’s quite the read, how moderately the auditor reports some astoundingly poor practices, and endeavors to make the reader feel a little sorry for We Care America [“WCA”] (incorporated in 2001 Virginia, probably for FBO purposes to start with) and funde din large part by faith-based grants) that it had to go bankruptwhen the Ohio Department of Administrative Services (“DAS”) cancelled some contract — with very good reason!  Then a 3rd entity somehow went around the block. .  A footnote 4 says “According to individuals involved in the audit, in its bankruptcy petition, WCA claims the state of Ohio as a debtor, rather than a creditor.”  OK, so we have a GOFBCI contractor firm that can’t tell a debit from a credit? Would this have something to do with why it went bankrupt?


ODJFS Chief Inspector’s Audit Shortly after his February, 2007, appointment to the position of GOFBCI Director, Eric McFadden noticed what appeared to be some questionable instances relating to the WCA contract and payments to that organization. For instance, he noticed after reviewing GOFBCI records that WCA received overpayments, duplicate payments, payments of late fees and past due charges, overhead fees for the rental of office space and parking spots for WCA’s Columbus Office, and payments for meals that appeared to be outside the scope of the contract.

One might well ask why Krista (who worked at GOFBCI 2003-2006) didn’t notice these.  Or, overlooked them.

As a result of these apparent questionable payments made pursuant to the contract, we requested that the ODJFS Chief Inspector’s Office conduct an audit of the WCA contracts, invoices, and payments. The ODJFS Chief Inspector was provided a list of the questionable transactions prepared by Director McFadden.

. . .

The Baylor University Case Study

Of the questionable expenditures uncovered, the Baylor University Institute for Studies of Religion GOFBCI Case Study Report deserves specific mention. (See Exhibit D.)

WCA contracted with William H. Wubbenhorst, a management consultant with ORC Marco International,[FN5]to provide an overview of GOFBCI since its inception. Mr. Wubbenhorst partnered with Professor Bryan R. Johnson, who is affiliated with the Baylor Institute for Studies of Religion at Baylor University. [But was in 2001 at Penn State, see FN6]

(Let’s not mention in this report that Wubbenhorst is listed as a “nonresident scholar” at Baylor, as we speak, and you gotta read his bio there [FN7])

The result of this collaboration was the Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives: A Case Study, published in January, 2007.

The 20-page case study documents the creation and activities of Ohio’s GOFBCI. The cover of the report depicts an academic building and directs any inquiries to the Baylor University Office of Public Relations, along with a Baylor University web-site, as the contact point.

However, the resulting report reads more like an infomercial for GOFBCI and WCA, rather than the independent academic case study it purports to be.

SMILE . . . .

When interviewed, Ms. Sisterhen said that the draft copy of the Baylor case study she read contained a disclosure statement revealing that GOFBCI had actually paid for the study. However, there is no mention in the final published edition that the case study was actually paid for by GOFBCI, through WCA, at a cost of $6,250.00. We are in no position to judge the academic integrity of not disclosing that the case study was paid for by the entity being studied and utilized to enhance national exposure for WCA and showcase GOFBCI. However, even a casual observer would find the case study’s staging and marketing to be disingenuous.


107.12 Governor’s office of faith-based and community initiatives.

(A) As used in this section, “organization” means a faith-based or other organization that is exempt from federal income taxation under section 501(c)(3) of the “Internal Revenue Code of 1986,” 100 Stat. 2085, 26 U.S.C. 1, as amended, and provides charitable services to needy residents of this state.

INTERESTING — because religious organizations are already exempt as religious organizations — we don’t get to scrutinize their tax statements — because they are “religious.”  Such a deal.  however, we don’t get to scrutinize all the faith-based groups’ either, because they aren’t that great at staying incorporated and filing them!

Here is a nice form soliciting a SUBGRANTEE contract from Faith-based groups in Ohio, showing that another government office (OJDFS) serves as the “Fiscal Agent” of the faith-based groups:  It’s a little DENSE but shows that they are working with this office to using TANF funds and get the faith-based groups to become trainers.  Thus we have a complete circle — abuse from religious leaders leads women to flee their marriages and become dependent on welfare sometimes.  Then, seeking help, they can go back and face the same philosophies while being trained how to seek for work!

(B) There is hereby established within the office of the governor the governor’s office of faith-based and community initiatives. The office shall:

(1) Serve as a clearinghouse of information on federal, state, and local funding for charitable services performed by organizations;

(2) Encourage organizations to seek public funding for their charitable services;

(3) Assist local, state, and federal agencies in coordinating their activities to secure maximum use of funds and efforts that benefit people receiving charitable services from organizations;

(4) Advise the governor, general assembly, and the advisory board of the governor’s office of faith-based and community initiatives on the barriers that exist to collaboration between organizations and governmental entities and on ways to remove the barriers.

(C) The governor shall appoint an executive director and such other staff as may be necessary to manage the office and perform or oversee the performance of the duties of the office. Within sixty days after being appointed, and every twelve months thereafter, the executive director shall distribute to the advisory board and review with the board a strategic plan. The executive director shall report to the board at least quarterly on proposed initiatives and policies. A report shall include the condition of the budget and the finances of the office.

(D)(1) There is hereby created the advisory board of the governor’s office of faith-based and community initiatives. The board shall consist of the following members:

Well that’s all I feel like saying in Ohio.  By the time you catch up, the leadership will have changed and be off somewhere, replicating the process.

What’s Up

First of all, union of religion with government — and changing government to break down due process and other protections — is necessary to push certain empire plans, alas.  President Bush “reigned” from 2001-2009.  He issued 291 Executive orders [FN1] the first two of which were to bring on the religion.  He drastically restructured society after 9/11/2001 and the continuation to put up parallel systems of networking — WITHIN the executive branch of federal and state government, to pursue some very NeoCon ideas — has been widely ignored by people wishing to “reform the courts,” and by groups claiming to protect women and children, or stop domestic violence — claims that bear no more credibility than this faith-based stuff bears any resemblance to the roots in faith it claims.

Unifying phrases such as “faith-based” simply sanctifies some pretty awful behaviors in the name of “for the good of the people.”  I am female, I am mother, and over time have witnessed and experienced the wrath of the fear-based, scapegoat-talking disenfranchisement of women.

This struggle has occupied one-third of my adult life, and in retrospect, shadowed much of it, affecting who I became over time. This is not the America I was born in, or endorse. This is not a good export-culture, one that resents and flees the limits of the Constitution, while vaguely citing “American Values.” No,  it better resembles the expansion of the British Empire (or should I say previous Roman?) in goals, religion, language, and means.  I do not support this trend, and will do what I can to NOT support it financially; people are dying needlessly around even the family courts, older people, including widows, are having their real estate disenfranchised (there’s a public guardian racket too, not just family court), and there is an increased of poverty directly resulting from claims to “end welfare as we know it.”   And that’s just appetizers, apparently.   So, what about the other venues?

What the hell is a “faith-based group” anyhow?  Do you have a definition of the term?  Because I don’t, but I can watch what people do who claim funds from that grant stream, and identify certain behaviors.  I also know that what President Bush meant by “Jesus” was comfortable with starting wars based on rumor, and while the Jesus Christ of the New Testament actually required repentance and some change of behavior (including ethics), it appears that this President was fine with “Jesus and nothing else” and “the end justifies the means.”

The Project for the New American Century (“PNAC”) (cliffnotes)

I was busy getting beaten up at home and struggling to maintain a work life (and help our children in the circumstances) while this was formed.  In some ways it’s as though I missed about 15-20 years of political developments in the planned chaos of violence and custody struggles.  This PNAC group’s name (though not all of its members, or their policies) is actually new to me — how about you?

From InformationClearinghouse:  Article is 8 years old and calls for urgent “active and informed involvement of the People, all of them.”

The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required.

By William Rivers Pitt

02/25/03 — – The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.  . . .

PNAC’s “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush’s special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don’t cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it

Summary of Pitt Article, above:

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown.  . . .

Apparently, starting in 1997 (year after welfare reform) part of the plan, as stated by the Project for the New American Century (nonprofit formed in 1997, advocating for US Global Dominance a la Regan), was that what’s Good for America is Good for the World.[FN3] especially military dominance.  25 people signed the “Statement of Principles,” and Wikipedia says 17 had positions in the Bush Administration.  Among these 25 are Gary Bauer

  • (Reagan Undersecretary of Education, then 1988-1999 President of Family Research Council, after James Dobson; it was part of Focus on the Family til forced to separate because (probably of its lobbying) of tax-exempt status, )

and Jeb Bush (as in Governor of Florida, brother of George) and others.  This relates to today’s post.

With America as the policeman to the world, multiple wars in simultaneous theaters, actually talking about possibly winning a “thermonuclear war,” — we are talking pure insanity.  This group’s founder pushed Bush hard to invade Iraq.  What I can’t seem to persuade groups and people I work with (around “familycourtmatters”) is that there is a war to dominate cyberspace, and your tax dollars are funding the opposite side!  Yet still they want to talk psychology, reason, and unfair judges.  This shows a certain brainwashing — and for a fact, some of the advocacy groups have been paid off to shut up, or change the topic.  THAT smacks of religion, too, of cult following.

People (too few!) who actually study some of the grants databases and grantees in the marriage & faith-based movements can see clearly that many of the programs being pushed by Bush (originated concepts) had their origins with military research and demonstration, and professors or corporations founded by people with a military background.  Any one who’s gone to war has to understand the role of propaganda and seizing control of the media to soften up the (natives, populace) so they resist less; it makes dominance easier.  This is actually a form of war on citizens, to deprive them of their rights and prepare them to support foreign wars for global dominance also.

While I’m here, WOMEN ~ Mothers & daughters ~ can be a serious force opposing war, and have to be kept in their place for things to happen (see “Pray the Devil Back to Hell“).  Your average mother doesn’t give birth to produce cannon fodder, or someone to be raped on the battlefield either.  What better way to handle this than through the “family courts”? ??  Whip up anti-female sentiment, split the country also into men/women’s camps, and perhaps they won’t notice what happened to their due process in the heat to win.  Change the value system by changing the language — that’s AFCC’s byline.  Switch from justice to therapy for profit.  Establish arbitrary and externalized definitions of “normal” behavior, and sanitize history.

Control the educational system and encourage TALK while discouraging THOUGHT and DIALOGUE.

Control ALL systems that supervise human beings from womb to tomb.  Fry brain cells through information overload, a way to paralyze action — but if not, drugging and incarceration can also be used, or threatened.  Or bankrupt people.

Change Language:  Invent new vague phrases to describe criminal activity, deactivate language by deleting the subject, verb, and direct object (acted upon).

John swung the bat and hit the ball over the fence.  (clear reference to baseball)


The ball was smacked over the fence. (who did it.  With what? where?)


Promising Practices in achieving Home Runs (where’s the verb?)

or — truer to life

No Child Left Behind // Race to the Top (vague enough yet?)

. . .to, when it comes to the sublimely ridiculous:

“NWNW” [FN4]

The cluster — or, rather, network — of groups claiming grant upon grant, squandering it, and regrouping elsewhere  to repeat the cycle, and call others to the banquet laid out by then-President George Bush, pretty much on taking office, by issuing the Executive Orders, after an unusually contested election in 2000, to begin the reign of a king, [FN1] starting with welcoming in the same religion the founders of this country FLED a few centuries earlier.

#1 — Executive Order 13198
Agency Responsibilities With Respect to Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

  • Signed:   January 29, 2001

#2 — Executive Order 13199
Establishment of White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives

  • Signed:   January 29, 2001


[FN1]  “to begin the reign of a king”

Administration of George W. Bush (2001-2009)

Disposition of Executive orders signed by President George W. Bush:

  • 2009 – E.O. 13484 – E.O. 13488 (5 Executive orders issued)
  • 2008 – E.O. 13454 – E.O. 13483 (30 Executive orders issued)
  • 2007 – E.O. 13422 – E.O. 13453 (32 Executive orders issued)
  • 2006 – E.O. 13395 – E.O. 13421 (27 Executive orders issued)
  • 2005 – E.O. 13369 – E.O. 13394 (26 Executive orders issued)
  • 2004 – E.O. 13324 – E.O. 13368 (45 Executive orders issued)
  • 2003 – E.O. 13283 – E.O. 13323 (41 Executive orders issued)
  • 2002 – E.O. 13252 – E.O. 13282 (31 Executive orders issued)
  • 2001 – E.O. 13198 – E.O. 13251 (54 Executive orders issued)

291 Total Executive orders Issued

[FN2]  “let thy gifts be to thyself”:

Hey, I’m for legitimate hire, but Daniel here already was taken care of, he didn’t seek extra supplementary income for dispensing his wisdom.  Compare with behaviors of public professionals that also need to set up private corporations, market them through the courts, and gain multiple streams of income — from the same public ordered to consume the classes, sometimes literally extorted to do so (i.e., go back to jail if you can’t pay this arrears, or sign up for our nice fatherhood program:  Kentucky State Divorce Education program, “Turning It Around” (one of about 11 such on the page).

Among the DV advocates, I realize work is work and hard work is hard work.  But as I pointed out in “About the Blog” (recent page added, and my last post), it’s clear that being paid to speak affects one’s speech, usually in this manner:  Censorship of the truth to retain the position.  The prophet Daniel specifically declines this in the account.  He is not greedy, and his prophesy is not for sale.

[FN3]  “What’s Good for America is Good for the World…”

(some “statement of principles” signers)

The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

Elliott Abrams    Gary Bauer    William J. Bennett    Jeb Bush

Dick Cheney    Eliot A. Cohen    Midge Decter    Paula Dobriansky    Steve Forbes

Aaron Friedberg    Francis Fukuyama    Frank Gaffney    Fred C. Ikle

Donald Kagan    Zalmay Khalilzad    I. Lewis Libby    Norman Podhoretz

Dan Quayle    Peter W. Rodman    Stephen P. Rosen    Henry S. Rowen

Donald Rumsfeld    Vin Weber    George Weigel    Paul Wolfowitz

Paul Wolfowitz is credited as ideological father of THe Project for a New American Century” so here’s from 1. wikipedia and 2. nndb sites.  I’m including this for a look at some of the clout, the neocon, the causes, and (some of) the hypocrisy/cronyism:

1.  Wikipedia:

Paul Dundes Wolfowitz (born December 22, 1943) is a former United States Ambassador to IndonesiaU.S. Deputy Secretary of Defense, President of the World Bank, and former dean of the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University. He is currently a visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, working on issues of international economic developmentAfrica and public-private partnerships,[3] and chairman of the US-Taiwan Business Council.[4]

He is a leading neoconservative.[5] As Deputy Secretary of Defense, he was “a major architect of President Bush’s Iraq policy and … its most hawkish advocate.[6] Donald Rumsfeld in his interview with Fox News on February 8, 2011 said that Wolfowitz was the first to bring up Iraq after 9/11 attacks during a meeting at presidential retreat at Camp David. After serving two years, he resigned as president of the World Bank Group ending what a Reuters report called “a protracted battle over his stewardship, prompted by his involvement in a high-paying promotion for his companion.”[7][8]

. . .From that fn8 here:  “

Wolfowitz exit (from world bank) seen clearing way for progress

Wolfowitz took the top post in the bank — responsible for billions of dollars in aid projects around the world — in 2005.

A former U.S. deputy defence secretary already controversial as a leading architect of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, he won praise from some in Africa and Asia for his bank policies, which included a strong campaign against corruption in aid programmes and in the governments of recipients.


For many people Wolfowitz’s role in the promotion of Shaha Riza, an expert at the bank, an involvement which a bank panel found broke several rules, had wiped out any credibility he might have had as an anti-corruption champion.

Many African governments in particular had grown used to being lectured by the World Bank about good governance and Wolfowitz’s actions raised claims of hypocrisy among some.

“The way Wolfowitz negotiated a pay rise for his girlfriend is exactly the same as the way in which President Deby has embezzled oil revenues,” said Ngarlegy Yorongar, a veteran opposition critic of Chad’s President Idriss Deby.

Wolfowitz’s father — but not his father’s relatives — escaped the Holocaust.
NNDB (I’ve quoted on other posts)

Born: 22-Dec1943
Birthplace: New York City

Gender: Male
Religion: Jewish
Race or Ethnicity: White
Sexual orientation: Straight
Occupation: Government
Party Affiliation: Democratic [1]

Nationality: United States
Executive summary: President of the World Bank, 2005-07

Three days after September 11, it was Wolfowitz, not Rumsfeld or Bush, who first declared that America’s new policy would be “ending states who sponsor terrorism”. He was a primary advocate of the preemptive strike on Iraq, eliminating the alleged threat posed by Hussein’s frightful stockpiles of still-unseen weapons of mass destruction.
. . .
In October 2003, Wolfowitz was huddling with U.S. military commanders in Baghdad at the luxurious and heavily guarded Hotel al-Rashid when the hotel came under rocket attack. Fifteen people were killed, but Wolfowitz was unharmed. It’s the closest he’s ever come to combat. Wolfowitz was of fighting age during the Vietnam War, but studied mathematics at Cornell University, which got him a deferment from the draft.

He was also a leading participant in the Project for the New American Century. He was nominated as Deputy Secretary of Defense by Bush in February 2001, and became a strong advocate for invading Iraq in 2003.

In testimony before Congress during the run-up to that war, Wolowitz said that General Eric Shinseki‘s estimate that at least several hundred thousand troops would be necessary to capture and hold Iraq was “wildly off the mark”. Wolfowitz said that instead, fewer than 100,000 American troops would be necessary, and added, “It is hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself. . . .

As the Iraq situation deteriorated, Wolfowitz was forced out at the Defense Department, and he was subsequently appointed President of the World Bank, despite having no pertinent experience in banking, finance, or development. His tenure there came to an inauspicious end when it was revealed that his girlfriend, who also worked at the World Bank, had received rapid promotion and a favorable appointment at the US State Department. After announcing his resignation from the World Bank, Wolfowitz publicly blamed the media for creating the perception of nepotism.

Among other posts and honors. . . . and multiple degrees . . .

[FN4] No Wedding No Womb —

= a blogging campaign, one of whose originators was found at a closed-door meeting in Kansas, in the company of Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, and others taking marriage funding with strong HHS connections.  I took time out to place comments on on-line papers documenting this, and haven’t gotten around to a full post yet.  The flip side of No Wedding = No Womb is a Wedding = a Womb (it’s an equation, basically).  That’s absolutely ridiculous and offensive to women, married or not.  A wedding should not be about purchasing a womb, but too many are, which married women find out when they sometimes, having raised children, are dumped by selfish husbands who married them for their reproduction, not for companionship.  Wombs can be purchased outside of marriage legally — it’s called surrogate mothers, when done the expensive way.

I have a womb, but I am not a womb, and any bloggers wishing to refer to me (or others of my gender) as one have something coming from the other, equally important parts of at least MY anatomy!  Like the mouth and the mind behind it!   As beautiful as this statue may be, real women come with moving parts, and more of them:

Venus de Milo (though the Greek version, Aphrodite of Milos)

[FN5] Super attorney Willie Gary trying to “weather the storms like everybody else“– that helped Bishop Harold Calvin Ray (above) after HIS bankruptcy, pulling together prominent black pastors (some recovering from recent scandals involving financial fraud themselves) learn how to be “the head and not the tail”….

(times are tough, and the Boeing 737 with the gold-plated sink can’t be run because of fuel prices; also he’s behind on his taxes:

Gary, through property owned by himself in Stuart and with his wife, Gloria, in Sewall’s Point and Indiantown, is facing late fees that total $222,965.49.

Last year, Gary owed $207,708 on his Sewall’s Point home and Stuart law office, which was down from $239,196 in 2009. Each year, Gary was late in paying.

Gary, who said his customized Boeing 737 “Wings of Justice II” remains grounded at Witham Field because of increased fuel prices and other related costs, added that he isn’t trying to hold on to the tax money he owes as an economic strategy.

“We’re trying to weather the storms like everybody else,” Gary said.

What storms?  The jet #2 is grounded.  Like everyone else?  I might take issue with the characterization…

[FN5] WeCare America (Ohio GOFBCI) contracted with “ORC Marco International” who just happened to have an alliance with Byron R. Johnson of Baylor University …

(yes I noticed “MARCO =/= MACRO” but I can’t find the Marco International either, so far)

ORC Macro logo

(ORC stands for “Opinion Research Corp.” and most of these links seem broken.)

How Odd:  ORC Macro belongs to “Macro International” which I looked up in Maryland (as google search showed several MD addresses).  IT appears to have gone through many mergers and/or acquisitions and now may be — or be closely related to — this ICF International (which I mentioned recently as receiving a $1.5 million? grant to set up a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage (or similar long title). It is NOW called, apparently —


[FN6]  Professor Byron R. Johnson before he hit Baylor: and Wubbenhurst says “lack of reliable studies should not derail the President’s plan.*

*note it was by Executive Order — no Congress voted this into law!  But thereafter, state legislatures, such as Ohio’s, (where Bush won, right?) DID

Church-Based Projects Lack Data on Results

Published: April 24, 2001

In his office at the University of Pennsylvania, Prof. Byron R. Johnson has just shut off the electronic chirp on his computer that announced every incoming e-mail message. It was chirping more than 80 times a day, joining the ringing telephone in contrapuntal distraction.

Mr. Johnson is suddenly in demand because he is among the few social scientists who have tried to measure the influence of religion on social problems. Less than a year ago, he joined the Center for Research on Religion and Urban Civil Society, the institute started by his fellow criminologist John J. DiIulio Jr. Not long after his arrival, though, Mr. Johnson was left alone; Mr. DiIulio went to Washington to lead the new White House Office on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. . . .

Notice a little friendly family relations there? about 6 years later, Byron Johnson (now at Baylor Univ, TX) will help validate the OHIO GOFBCI’s work with a nice report.

The truth, Mr. Johnson and many other social scientists say, is that there is little reliable research proving the effectiveness of religious programs. They also add that there is scant evidence showing which religious programs show the best results and how they stack up against secular programs.

”From the left to the right, everyone assumes that faith-based programs work,” Mr. Johnson said. ”Even the critics of DiIulio and his office haven’t denied that. We hear that and just sit back and laugh. In terms of empirical evidence that they work, it’s pretty much nonexistent.

”We’ve created an office out of anecdotes.”

Now, with Congress holding hearings on the Bush plan on Tuesday, Mr. Johnson is being deluged with requests for the research to support the assertions made by President Bush and other politicians that religious programs can transform the lives of drug addicts, criminals, welfare recipients and troubled teenagers, and that it can do so for less money than government programs.

. . .

A body of research is essential to the project’s success for the simple reason that it would be unconstitutional for the government to decide which religious programs to finance based on theology or favoritism or familiarity. President Bush and Mr. DiIulio have frequently said that a record of effectiveness is the only viable measure.

Judging by his track record, starting with the election and the first executive order, constitutionality to have been seems a low priority for this president.  Starting program after program, they then seek validation of effectiveness, sometimes purchasing it …

Wubbenhorst was consulted for this article too:

Even large human service organizations like those affiliated with the United Way are only now beginning to measure the effectiveness of their work, said William H. Wubbenhorst, technical director for ORC Macro International, a consulting firm in Maryland. For years, groups that did keep records tracked only how many people they had served or how much time they spent with clients.

. . .

That is likely to change. Now, Mr. Johnson said, ”we’re going to have a chance to find out how effective faith-based groups are.”

With that, he gathered up his papers and left for a meeting with a foundation that is considering giving him a multimillion-dollar research grant.

Just a little reminder — OH GOFBCI got started by taking from TANF funds…


WeCare America chose Wubbenhurst of “Macro International” who worked with Byron Johnson of Baylor (not mentioned – Wubbenhurst also is listed at Baylor and references his work for OFBCI* in the biography page!)  So what’s the “We Care America” connection, then?:

* of course not that it got a “special mention” in a 2007 investigation by the Ohio State Inspector General, and that the reporter/who paid for the report noted “even a casual observer would find the case study’s staging and marketing to be disingenuous.”

Non-Resident Scholar, Faith-Based & Community Initiatives
ICF Macro International, Inc.

William Wubbenhorst Vitae

William Wubbenhorst serves both as a Coordinator of the FaithService Forum for ICF Macro International, Inc., and also as a non-resident fellow for Baylor University’s Institute for the Study of Religion.

At present, Mr. Wubbenhorst is serving as Subcontract Manager and FBCO Liaison for a[n] $8 million Pathways out of Poverty grant funded by the US Department lf Labor (USDOL).  Mr. Wubbenhorst is responsible for coordinating with project staff at four local sites throughout the country to develop partnerships with FBCOs to recruit, train and place individuals from disadvantaged populations into career track green job positions.

For ICF Macro,** Mr. Wubbenhorst recently served as project director for Training and Technical Assistance provided to 97 Promoting Responsible Fatherhood grantees funded through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Family Assistance.  Most recently he worked on behalf of DHHS’ Administration for Children and Families, to identify best practices associated with abstinence education initiatives provided by non-profit FBCOs to high-risk populations throughout the U.S.

Mr. Wubbenhorst also recently completed a companion project for the Administration for Children and Families that involved a review of 300-400 abstinence education curricula to assure their adherence to legislative intent for Federal funding of abstinence-until-marriage projects.

**I think we’ve established a connection between ICF Macro, and ICF that got a recent TAGGS grant for $1.5 million, although it’s not on my schedule to finish this.  Many of my searches for “ORC Macro International” pulled up ICF sites, although one is is MD and the other VA.
OK, here’s the confirmation from ICF’s site:
Aren’t we glad that the Responsible Fatherhood monies are going to such well-credentialed contractors with a lifelong interest in helping faith-based organizations?  (Mr. Wubbenhorst hails from Boston, incidentally).
I have a lingering question about I C F (other than why TAGGS put spaces in the name) – Why is it classified as “City Government” under TAGGS?  But on its website, city governments are obviously going to be clients — not itself:  SEE?
Fiscal Year Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2011 I C F, INC FAIRFAX VA City Government 90FH0002 NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE 1 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants CINDY CINDY $ 1,500,000
2011 I C F, INC FAIRFAX VA City Government 90PD0271 SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE 1 93647 Social Services Research and Demonstration DR. JEANETTE M HERCIK $ 977,256
2010 I C F, INC FAIRFAX VA City Government 90PD0270 SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 2 93647 Social Services Research and Demonstration DR JEANETTE HERCIK $ 500,000
2009 I C F, INC FAIRFAX VA City Government 90LH0001 NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 93596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund MELISSA ZWAHR $- 702,966
2009 I C F, INC FAIRFAX VA City Government 90PD0270 SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 93647 Social Services Research and Demonstration DR JEANETTE HERCIK $ 500,000
2007 I C F, INC FAIRFAX VA City Government 90LH0001 NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 93596 Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund MELISSA ZWAHR $ 882,080
Melissa Zwahr
Dr. Hercik’s study (linked to 2009 grant row) brings up a serious topic:  increase of Child-Only TANF cases.


Under the Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program, child-only cases— those in which no adult is included in the cash grant—have become an increasing proportion of State caseloads in recent years. Child-only cases are either parental or non-parental— parental cases are those in which the parent is resident in the home, but ineligible for TANF receipt for such reasons as time limits,1 sanction, immigration status, Supplemental Security Income (SSI) receipt, or previous drug felony conviction. Non-parental cases are those in which neither biological parent is present, and another adult, usually a relative, is the primary caregiver.

Research indicates that the percentage of child-only cases relative to overall national caseloads increased 200 percent in one decade –from 12 percent in 1990 to nearly 35 percent by 2000.2 In some States, over fifty percent of their FY2002 caseloads were child-only.3

We don’t know who’s heading up the 2011 grant without further lookups because TAGGS hasn’t yet corrected their publishing the grants recipients with two first names and no last names in the “principal Investigator” field (FN FN) — hardly reassuring for reliable data reporting…
Here Dr. Hercik also collaborated — working for Virginia-based “Caliber Associates” and The Urban Institute — on another report:  This too is a consequence of the Executive Order 2001, resulting in more grants streams for more reports for WORKING individuals . . .
the “We Care” connection (see Ohio Investigative Report):
On Page 110 of the report is found We Care America as a “promising program” (#48 of 50 or so).  Reviewing the program description, it becomse clear that what WeCare mostly consists of (per this description) is of on-line services (i.e., database) connecting faith-based corporations with donors.
Caliber Associates, founded in 1988 it says, has clients mostly in the “life sciences” sector, i.e., a long list of pharmaceutical companies.  They are also diagnostic. So I am wondering what they are doing analyzing faithbased organizations for the criminal sector here….
Dr. Hercik later working for ICF International (which is a merger of Macro International and another firm) would make sense as somewhere in there having connected with Wubbenhurst, or her information did, hence We Care was hired to do this report.  (That’s circumstantial speculation, but possible. . . . . )

The author(s) shown below used Federal funds provided by the U.S. Department of Justice and prepared the following final report:

Document Title: Author(s):

Document No.: Date Received: Award Number:

Development of a Guide to Resources on Faith- Based Organizations in Criminal Justice

Jeanette Hercik, Richard Lewis, Bradley Myles, Caterina Gouvis, Janine Zweig, Alyssa Whitby, Gabriella Rico, Elizabeth McBride

209350 April 2005 OJP-99-C-010


Caliber Associates and The Urban Institute were awarded a contract from the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) to develop a guide to resources on faith-based organizations (FBO) in criminal justice. The impetus for the one-year task order is the need to document the wide range of criminal justice-related services provided by larger FBOs in communities across the nation. The primary purpose of the project is to assist the development of a research agenda to determine whether and under what circumstances the faith community can promote public safety via reducing crime and delinquency. Building on the extant body of knowledge, the project places innovative methodologies for acquiring information on a solid foundation of accepted research practices to meet the requirements of the task order

Again, what IS a “Faith Based Organization” — is it a bunch of ministers, regardless of the characters of their particular faiths (see views on women) — that figured out how to incorporate to respond to the new privileges?  Is it a way to push abstinence education a little further on, and help the concept of women as wombs to prevail (see NWNW — and this had a DEFINITE connection to some faith-based groups in KS — this year — )

I think the handwriting is on the wall, don’t you?  When weighed — the books don’t often balance, but gold and silver (in the form of contracts & grants) IS going to those studying and evaluating the whole mess.

The evaluations have been characterized

by one State Inspector General (OH)

as “to even a casual observer . . . disingenuous”

And the public paid for it, too.

(the glowing report was paid for by the group being reviewed, GOFBCI:  Cost $6,000 this time).

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…[First Published Oct. 20, 2011]

with 3 comments


“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense… First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words

BLOGGER’s UPDATE MESSAGE Aug. 15, 2018: First published Oct. 20, 2011, not updated since except to add post title w/short-link label (a more recent admin. habit) and change the background color to white (necessitated when blog upgrade retroactively changed the default background color to “yuck pale green”), add a post border line and my now standard font: fairly routine changes.

Otherwise I’m not attempting to improve its curb appeal, not even for quotes (now I often add boxes around them), missing or expired images to logos (now I often take screenshots to avoid that happening), and especially not trying to correct TAGGS.HHS.Gov margins; TAGGs itself has had a major restructure since them).  My purpose is for quoting on Twitter.  I think the message is still relevant, still “missed” by too many, and worth repeating.

Some terms, individual and nonprofit or program names now much more mainstream as specific public policy models, I was questioning this far back; just over two years after the entire apparatus was cracked open on comprehending the basic concepts behind “Federal incentives to States” under Welfare Reform (two specific funding streams) + where groups like Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ cult-like, court-connected, nonprofit-spawning  group behaviors style=”(it being a membership association primarily of judges, family lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, and such — people MOST likely to make a FINE living from family court referrals, if not already public civil servants in that capacity!) fit in.

Not including this message and above label, the post is still About 21,000 words (note: that includes all words within all TAGGS tables too)..

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words, by LGH (“LetUsGetHonest”)

(Today [Oct. 2011], I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in Colorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.

The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members.  This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.

I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.

I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous).  Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced.  O Mi God . . . ..

I am publishing without apologies:  Read at your own risk!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – –

The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  

(If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

Concern #2:

A Wikipedia article (flagged by Wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT.  What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor…..  And its habit of acquiring company after company….  Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We are still on this topic:  Who are the groups that got these grants?

Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
(202) 401-9215

ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.

As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.”  Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts.  Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them.  It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.

It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.

“A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”

The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and four Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.


After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.

My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.

I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post).  Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate:  ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.

Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:







= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Intiative, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?

Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

Just for the record, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family.  And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t account for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.

We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductible, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws.  If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions.  That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.

There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:

OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.

I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.

Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”??  Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM) Fairfax
Award Title Sum of Actions

Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name.  OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?

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

The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below).  But 

under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg  (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:

ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract

Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.

ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.

ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  [“ARRA”]

Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:

Recipient: I C F, INC
Address: 9300 LEE HIGHWAY
FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: FAIRFAX
HHS Region: 3
Type: Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment )
Class: City Government


Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90PD0271  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-27-2011 072648579 $ 977,256 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 2,477,256


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2010 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 2 0 ACF 09-17-2010 072648579 $ 500,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 500,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number @@##Amount This Action
2009 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 2 ACF 06-15-2009 072648579 $- 702,966 
2009 90PD0270  SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE 1 0 ACF 09-18-2009 072648579 $ 500,000 
{{LGH:  See FOOTNOTES}} Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $-202,966
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90LH0001  NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE 1 0 ACF 09-21-2007 072648579 $ 882,080 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 882,080


Total of all award actions: $ 3,656,370

{{{FOOTNOTES:  These comments appeared in FY2009 Total “Amount” column.  Unclear whether they’re HHS’ or mine.  Probably mine, from 2011 post..quoting from ICF International website at that time}}

Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.[3]In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.[5]

In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.[6]

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

This is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology.   (read up from its site).  It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share and is danged impressive!

This is the “SHORT” description.  AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth.  Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006

ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.



Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview).  They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…

ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.

Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.

ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.

We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including:  (See site for the list):

… CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

  • Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
    • Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from.  I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization.  (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)

PLEASE NOTE:  the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”  That is the program link.


{{Sev’l expired-link logos from 2011 were removed during 2018 quick-edit update//LGH}}


Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.


Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.

(notice its name shows different here, too).


  • Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code)
Product/Service Code: R408 : Program Management/Support Services
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount: 

(NOTICE the other database {{USASPENDING.gov}} doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)

From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.

Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.

  • Total Dollars:$32,702,456
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 84

NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);

I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million:   The last reward does not show yet.  (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently.  I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field:  Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )

  • Total Dollars:$2,156,370
  • Transactions:1 – 5 of 5

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.

The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.

USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.

Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.

Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.

Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars Clearspending logoin misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.

Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu

You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted


I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.
Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.

dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.

and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:

WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.  {link has moved since….}


National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage 


Funding Opportunity Title: National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage
Funding Opportunity Number (FON): HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207
Program Office: Office of Family Assistance
Funding Type: Discretionary
Funding Category: Cooperative Agreement  (WITH WHOM??)
Announcement Type: Initial
CFDA#: 93.086
Post Date: 06/28/2011
Application Due Date: 07/28/2011


The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.  The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services.

WHAT”S NEW?  Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE:  Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:

This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation!  Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures.  It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so.  Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.

Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.

Apr 28, 1999 AT-99-007 Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children & Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement


ISSUED: April 28, 1999


SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.


DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

David Gray Ross
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .

To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption Incentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings.  I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST.  The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically.  I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!

Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.

Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process.  You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone.  What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order?  I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose.  Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong.  We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics.  Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).

The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).

Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.

As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??))  So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decide ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.

Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases.  Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order.  Bad idea!   But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay.

Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues.  Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:

Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.

In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children.  However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial:  Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange.  Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home:  Hans & Nina Reiser case.   DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does):  see (February 2011 post)

175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USAAn update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.

“This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”
This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count.  Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010.  There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants  enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder.  It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.
 Why?  Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.
Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide.  GUESS WHAT:  THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay).  If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?
IF they do persuade/encourage/facilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their children in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —
ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.

No they don’t.  Not really.  I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues.  If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:

Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.

CAN?  It already had been; the wording should have been “has led.”  And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.

But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.

It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.

“Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..

In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.

Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.

Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.

Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.


This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read.  Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children.  This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable.  Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:


As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.


Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.

Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.

Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant.  Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order.  Same for visitation.

There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.

In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there.  No mention of this seems real odd.

Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.

Of course there are!  The Children’s Rights Council (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo.  Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs”  — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.

A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here).  This report was done by

Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.

In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide.  (etc.   . . . You can read it. . .. )


This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit:  Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).

Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies.  I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.”  I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.”  Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one.  THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:

The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”


“To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”

“serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal.  Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct.  There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:


Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.

It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.

Translation:  This is a “Catch-22.”  If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . .  NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up.  The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”

I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:

ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”



More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

  • Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
  • Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access
  • Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
  • Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
  • Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
  • ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
  • ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

(**aka, do not rape, etc.)

A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence?  (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)

the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times.   The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.

I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012.  I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down  . . .

David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:

Multiple Initiatives Grant

Notice the authors.  (Thoennes is also CPR).   In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:

Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

David Price, Ph.D.

Policy Studies Inc.

999 18th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 863-0900

(on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)

Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555

However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start?  Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate


Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had.  This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know.  Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s.   ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:

Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Address Type Count
80204, US
Registered Agent 1
Registered Agent 1

The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# ID # Click here to sort in ascending order. Entity Name Entity Type Date Filed Entity Status
1 19871583603  CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Nonprofit Corporation 08/15/1984 GOOD

I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1.
# Name Click here to sort in ascending order. Address Type Count
CO 80202, US
Trade name Registrant 12 
[Next 2>]
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

and the last two:

Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
11 20021223054  20021223054 BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12 20021223055  20021223055 EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP) Effective DPC 08/13/2002 12:00 AM

The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).

The El Paso County Child Support Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:

This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks.  However the URL is clearly  a *.com:


By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm)  Notice, central to the site:

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program 

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families.  These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills.  Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities.  The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.
Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated.  The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

The  ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:

“The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.”  (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National).  “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).”  Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page?  We do exist, even as the silent minority!)

SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet?  LInks to, for example:



. . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:

Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.



“Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”

Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . .  It’s how the cookie crumbles:

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **  

 CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period.  The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000.   Here it is, all = award 90FR0098.  (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results).  This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.

Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
CIRCLE OF PARENTS  CHICAGO IL 60611-3777 COOK 623444994 $ 4,800,000

The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved.  (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).

Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K.  Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.

Revenue (that year):








Circle of Parents IL 2010 $65,404 990 31 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2009 $68,336 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2008 $52,969 990 28 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2007 $26,843 990 25 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2006 $83,638 990 24 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2005 $16,914 990 18 80-0106957
Circle of Parents IL 2004 $3,803 990 25 80-0106957

Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):


it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”

NOTE:  KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently:  Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack.  I kid you not:

Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.  Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.

 For a perspective, Google “Claudine Dombrowski” on my site — I have posted some of her court docket on there, and related the time when she was arrested for not bleeding after a severe assault, in the right county.  Actually she wasn’t reporting, simply seeking treatment at the time.  One of the assaults involved a crowbar, and this particular case has made it (along with Jessica Gonzales Lenahan) to the IACHR, as human rights violation perpetrated by the United States on its citizens.  The handling of this type of violence throughout the land has been resulting in — eventually, and in many, many cases — simply switching custody to the offender and letting the victim go repeatedly to court to fight for contact, while trying to stay sane in knowledge of who is caring for her kids, and (sometimes unsuccessfully) alive.   Another article on this topic.    NOTE:   TOPEKA IS THE CAPITAL OF KANSAS.  NOTE #2 — the head of the HHS department came from Kansas.
{{An acquaintance of mine forwarded the article (which I knew about), and said she’d submitted a comment, responding to a petition on this matter, that funding be found to allow the Women and Children of the state of Kansas to leave the state, for their own safety.}}

This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute.  The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers.  It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!

[Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.

After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):


Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:

In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA.  She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.”  HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs  farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”

Provided the opportunity?  Translation:  We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers…..  LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization.  (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.

One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.

is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too.  It’s disgusting!   The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.”   The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering.  This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.

Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.

Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.

Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS.  (Wade Horn, to my recall).

The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group.  Membership dues one year, $13,000.  That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it.   $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations.  Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . .  $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but  $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program.  Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..    

Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well.  Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.

990 reads:  “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return).   “

Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”

AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . .  Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ).     990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.

Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.

The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

What is Smart Start?

Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”

Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..


   USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:

  • Total Dollars:$3,900,000
  • Transactions:1 – 4 of 4
 However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.
The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)
ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.

Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.

FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.

SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

What legislation supports CBCAP?

The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

Why were CBCAP programs created?

CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.



 ** For “expert” read “heat shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

 Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them.  It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.

FYI — we can speak.  Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak.  most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation.  They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost.  Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level.  They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).

(NORTH CAROLINA:  Years, All   CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series).  Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . …  ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/21/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/17/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/14/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 405,528
ACF EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/26/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 525,161
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/20/2007 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 490,465
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 06/06/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 0
ACF UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2008 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 530,482
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0001NCSAVP SAVP 2000 08/22/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0101NCSAVP SAVP 2001 08/23/2001 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 08/06/2002 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0201NCSAVP 2002 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 23,880
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/11/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 248,098
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0301NCSAVP 2003 SAVP 09/14/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 30,070
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0401NCSAVP 2004 SAVP 09/15/2004 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0501NCSAVP 2005 SAVP 09/14/2005 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,566
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0601NCSAVP 2006 SAVP 09/19/2006 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 268,587
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0701NCSAVP 2007 SAVP 07/20/2007 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 278,157
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0801NCSAVP 2008 SAVP 01/30/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 271,792
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 0901NCSAVP FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 12/23/2008 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 272,258
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1001NCSAVP FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 11/25/2009 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 279,933
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 1101NCSAVP FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION 10/08/2010 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 286,100
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 05/31/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 12/02/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 216,494
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9701NCSAVP SAVP 1997 01/04/2000 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 205
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 09/01/1998 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9801NCSAVP 02/24/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 233,772
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 08/16/1999 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $ 207,273
OCSE NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES Welfare Department 9901NCSAVP 02/25/2003 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs SOCIAL SERVICES $- 132,019
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 08/24/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE P SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Community Action Organization 90FR0001 FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION SALLIE SURFACE $ 245,296
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/25/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA J HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Welfare Department 90FE0059 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION CYNTHIA HARRIS $ 550,000
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR LINDA ROBINSON $ 514,308
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/18/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL $ 519,625
OFA EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Junior College, College & University 90FE0017 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ELIZABETH CARROLL $ 548,181
OFA Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc. Other Social Services Organization 90FM0009 COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES. 09/27/2011 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY $ 725,000
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/22/2006 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 375,685
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/16/2009 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 538,524
OFA UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Junior College, College & University 90FE0094 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7 09/24/2010 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants DEMONSTRATION ANNE JONES $ 550,000
Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

(THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state). 


“PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one:  There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . .  Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme.  When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them!  An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.”  Builders are not the house, they are outside the house!   The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan.  However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections.  The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural).  Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above  . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).  

This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr).  Contact your local affiliate to buy it:

Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”

with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

 (It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest  funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):  

Parent Trust for Washington Children 9/10/2010 $15,000.00 support general operating expenses. 

EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least):  recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

(“Mutual Support” programs?  How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1998 90CA1648  DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 0 ACF 09-14-1998 $ 50,000 

There are thousands of “90CA” awards.  To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards.  Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name:  Here we go, from TAGGS:

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title Budget Year CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
1998 CB D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND DC 90CA1645 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW CAROLYN S ABDULLAH $ 50,000
1998 CB PARENTS ANONYMOUS CA 90CA1646 DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW LISA PION-BERLIN $ 50,000
1998 CB SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA CA 90CA1630 PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION 1 93670 Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities NEW TANYA PHAM $ 100,000

I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations?  Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much?  Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2) CLAREMONT CA 91711 LOS ANGELES 090749326 $ 2,828,196
PARENTS ANONYMOUS   (THIS GRANT IS 2010….) PHOENIX AZ 85014 MARICOPA 119833135 $ 792,550


Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:

  • Total Dollars:$697,225
  • Transactions:1 – 2 of 2
One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group  leader???) – 2010
and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities
Date Signed:
August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount: 

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)
Date Signed:
July 02 , 2007 

Obligation Amount: 

“parents anonymousa inc.”??  This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:

Obligation / Action Date  07/02/2007
Starting Date  09/30/2006
Ending Date  09/29/2008

BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:

  • Total Dollars:$18,936,970
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 25

This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess).  There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX0001: 03 (Grants)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Date Signed:
August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount: 

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX000104 (Grants)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source:
Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs
Date Signed:
September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount: 

They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).

In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program:  they got $2.7 million

cfda 16;541 comes under ”


(OK, I finally looked up the project title).   The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs!  This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!

Here they are seeking donations:  Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000).  They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . ..    Contact “Meryl Levine.”  I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing).  The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)

DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?

CALSWEC Standing Committee

Return to Home  

Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:

Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.

CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).

Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.
Committee Chair
Charlene Reid, Director
Division of Social Services
Tehama County Department of Social Services
Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC
Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development
Parents Anonymous Inc.
Viola W. Lindsey
Department of Social Work and Social Ecology
Loma Linda University
Kristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
F&E Steering Committee
California Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of California
Mark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program
Department of Social Work
California State University, Northridge

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Seal and Site Header


Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California

Report No. GR-90-04-013
August 2004
Office of the Inspector General

Executive Summary
The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.

(WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):

Sort by date/ Sort by relevance

DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports
 At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous
Incorporated, Audit Report GR9004013, August 2004. 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

Audit Report
 Claremont, California. Report No. GR9004013 August 2004 Office of
the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached

Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.

AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material.  There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization:  . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.

Note:  California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent.  Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program.  It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.

In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.”  The top Ten Recipients included:  #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”

Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002

2. DARE AMERICA$2,475,000

Do their state registrations show?

AZ as charity,- yes:


(at the same street address, as a “dba” also)


in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name:  “PARENTING ARIZONA:  SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).

Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.

CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF:  Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process

Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area:  Every other term is trademarkeed…


Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).

Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing

The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.

With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.    

(in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)

(Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse.  In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..)  The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved.  This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:

Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders

Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.   

In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.  

Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.

OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant.  TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding…  The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address:   ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center

I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin  teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver 



Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother.  IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.

Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily

Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.

I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.

(OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website.  I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).

“The Shared Leadership”  plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good.  But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way.   Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.  

As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow.  They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help.  The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side.  Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.

Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups.  Only the main one survives, as we can see:


Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY 056591 Charity Dissolved SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Charity Not Registered MISSION VIEJO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. 057939 Charity Inactive REDDING CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. 015477 Charity Current CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity
PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST Charity Not Registered CULVER CITY CA Charity Registration Charity


AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad:  EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here  

Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-01
Total Assets: $502,908.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $4,312,507.00
RRF Received: 21-FEB-02
Returned Date:
990 Attached:
Status: Accepted


Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09
Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10
Total Assets: $1,775,724.00
Gross Annual Revenue: $1,584,661.00
RRF Received: 12-AUG-11
Returned Date:
990 Attached: Y
Status: Accepted

 As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity).  Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half.  (2009:  $

667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.”  (which their tax form will explain).  The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc.  (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).

  • “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”

Got this business model yet?   . .. by our accredited network organizations.    What do they do?

  • Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families.  Expenses $1,302,041

This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and  another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.

Other earnings (revenue)  660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees.   No royalties show up …. 


And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):

  • Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
  • VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
  • Sec  Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
  • Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
  • Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
  • Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
  • Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
  • Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
  • Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
  • Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201

 In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)

If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.

Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.

THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.

 Some of the incorporators:  Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately: 

Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor

Obituaries | PASSINGS

April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Judge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.

Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division.  Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.

{{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc.  “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}

She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness.   She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.


 THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of:  “

  • The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
  • To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
  • • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.

 By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”   

(Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.) 

Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.

For additional information, on this program choose an option below.

What services we offer!View our classes! Contacts!Your resources!Find out what you need to know!

However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO

Parent Opportunity Program

In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.

(the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)

POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.

To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.

Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.

(An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county.  An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:

El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…

Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.

Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.

That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.

“We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.

ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants.  In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department.   Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project

The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”

They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:

Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)

Submitted to:  Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*

Submitted by:  Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org

(the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)


September 2007

[Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.

Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).

Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.

Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):

This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).

Program Office Grantee Name Grantee Address Grantee Type Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions

I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….

Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for.  Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits):   Interesting!  At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was:   “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program”   If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently!    Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….

(I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored.  I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).

Executive Summary

The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:

␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;

␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and

␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide.  Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50).  I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010.  There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?

Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Budget Year Action Issue Date CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract
Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

Abstracts include:

Grant 90FD0111:  “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)

In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities.   Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.

JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.

I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe:  They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:


The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.

The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.

Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.

In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.

In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:

Thank You, Vendors

Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.


Orchid Cellmark


Systems & Methods Inc


(upper right).  (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).

IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):








Colorado Family Support Council CO 2010 $44,401 990EZ 8 84-1180995


This post could go on indefinitely.  I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:

My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):


  • ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC.  — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others).  The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.
  • Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
  • Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me?  Who are they, really?
  • where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
  • This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
  • PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County.  Again, $18 million is a lot of business.  Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
  • CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System.  This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
  • (though I knew this already)  REMEMBER TO CHECK  — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at.  Example:  PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR.  Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .
  • LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate.  I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.
Prior to looking at this last ground of grantees, and a bit more at the CHMC, I would’ve been less prone to saying this, but the evidence is accumulating quickly.  I believe its possible that the entire programming is designed simply around high-emotion terminology (families, Dads, Kids) to enable hiding federal funds disbursed to, for lack of a better word, cronies.  This is not “taxation with representation” but taxation without it.
%d bloggers like this: