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 ‘MDRC (EIN#23-7379473 since 1974)

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

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

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

NYC’s largest anti-poverty organization (so it says) appropriates for its name a well-known 15th century British legend about a 12th century outlaw of noble character, a name preserved by Hollywood and a parade of famous actors for about a century– a name, like many iconic “handles,” often translated into business models (incl. “Anti-Poverty” ones) hoping to absorb some of the glamour, reputed compassion for commoners, and, in general, virtue. Such names are for positive PR connotations, and organizations adopting them, like this one, ALWAYS deserve a Closer Look, especially in this 21stC. I have been….

leave a comment »

Two related posts (both named just below) were on hold for some months in Q1 2018 while I restructured blog home page, added some tables of content posts (for Q4, 2017, actually) and posted on more current events, and how “Community Development” as “expanded Real Estate Development” was expanding government costs and concentration, while placing many assets directly in the hands of private investors who needed low-income populations to test their behavioral modification and social science theories upon, globally.

Having worked so hard on this blog, I then visited Twitter after a very long break and saw ongoing questions that a more consistent reading of (at least) this blog with its many links to supporting information on nonprofits and the professionals (attracting parental complaints) who tend to set up and populate them would’ve answered and took some moments to Tweet and reply to some I’d been included in.   Here’s a link to a recent Tweet” (3/18/2018, username there is @LetUsGetHonest) with three attached images re: reunification camps [another December, 2017, blog theme] also my chance to practice that new (to me) technique) with, I think, very well-annotated exhibits on some of the same.  Some deal with equine therapy treatments and the “aftercare” models so the reunification indoctrination sticks better post-experience.  So perhaps it’s appropriate to say regarding the nine-year span this month of investigative blogging and consistent and ongoing acquisition of more in-depth insight through administering (and writing all posts on) this blog  you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him (or her) drink,” of people who just can’t be bothered to personally tangle with this scope of information.

And, “oh boy!” do these posts elucidate just how globally such demonstrations are, some programs (and software applications) originating (which by now should not be surprising) out of Harvard, MIT, and a new center at Rutgers University, typically with a variety of creatively named and name-changing nonprofits reflecting the global intents, and justification for continued control of major assets under multiple corporate names by anyone BUT the people whose wages help create them, while those subcontracting or otherwise collaborating as employees  with those who have great, innovative ideas (for example, getting MORE people on as many public benefits as fast as possible, digitally) participate in the “fees for friends” and “trickle-down” business of consolidating federal funding across all the various agency “silos.”

Except this intro, post is mostly intact as written. I’ll add tags soon….//LGH March 18, 2018.

Post Title: NYC’s largest anti-poverty organization (so it says) appropriates for its name a well-known 15th century British legend about a 12th century outlaw of noble character, a name preserved by Hollywood and a parade of famous actors for about a century– a name like many iconic “handles” often translated into business models (incl. “Anti-Poverty” ones) — hoping to absorb some of the glamour, reputed compassion for commoners, and in general, virtue. of this well-known hero. Such names are taken for the PR connotations and ALWAYS deserve A Closer Look, especially in this 21stC. I have been…. (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8NN.” Moved here Dec. 8, 2017, being published March 18, 2018(!), still under 8,000 words)


Short version of that information?  This post exists to preview my upcoming (but previously written) Robin Hood Foundation post*** which just about wrote itself as I summarized the information and thought about the significance of the situation which had gripped my attention for several days.  Previously written, moved here.

***RHF post title and link, still in draft as of this writing, Dec. 4, 2017 [and at March 18, 2018] refers to:


That long title took some explaining, resulting in this post.

[This “Pep talk” section added after the move, I’ll mark where it ends]:

Please remember when I explain certain levels of detail on single (or single groups of) organization, it is still “show and tell” mode.

Many transferable principles (practices) can be seen in operation across different organizations, including organizations following even vastly different stated purposes.  Seeing these principles (common practices) also builds for the person looking IF he or she consistently fact-checks my statements, as I intend people should, transferable skills which, put into practice, build at least three valuable things:

(1) An growing and ongoing awareness that there are many and significant other places to look for information often not on an organization’s  [or university center’s] on-line advertising website,** and how to access them on-line and many, for free –**which term applies even if it’s a public-supported one and not soliciting donations — the websites still justify the existence and funding of the organization, and promotes the involved personnel (lead staff, boards of directors, etc.), and provide a story line to pull it together, while helping out friendly organizations through mutual referrals and mentions, i.e., “our funders” pages…), which once become familiar, is “communicable.”  And I do hope readers will acquire a “communicable awareness” which becomes contagious –others, by association, might get a case of it too.

(1a) With exposure over time, acknowledgement that the organization and functionality of these various places changes over time, does not easily compare across jurisdictions (when it comes to state-level registries), and


(1b) How flawed (not to mention, how consistently accompanied by disclaimers) and time-limited (how far back it goes) and these various databases are.  By “flaws” I mean both fields available on which to sort, and regarding lack of style consistency (i.e., quality enforcers to) the data input into them.


(1c) Some sites provided pdf images which show what appears to be hand-stamps (i.e., personal handling) and signed or show official seals (Secretary of State, Attorney-General’s Office, or, for example, with tax returns, received by the IRS, at which office), others don’t even show that level of detail, while at the state level, an emphasis on electronic filing occurs, bypassing human interaction and, it seems, screening.  Some websites (such as Arizona’s comes to mind) provided the pdfs in “barely-visible” font, etc.


(1d) given the distance between actual registered document, or an image of it, and user search input forms,  (unless the process is somehow truly automated and flawless) data entry errors or OCR (Optical Character Reading/ scanning process) affecting search accuracy (or flexibility) can occur at any level of search:  first results, second level leading to a summary page (for states or agencies that even have them), or anything which is not actually the document itself, but extracting information from it for display.

1a, b, c and d are important for acknowledging what is NOT there — reliably consistent and functional for the public (not just for grantseekers, grantwriters, or foundations seeking grantees) information about the commerce done (for-profit or not-for-profit) within individual (U.S.A.) states, across state to D.C. to territorial jurisdictions, and of course internationally.

(2) In the process an ongoing mental database and familiarity with/awareness of some of the key influences (translation:  major foundations, significant geographically-focused nonprofits they sponsor, and related government entities — not to mention key universities, private (esp.) and public); and

(3) Better 3D vision  – comprehension — while reading major media headlines, including to what is NOT being reported when the experts are quoted or key policies or organizations featured.

Of course people who never get to “fact-checking” or testing what I’m saying on, for example, some organization of more personal interest to the reader — don’t expect better comprehension. You’re probably content with hearsay mode from both MSM and my blogging and don’t value highly enough getting to the point of understanding if either one is consistently lying, or censoring information, which one it is.  In such case, I’d guess that may indicate satisfaction with the self-declared “thought-leaders” and acceptance of (their) designation of YOU as passive consumer, i.e., thought-follower.  That characterization of course doesn’t apply to people who are already experts in finance, investments, accounting, and helping their friends, colleagues and clients continue to raise funds, build resumes, and publish endlessly, with no real conscience about using everyone not in this class for (a) a financial resource (tax receipts, remember?) and (b) appropriate subject matter for increasingly sophisticated behavioral modification test subjects, individually and en masse.

If that characterization offends you, wait for the next three posts:  One, “The Money Maze” (where I moved this one from) on the Giffords Gun control lobby  incl. four or five “Americans for Responsible Solutions” entities, with the Super PAC started by recently deceased (through suicide, using a gun) megadonor Steven “Hurricane” Mostyn (and some on the much smaller foundation people are encouraged to support for a memorial, “Mostyn Moreno Education Fund” or similar name); Two, this post, and Three, the RHF post identified to just above which this one exists to preview.  In addition, I am finding the “facilitating” nonprofits (GiveWell, GiveDirectly, Good Ventures, Open Philanthropy Project, etc.) and yet more nonprofits (“Ideas42.org” with previous name “Behavioral Lab, Inc.” (or similar –details coming up) and its previous Harvard connection, although the two-cofounders of that MA entity with a NY address are now associated with MIT and Princeton…

So I do not believe readers’ time who may not be particularly interested in a New York anti-poverty organization with Ivy League university connections (when professors’ CVs are also considered, and in this one, a related university “center”) is really wasted time.

[End of “Pep talk” section added after the move]


The title I’m previewing, again:


I’ve split the explanation (of that long post title!) into three parts* (each labeled in blue) (*and this short preview — four more paragraphs [I numbered them <Para.1,2,3,4>] and one quote — leading up to those three named parts labeled in blue). The first part …(“Disregarded Entities…Ponzi Scheme”) raises some questions which aren’t fully answered yet but regardless of Yes/No answers as to RHF involvement, the possibility still demonstrates that the most important information about any organization (especially tax-exempt foundations, including those classified as public charities like RHF) even when truthful still cannot be found on an organization website, or considering even its charitable projects and benefits. Only by actually looking at the other evidence can whether it, or the charitable events and website “About Us/History” is more relevant to WHO the organization is, and what its agenda is individually, or collectively with other like-minded organizations and people!

<Para.1>The picture is always incomplete without an eye to the assets and connections to other wealth-building activities and where/how/if this also relates to the leadership’s outside activities.  RHF dates to (as I recall) about 1989, so it’s had time to develop those, form related entities, and buy and sell investments over time. RHF calls itself the “largest anti-poverty organization in New York City and is consciously looking to export its model practices further abroad (certainly at least nationally), yet they do not even post their own Forms 990 as I recall. The chosen popular folklore name also is associated with radical do-good activities and as though going after the perpetrators (those with stockpiled wealth) to help the exploited victims (the poor).  Whether it fits or not might bear a closer look, and if not, then the name could or should be considered an attempt to throw others off-track when tracking the “macroeconomics”of the organization and whom it networks with.  (Famous actors who have played Robin Hood in film (LA Times 2010 recounts (May 12, 2010, Susan King)* about the time a Russell Crowe version was coming out).  Not counting the animated, musical or comedic versions, also includes:  Errol Flynn, Douglas Fairbanks, Sean Connery, Kevin Costner). Said the LA Times article, though the setting was 12th century, the earliest ballads recounting it weren’t until 15th and 16th centuries:

*The legend of Robin Hood is firmly entrenched in British folklore — an archer and swordsman who, with his band of merry men, robbed from the rich and gave to the poor during the early 12th century in Nottinghamshire’s Sherwood Forest. Originally portrayed as a commoner, Robin’s image changed so that he was later thought of as a nobleman who lost his lands and was cast out as an outlaw. …The earliest surviving ballads telling his story are dated to the 15th century or early 16th century.

<Para.2> When, and what cost, will we learn that corporate names can be mis-leading, and that there’s always more than one angle to what’s considered charitable organizations?  Even the best of them operate in a field which is vast, uncharted, and fast-growing, and whose collective economic impact is unknown and cannot be fathomed even in legitimate cross-sections within slice of time. One reason why: the potential for so many related entities per 501©3 (or ©4 or © 6 — that is, per entity), and lack of shareholder oversight because a nonprofit is by definition non-stock issuing.  But any nonprofit with assets can invest them in a variety of other companies (Public traded, private-traded, other investments, other assets are all categories shown in a standard IRS Form 990 Pt X Balance Sheet), and it can contract independently with all types of companies (private, public, or other tax-exempts, and corporations or LLCs  — and/or overseas companies according to their home country’s regulations), donate to other tax-exempts and government, take government grants (in essence, redistributing public funds), and likewise donate to a variety of other organizations (although most often it’s other tax-exempt private entities and/or government entities).  And, let’s talk universities — these donations to, investments in, subcontracting with university to serve the organization or vice versa, often come with professors or associate professors (whose careers have many times involved major grants from public, and/or private foundations; and universities in the USA also span the public and private sectors, and when private mostly as nonprofits often with their own companion or attached foundations(!!).  Some are organized at the state level and supported by people within the state, and typically commandeer significant institutional funds which can (“Go back to Square One”) be invested in a variety of vehicles both domestic AND off-shore, and employ many. … Also, leadership (board of directors, etc.) any public charity (501©3-filing corporation) leadership must declare “interested persons transactions” and business or family relationships — but simply having them is not prohibited.
Read the rest of this entry »

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 , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

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 »

Spelling It Out Again, Basic Players, Basic Blueprints [yawn…][well, we’d better not, actually…] (Publ. Oct. 28, 2012)

leave a comment »

Spelling It Out Again, Basic Players, Basic Blueprints [yawn…][well, we’d better not, actually…]

(Published Oct. 28, 2012; about 12,700 words.  Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ends “-1cD”).  This information and minor (readability) format changes added June 22, 2019 on realizing the post needed a “Read-more” link, when it came up in a blog search of a specific term “Saddleback,” among about seven other posts.  //LGH

 

MDRC (1974ff), TANF (1996ff), Gov Leavitt (1998ff), Gov Keating + Wade Horn (2000ff)

Actually, don’t yawn — because this is an infinitely expanding program until the US goes bust, which it is probably just speeding up.  At which time program engineers (*including a few former US Governors, and such) plus funders (Federal Government + Major Foundations built by corporate wealth), and a variety of religious leaders who also are being enriched by this (including those that are already on the Forbes list, like David Green of “Hobby Lobby” was, as I pointed out recently, who gave (literally, a donation) over 150 acres to Saddleback Church/Rick Warren, who is already marketing HIS wares through the church and trademarks on it, too.  These are Purpose-Driven Programs, I’m just deducing some of the Purposes by observing their Practices.)…and of course the gatekeepers such as the lawyers, judges, mediators, custody evaluators and so forth . . . will be able to afford THEIR exit plans in their retirement years, potentially.  They are already internationally connected and doing business, in many cases (whether through travel, having corporations registered overseas, or simply the internet).

Heck, the US Government is investing internationally for sure, and I’ll bet that every single state’s public employee pension plan (CALPers, New York States’ Pension Plan, Pennsylvania’s — probably every single one – and you can find them on their CAFRs and look) — probably also  is investing in multiple currencies and countries, playing one against the other, plus in various corporations.

But I believe there is likely to be a continental lockdown, which may explain perhaps why so many are in privatized lockUPs..  

The number one feature I notice is treating the human population like a material resource, which (from that point of view) it is — if they are poor, because of prior policies set up (by the same crowd) — exploit it.  If they are divorcing — exploit that, too.

Then sell it to them (because any good businessperson is adept at getting other to fund its startups, and of course many things are also tax write-offs) and have their income taxes pay for it, and the income taxes of the middle classes’s taxes who hasn’t caught onto this yet because they’re working 9 to 5, detoxing from work part of their time off, and stressing out about the future while at work, etc.

MAKE SURE the Middle Class believes that the real problems are the shiftless poor, the fertile female African Americans or anyone else with dark skin, or heck any color female skin, and things like DIVORCE. ANYTHING but the bottom-line reality….  

Then go about to help the other side of the equation…. based on some profile.

Hopefully  people who read the last few posts (sorry, I don’t have any gold stars or discount coupons for the effort!) will start to understand that something less than above-board (at some levels) and “in-your-face” (at other levels) is going on involving:


  • Religious beliefs held in common by at least Mormons, Catholics & Evangelicals
  • Certain of the 50 United States well-knowon for their Mormon, or Evangelical roots (Utah, Oklahoma, specifically)
  • Certain individuals in responsible positions at the top-of-state level, whether Governor (Keating OK; Leavitt:  Utah; and a family divorce lawyer also serving as a Utah State Rep and on its Judiciary Committee, proposing legislation and getting it passed…)
  • Federal Grants to the States from HHS involving Welfare Funding.
  • Family Lawyers and Related Industries — Seeing as to get legally divorced, one often utilizes a lawyer — or at a minimum, walks into some sort of family courts to get that divorce — there is also a marketing element in the marriage promotion business by family lawyers, which capitalizes on the HHS grants and their influence in the legislature to mandate or promote purchasing of services, seminars, books, and classes by the same.I have (now) a sky-blue-background “rant” (about three inches of vertical space? or so) at the top of “Christianity and Its Sects in the Statehouse” in which I completely derailed into a NHMRC (National Healthy Marriage Resource Center) website and gave a short, but detailed reference to what money is supporting that operation — and the products, services, and goods that the FOUNDATIONS supporting MDRC (look it up) in promoting and dissemination, essentially “fatherhood” promotion, even though HHS is already granting corporations quite a bit to set up shop in this field.  MDRC was formed in 1974, I have posted on it, and a very old (why can’t such a wealthy firm update their own website with a better diagram for the public?) — pie chart, 2010, showing the main sources of its funding.
    • Another way to call that what is is, would simply be AFCC, NACC, CRC, and friends.

The sky-blue rant at the top of my Oct. 21 post “Christianity and Its Sects” shows how a visit to a federally-funded site which spins off business to the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative PR Firm (Public Strategies Inc.) and friends — then links to a nice MDRC program evaluation, which spins off money to its subcontractors, and you can follow who is supporting this from the acknowledgement in the front of the report.  Not to mention the number of the federal HHS contract used to do the study.  In short, the people getting the most employment profit from this do NOT appear to be the poor, but those studying them.

I think I have more than demonstrated that the public access database TAGGS.hhs.gov isn’t going to help us study where the bulk of the HHS money is going in any efficient or meaningful way.  I say that after three years of scrutiny, mostly showing screwups in the basic design, not just data entry and a whole lot of them seem like MORE than accidental.

I also find groups that don’t file taxes with their chief personnel (CEOs, who got over $100k salary from apparently the original HHS) then being further promoted to more responsibility — i.e., I”m talking about for example, Mrs. Charles Ballard, commonly known as Frances Ballard, sitting on the board of WIFI (Women in Fatherhood Inc.) AND being somehow involved in the administration of the “national responsible fatherhood clearinghouse” which it assures us, is funded by the US Government.  So how can a person be an “Executive Director” of what looks like a government-supported website unless he or she is a government employee?

I haven’t figured that one out yet.  Maybe you can: The first title given in her description is ED of the NRFC — which is a website!  She is doing this while also on the board of WIFI — so on HER tax return (assuming there is one) where’s the income coming from and reported as? I also note that while wifi is not a D.C. organization, most likely the clearinghouse (being a website), IS:

Frances Ballard is the Executive Director for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). In her role she is responsible for the strategic direction and leadership for activities regarding the NRFC, including the coordination of the media campaign, clearinghouse and Web site, Training and Technical Assistance (T & TA) to responsible fatherhood demonstration sites, and building relationships and partnerships for NRFC

This site is, literally, steering and setting national federal policy.  Was Ms. Ballard somehow elected as a public official, or was this website voted into existence and then privately contracted out to her?  I notice that the WIFI link has a direct link at its bottom to “childtrends.org” which is an Annie E. Casey foundation “thang.” This is certainly ALL about the children, that’s why no one need to explain to the adults– their parents — where their inheritances (or household incomes) went, or is going in the future, except out the door and from there, who knows?

This website has a *.gov address.

So, what does it mean to have an “executive director” — is that person an employee or a contractor — it should be one or the other.  To be an “Executive Director” of a *.gov site is a very interesting job title.  Is that not an accurate job title?

[next section in different background color is a quote.  Not sure why I didn’t use the “quote” function originally…//LGH comment added June 22, 2019 during post format quasi-cleanup]

Who are we?
The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse is an Office of Family Assistance (OFA) funded national resource for fathers, practitioners, programs/Federal grantees, states, and the public at-large who are serving or interested in supporting strong fathers and families.


The National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC) is a resource of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Administration for Children and Families’ (ACF) Office of Family Assistance (OFA).

The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA) re-authorized funding for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC). The NRFC was initially funded through the Deficit Reduction Act (2005) for “the development, promotion, and distribution of a media campaign to encourage the appropriate involvement of parents in the life of any child and specifically the issue of responsible fatherhood, and the development of a national clearinghouse to assist States and communities in efforts to promote and support marriage and responsible fatherhood.”


Contact Us information:

Mailing address
National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse
307A Consaul Road
Albany, New York 12205

Federal Contact
Lisa Washington-Thomas
Branch Chief, TANF Technical Assistance
Office of Family Assistance
lwashington-thomas@acf.hhs.gov
(202) 401-5141
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: