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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Isabel Sawhill + Ron Haskins (MDRC Brookings Urban Institute Moynihan Prize etc)

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; expect some post-publication edits, to add tags and for more fluency between sections.  Last revised Feb. 14th).

Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.


About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.

Consider:

(This section has many points of reference, but being summary, just a few links to them.  Generally, I’ve already provided the links on earlier posts or pages, many of them, several times.  

Because it’s written by my recall from prior research, there may be some (minor) inaccuracies in labeling, any of which could be corrected by looking up the points of reference, and about which I’m not particularly concerned for the purpose of summary here).

The foundation of “fatherhood.gov” as it operates now goes back identifiably and through the present to the mid-1960s in Daniel Moynihan’s call for action and a National Policy towards “The Negro Family,” featuring female-headed households as “pathology” because we were (this country was), essentially, it said, a patriarchy.

It’s been said that the organization “NOW” was formed in 1966 in response to the Moynihan report.  

I’ve summarized many things about the situation in the “Opening Spiel” of this post but am providing these links to prior write-ups for some further reading.

My prior posts on The Moynihan Report include one from Dec., 2017 and another from July, 2016.  There are more, but here below are quotations (their introductions, in all their colorful, gory fine-print detail, in two separate text boxes).  Recommended, not necessarily easy, reading, to comprehend what’s up with the domestic violence prevention business these days — key things most so-called feminist leaders of well-known nonprofits DON’T want to bring up in their academic writings, or with you.  Once you grasp the situation, try bringing it up (for example, to nonprofit domestic violence leadership, or front-line staff, in person or on-line/in writing, or other places) and see what responses, if any, you get… I already have…. I’m convinced these individuals have no shame, remorse, or conscience about the types and extent of information they routinely withhold from the public, and their clients, warm-body pre-requisites to ongoing existence as nonprofits.  

and,

[2]

Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016; revs.2017 & (minor)2019. SeeAlso its tags] (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink to the post title ends in “-42K“).**  (“The Moynihan Report:” 1965, i.e., it just turned “50” in 2016…//LGH 2019).

…If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in….

This 11,700 word post is is well worth reading; if you do not agree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap. [Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from it’s July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K“.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

Moving on….

Judging by when Ivy League/East Coast universities (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin (Maine)** began admitting women as undergraduates, and by how much later than men (including freed slaves) women got suffrage in the US, that’s probably a fair assessment, functionally speaking.

**The Bowdoin situation gets to me particularly when, in writing this blog, I run across profiles of both men and women about my age, whose adopted policies (focusing on correcting “fatherlessness” and racism, not sexism) has impacted options for my children’s futures, as it’s clear 1996 Welfare Reform policies did.   “To Be Continued…,” it supports my point that the USA has been in many ways a “patriarchy.”  The “Bowdoin” discussion, however, involves key figures in education, finance and politics of the last fifty years; I’ll not burden this post with those details.

Don’t hold your breath on this one getting published, however, for the record, its holding pen is: Bowdoin College, Influential Alumni My Age (Founded, 1794; admitted women, 1971). So in 1965, WAS Daniel Moynihan Right, that the U.S. of A. was a Patriarchy? And Is it Still? (started Feb. 12, 2020, short-link ending “–caV”)

But while the late (and while alive, powerful on Capitol Hill) Senator Daniel Moynihan did come from a father-abandoned family, grow up poor, and was raised Catholic, he was not a conservative, or Republican, nor was his report phrased in religious terms.

It was phrased in sociological terms.

If fatherlessness was the scourge, his life seems to have missed the lashes…

Nevertheless the genealogy of The Moynihan Report, as I’ve mentioned so much on this blog, continues through today in the “Moynihan Award” to “bipartisan” co-editors (?) and co-directors (at Brookings) Ronald Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill, of Brookings Institution, functioning for many years now in partnership with a center at Princeton University featuring publication “The Future of Children” and working internationally, so its “Partners” site says, with the University of Cambridge (i.e., England), the Jacobs Foundation (Swiss, but care/of a German coffee-chocolate dynasty).

The director of the particular (Bendheim-Thoman) Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton University (Sara McLanahan), married to Columbia University (NYC) Irwin Garfinkel, I was reminded recently (i.e., I looked at her  c.v. again) is a sociologist from the University of Texas-Austin, which MAY explain why a Center there, under direction of a woman probably mentored in part by her (Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. from Princeton, about 2005 as I recall) has continued “carrying the (fatherhood) torch under the “Children and Families” Banner  — University of Texas-Austin. (Cynthia Osborne bio also seen at FRPN.org (below) as “Chair of the Responsible Fatherhood WorkGroup” (first one of four listed there), whatever that signifies. I’ve publicized this often on Twitter also, from the University of Texas perspective).

You can also read about the U Texas connection to FRPN (and Cynthia Osborne) under the “Supporting Organizations” (not that the federal government, listed first, is an “organization,” nor is a website an “organization” either: very sloppy labeling pads the apparent number of supporters.  Sort these into entity vs. non-entity, and you’ll get some (trackable) nonprofits, and the US DHHS, basically.  Sample (the link is from FRPN.org):

Child and Family Research Partnership

The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) is an independent, nonpartisan research group at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, specializing in issues related to young children, teens and their parents. Cynthia Osborne, director of CFRP, serves…Read more
“The partnership… is a …research group…”  [“independent” from what?  Independently funded? Self-funded?]
Consider:
  • At the University of Texas, Austin, the “CFRP” is not a school,  but a research group AT a school at a university.
  • At Princeton University, there are several centers; this one seems named (as often happens) after alumni benefactors, but the reporting entity is the university itself.  What money actually goes to the Center, and how it’s accounted for is unclear. Internally, by the university, it may have its own account code/s, but what about the public?
  • At Brookings Institution (also a nonprofit), if you read its tax returns, are the “Centers” accounted for separately somehow accessible to the public?

By definition, this type of focus on “Centers” [and/or university-based “partnerships”] clouds the financial accountability / money trails.  What, if anything, guards against special interests taking over public universities and using their established reputation to promote less than reputable causes?  Like setting up a virtual sociological religion within the USA by means of interstate networks taking public resources and (because so hard to track, how much private money is un-knowable, to most people) probably private, too, while publicizing through the on-line websites created and inter-linked?


I say this having seen many of them in the course of investigating nonprofits and professionals in these fields for this blog. It’s stunning, the proliferation of “Children and family”-named centers which on closer examination, turn out to be father-focused, especially non-resident fathers.

Meanwhile, Columbia University (with Irwin Garfinkel) also features, and has for MANY years, another fatherhood [Fathers and Children] center directed by Ronald D. Mincy, with former (or perhaps still current) backing by both the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  It’s got enough initials I continue to forget in which order, but, (looking them up now), they are:  CRFCFW:  “Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.”  Mincy is Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at (naturally) the university’s School of Social Work. A basic search of his name also brings up other fatherhood organizations, and the one I mention in the next paragraph:  FRPN.org.  He also presented, I’ve mentioned repeatedly, at an AFCC conference in about 2000, alongside key domestic violence organization backers (the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, from Minnesota).  There’s nothing ‘conservative’ or Republican about the Wellstones or, that I can see, Professor Mincy, but somehow it still translates to fatherhood as national policy under the label of “Families” (Fragile or otherwise).

Among the featured members (sic) of that University of Texas Consortium [and/or CFRP Partnership: visit and explore the website and their referral links] is a (non-entity, see links added above Feb. 13), which I’ve also featured on this blog, whose website “FRPN.org” (Fathers Research and Practice Network) turns out to be an HHS-funded project at Temple University in Philadelphia, with co-directors (how does one “direct” a non-entity project at a major university?) Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Princeton) of — get this — the Colorado-based and historically (as to Pearson at least) “AFCC”-connected “Center for Policy Research,” and

Temple University Professor Jay Fagan (who’s been at Temple, after his 1988 Columbia Univ. PhD, nonstop since about 1990)… He has articles published in a magazine (‘Fathering”) he co-founded, and a key association on the c.v. (also listed at FRPN.org under “Other Organizations”) seems to be the ‘National Council on Family Relations’ (19 references in 15pp c.v.: [Click twice to read the pdf: Jay Fagan,Prof~BA Psych (TrinityCollege, CT 1973), MSW (UPA, SchlSocialWk SW,1977), PhD (in__??)Columbia SSW 1988) |Temple Univ Philadelphia (+ FRPN.org), 15-pg CV Oct 2019 (see 19occ ‘NCFR,’ ref to the HHS grant (for FRPN) + only 2books (@ 2020Feb13)] The c.v. says “School of Social Administration” not “School of Social Work.”

…He is currently conducting studies on nonresidential fathers’ coparenting relationships and the effects of mother-father co-parenting relationships on at-risk fathers’ involvement with children… (https://cph.temple.edu/about/directory/jay-fagan)

Nancy Thoennes, like Jessica Pearson, long-time at CPR (whom I’d listed by recall; checking back the next day to verify) IS listed there, but her exact role isn’t quite clear.  The co-directors of FRPN are clearly Fagan & Pearson.

Images from FRPN.org; the “about” information is repetitive (circular phrases) and still vague.  See annotated image (as well as classic-looking main page, and footer citing one HHS grant only for 2013-2019, rectangular image):

FRPN.org basic screenshots ~~Screen Shot 2020-02-13 [Page footer, annotated]


Once you even start to look …**

**at this father-focused, Welfare Reform-based, HHS-grants (and contracts-) supported landscape

a few logical questions come to mind (they certainly have for me):

~>At what point should the also vast (but less extensive and well-funded) “domestic violence network” (USA) [See Roadmap on my Feb. 2018 page, and prior posts on it] completely lose credibility for not examining the connections between federally-funded “fatherhood.gov” and outcomes in the family court venues?

~>Does this domestic violence network in fact exist instead to distract us from that reality with false assurances [or hope] of safety nationwide? BOTH networks are federally and privately funded. Nor is the coverup unique to either political party.

~>Why should we even continue to listen in on the scholarly debates or expect /hope for good things to come out of this level of systemic (“you don’t really need to know about federally-funded fatherhood, the AFCC and other interconnected private [conflicts-of-interest] personal interests in keeping the conflict going…”) coverup?


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].

with one comment

Post Title (as published): The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].

What would you call this post?  After reading, if you have a better title, comment and tell me.  Until then, in full, it’s:

But as posted in condensed form, I took out the ‘commentary’ part of the title, which may save some blog’s sidebar vertical acreage under on “Most Recent Posts,” making for a subtitle:

….”(Divide and Conquer Tactics, Keeping (most) Women In Their (subdominant) Assigned Places while Placating, if possible, while and continuing to exploit men of color, prisoners, and the public in high-stakes, profitable, and rigged conflicts” …[[followed by Date info.]]

This material was formerly (but before publication there) labeled and in place as the Preface and “Pre-Preface” (I already had a “Foreword” and was starting to run out of meaningful section names) to:

The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”** + preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts. Both those posts had been weeks “in the pipeline”.  The case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink to this one ends “-87w”).  [[for what those “** / ***’s” refer to, see “The Money Maze / Giffords PAC” post referenced here.]]

This post as first published (including an extended footnote) is 16,000 words.  Where it started may be seen by what looks approximately like this (next image) and is about halfway down the post. Feedback welcome — use the comments field.  Keep it relevant, please; I won’t publish ads disguised as comments.

(Screenshot from my post of similar name, to be published Dec. 14, 2017. The image to left is from another blog I started in 2013 around the theme of the [poor, unreliable and dysfunctional, though still informative] condition of the TAGSS.HHS.Gov database)

I am attempting to post AS I continue to learn topics, rather than hoarding the information for publication in some professional journal for colleagues only (not that I’d probably qualify for one) on the principle that those of us NOT likely to be subscribing to the same need some way to understand and discuss** what those who DO have been doing, while we were struggling to deal with the impact of social policy over the generations and the existing caste systems based on in what economic sector, over time, we and our parents and grandparents (as it applies) have been functioning. **This entails speaking in language not limited to the prescribed ‘jargon’ in fashion for assigning positive values to sometimes dubious operations and activities.


For example does using the phrase “randomized controlled trials” (or “RCTs” for short), or previously more popular, “randomized evaluations” make any sponsored activity somehow more like medicine, or more scientific? And at what point is running RCTs on poor people’s “behavioral economics” (decision-making) while not reporting equally about one’s own financial activities and characterizations as an organization within the created fields scientific? For that matter, is “social science” as a whole really even a science, or instead more the process of collecting information with a view to practicing on populations and developing better demographic or functional labels said populations (such as “low-income”) and as such more of an “art”?


Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” (quoted below, the article associated with the next image explains the significance of being named Harvard “University Professor”).  See Para. 1 of “Message from the Director” of the IQSS (“IQ.Harvard.edu”)

Whatever social science WAS, those helping run and fund it now have declared it a “new day” and the past thousands of years of learning are apparently nothing compared to what’s coming … and that’s coming from a decorated (“University Professor”) endowed or at least named (Alfred J. Whitehead III) professor at an elite (Harvard) private university, speaking as head of the fairly recent “Institute for Quantitative Social Science” which has already got its spin-off nonprofit, which nonprofit within the first few years of operation has already changed its business name.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (Published 8/5/2017)

with one comment

PREVIEW on a REVIEW:

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na” (15,400 words, “Fasten Your Seatbelts –this one’s details are SO still relevant to FAMILY COURT issues!! <~That comment, Aug. 7, 2019.  I’m re-posting this (or Tweeting, etc.) in preparation for a follow up post//LGH)

(Section background-color reverts to this color after preview)

PREVIEW

After working on this post and its background material for about a week, I’m publishing it “as is,” with an alert that it may be revised substantially after publication, or further split. It is a good read, however some of its information leads to awarenesses and understandings that are disturbing, if not shocking, on the scope of activities and reach (influence on government policies) by some of the people and organizations covered.

I wouldn’t expect it to be grasped in a single read anyhow. If there are substantial revisions (you’re reading one right now), the purpose is to clarify, or supply missing documentation to support some statements where a post-publication read may reveal the need.

Some areas in this post newer to me, others not entirely new, but not my main area of research (such as the details of the tobacco class action and RICO litigation, although I have looked at periodically and am aware of it as a force in social services programming — such as the First 5-type funds —  at the state levels).** On other areas (backgrounds of some of the greats in psychology or public relations — this post adds a key advertising great name) I may sound more authoritative because I have done more research on them  over the years, as it intersects/overlaps with “Family Court Matters.”

** USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro. (a Page with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-5e8” published Dec. 2016.  Added to the sidebar near top of “Vital Links/Info” menu in Aug. 2017.)

However, probing this new area and historic account of major system movements referenced by the website “SmokersHistory.com,” I am seeing people, foundations, and systems transformation characteristics in common with material I’ve already processed in and around this blog.  If I’d not seen the commonality, I would probably not have referenced so prominently the “smokershistory.com” post, especially not even knowing who its author is.  Because just now I do not know, and because of some of the angry tone of that website, I felt obliged to look further, and more independently at at least its claims which resonated as reasonably probable with what I already knew.

In the process, I ended up learning more about key foundations and people, as well as about organization of the NIH, the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and putting some serious timeline and dates to changes within the NIH, which is to say, also within HHS.  I’m confident most readers also will.  I also found it reassuring not to be the only person (many MIT faculty were asking the same question in the early 1980s) (NYT article links below) asking just HOW MUCH of our current universities and current federal agencies is really “up for sale to the highest bidder,” and how reliable is conflict-of-interest-funded science? Is that what our nation needs?

Answering all these questions is not just a matter of posting links and throwing them up in the air, hoping they come down in some sort of order.  It is a LOT of reading; this type of reading involves processing the information as it comes up with an awareness of reasonably objective (vs. name-calling, or personal-values-laden) categories and at a minimum the ability and willingness to look at tax returns, comparing one to another within organizations or across organizations, and an awareness what decision-making by the very-well-endowed may affect in a given year, whether the “Total Assets” are very very big and growing, or while still large by many standards, being spent down.  And an awareness that when the issue (goal) is steering the direction of a federal agency along with the future of a certain are of scientific research, those determined — with each other — rarely operate through just one organization, foundation, or media at a time.

It takes time, and its part skill, part “art” in the sense of a developed skill over time. I look forward to, ideally, connecting conversing with more people who are willing to use some of these skills and willing to encourage/exhort/persuade others that they are basic to comprehending government — with regard to our individual AND collective relationships to it.  Unfortunately (?), when it comes to many advocacy groups (especially in some well-worn ruts within the family court reform advocacy arena) what I know better is where NOT to find such people, or exhaust personal energies attempting to reason with people who for years have continued to demonstrate that group-membership/brainwashed state on the chosen cause is, like old blue jeans conformed to one’s body countours, just more “fun,” or standing apart, too scary.



Previous and related post: Who? (besides Harvard, MIT and other Boston-based Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health Issue? (title’s short-link ends “-7m3”; published 7/31/2017)

This post was inspired mostly by the urge to report on the confluence and long-term influence of two) organizations involving two family lines.  Those two family lines are the Whiteheads and the Laskers, and the two organizations (who both also show close connections with a third organization the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, EIN#061043412) are the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (EIN#131680062, with another trust which poured is assets into them on dissolution; see next table below*) and the other, much smaller but well-connected (with Congressmen on board, literally) Research! America (<==EIN#521609875, link to FY2015 Form 990; see next image).” (for contrast, FY2005 Form 990):

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) showing highest paid fees-for services (see CATEGORIES) and employees (2 diff’t categories). This year Mary Woolley’s salary was 310K + benefits.

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) describing exempt-purpose activities.

Rsrch! America FY2015 “Additional” page from Form 990 describing PR activities. Not their largest expenses this year (see return for more info).

Porter-Novelli PR Business Agency Report 2015 (4/27/2015):

Former Unilever marcomms chief Christine Cea returned to the firm to lead its global consumer practice, based in New York. She previously worked in Porter’s London and New York offices from 1999 to 2005. Ted Sabarese joined as regional creative director for North America, focused on content strategy, development, and production, as well as advertising, experiential marketing, and design. He previously worked at Chobani. … Amy Nicole Nayar took up the newly created role of SVP of global health and wellness and lead for longtime client Johnson & Johnson. She previously ran a consultancy called Forefront Leadership.

Growth in North America
The North American region grew the fastest in 2014, with New York serving as the impetus after the office added work from Pfizer, Merck, and other blue chips in the healthcare space, expanding digital and analytics work, and a communications brief for The Shops at Columbus Circle.   Read more at [PRWeek.com/article/1344304]

 

With Porter-Novelli a main contractor of Research! America in 2005, and William D. Novelli on the board (1h/week unpaid) at Research! America, I decided to look further.

I found he was CEO of AARP 2001-2009 (severance pay of over $1M protested there, next image) and “his LinkedIn” (another image) shows that, besides co-founding Porter-Novelli and running it (1972-1990) he also founded “Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids” and ran it 1995-1999.  See where I’m going with that?  He’s now professsor of “Global Social Enterprise Initiative” (“GSEI”) at “George McDonough School of Business” at the prestigious Georgetown University(since 2011)… While there I see that Georgetown also started, looks like around the same time, a “Global Human Development Initiative”  (<=link to Novelli as faculty on it) stemming from the “Jesuit ideal of using knowledge to serve society” and an “initiative” (guiding paradigm) crossing different schools and degrees within the university. (use that link to access the “About” page on the GHD). It says in part:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 5, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment [Original, March 23, 2014. Reformat + Reminders March 14, 2017][+July2017]

with 6 comments

Post title with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-2qM”:

A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment  [Original, March 23, 2014.  Reformat and Reminders March 14, 2017, Three Years Later]. The post is too long.  On the other hand, I take on key entities involved, do some drill-downs, and put timelines and participant names to cover-ups.


Apparently I am not showing solidarity within “the movement,” said a comment below (see “Comments”).  I responded to the assumption that the “movement” (coalitions, groupings of professionals towing traumatized parents around for show-and-tell, and encouraging them to tell their stories as a platform to the reforms wanted by the groupings of professionals [“Let’s get yet more Technical Assistance and Training (domestic violence consultants — aware of the custody issues) in there” — like us and our friends”] was really “the movement” and that those so engaged had battered mothers’ or the public best interests even as a priority.

That they needed such mothers to tell their stories to get an image of legitimacy the desired reforms seems evident, but the accounting and corporate registration records, and what they were NOT saying, I say, better evidences what is the agenda.  [last two paragraphs copyedited for grammar (long sentence was an incomplete sentence) and clarified, 7/9/2017].
In responding below some years ago, I see I’d also asked if anyone could identify the business filing of a certain group which was being promoted among “the movement” in Northern California, training custody evaluators to recognize parental alienation and taking, apparently, fees for ongoing-trainings for the same as approved by the California Judicial Council.  Yet the group calling itself an “Inc.” and a nonprofit, has no filing footprint on either the secretary of state or the registry of charitable trusts level, or with the IRS.  So far, no responses…FYI, that’s a “tell.”  ).

 

Post in Update Process. Recent (Oct. 2014) introductory material will may be reduced shortly. 

I tend to revise published posts as my understanding increases, and often in the process or drafting a related one.  Here, I felt inspired to elaborate some more on the role of the Ford Foundation, Center for Court Innovation, MDRC, and the economic influence on setting in motion systems-change elements (including court changes) at public expense.

This is a recent find when I was explaining and showing the Center for Court Innovation to a person completely unfamiliar with it.  It didn’t take too long for the individual** to “get”once the tax returns and other materials were shown in person.  It probably also helped the understanding process that the individual was familiar with project development and budgets, and hadn’t been indoctrinated NOT to talk  finances or economic systems through any court advocacy group which is more interested in selling books, promoting conferences, and getting in on the “train the trainers, educate the judges” routine…. **Incidentally, said individual was a man, not a woman with a cause, or in trauma or fight-or-flight mode regarding the safety or even location of minor children.  Not a father with either of those two situations.  Just a guy.

It’s not rocket science– it’s just a different kind of attention, and but, yes, it still takes sustained attention and awareness of what kind of information one is focused on absorbing.


 NYC 2014 BUDGET — READ! Center for Court Innov got $400K (Fund for City of NY not mentioned), Man Up, LIFT, Vera — ec (439pages…)  About 61 pages of summary, followed by a few hundred of fine-print detailed tables, “Appendix A”.  <===CLICK THE LINK TO SEE IT ALL.

Qualifiers (added 2017, now that I can do screenprints) — this Report is a Schedule C, dated June 2013, of Adjustments to the FY2014 Budget for the City of New York.

I wish to point out the use of the name “Center for Court Innovation” associated with the EIN# for “Fund for the City of New York,” which this document shows…instead of the EIN# & legal business name “Fund for the City of New York,”

In, fact the Fund (in association with this “Center”) was identified a few times up front (the phrase “Fund for the City of New York” does occur repeatedly throughout the document, the words Center for Court Innovation” just a few times.  However, that “CENTER” is not its own entity, neither government nor business, but (as described on its website) a joint project from the Unified NYS Court System AND the (tax-exempt foundation) Fund for the City of New York.

Here are some screenprints from the front of that budget, and a few showing the use of both the Fund for the City designation (with EIN#) and the “Center for Court Innovation” (without; in fact an “initiative” is actually named CCI).  MY main point is — be aware of this powerful combination, and of the CCI, as its intents (tax returns and related entities do show) are to test programs, then go national (outward from NY) and international with them.  Click any image (in this section on FCNY+CCI) to enlarge; you have the NYC 2014 Budget (Sched C Adjustments) link above.

Among those shown, the light-blue captioned image here, top line of the chart refers to a certain Adolescent Portable Therapy Program under agency DOP (Probably Dept. of Probation)  The second row reads “Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) and was recommended to receive much funding, and the third, “Center for Court Innovation,” $400,000.

Here a “Center for Court Innovation “Initiative” through Agency “CJC” is allocated $400K. Notice also the Adolescent Portable Therapy Program (APTP) by the Vera Institute — this is an “import” from a UK group (Anna Freud Centre), or at least featured by it.

 

I also took a closer look at “Adolescent Portable Therapy” in NYC and who’s referring youth and their families into it.

The light-blue caption (Image referencing “Adolescent Portable Therapy Program”) in association with the CCI initiative under “Criminal Justice Services” (from that Budget Adjustment Schedule C).

Enough was found to move to a separate post, however I’m leaving one of the referring agencies, nicknamed “CASES” and showing its recent increases in Total (Gross) Assets for a joint of reference.

 

Total results: 5.** Search Again.

ORG. NAME [“CASES”] ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2017 990 44 $8,879,354.00 13-2668080
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2016 990 38 $8,330,660.00 13-2668080

(**Above: I added two more years, YE2016 and 2017, of search results during Aug. 2018 (slight) post cleanup).

ORG. NAME [“CASES”] ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2015 990 39 $8,229,096 13-2668080
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2014 990 32 $5,288,689 13-2668080
Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services NY 2013 990 31 $3,916,408 13-2668080

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: