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

Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”).

with 2 comments

Before digging into this post, click on this “TinyURL” which leads to a report generated by the “new face” of TAGGS.HHS.Gov.  This is some of the subject matter I am discussing.   That link leads to a a report run today (3/29/2016) showing by year, grants to a single organization in (Duluth) MN:

Report Total:  $23,841,530 [= 2016 search results; about $3.8M higher than my post in 2011]
Distinct Award Count: 38

You will notice that some grants refer to the “Special Issue Resource Center.” …

Given the column headings I selected, that of over perhaps twenty years, only THREE different women are shown:   Ellen Pence and Denise Gamache headed up most of them as “Principal Investigator”, then in about 2000, mostly just Denise Gamache, and in 2016, I see a “Renee Gutman.”

Denise Gamache is now associated with “Battered Women’s Justice Project” (and was while working also at DAIP) which decided to “come out” (incorporate in MN) in the year 2013.  I see that “Renee Gutmann” got her degree in 1993, and has worked for DAIP since 1993 (LinkedIn) and is characterized as “Accountant” for DAIP.

Part 1 (most recent post) explains why I’m re-blogging it with some updates. It was recently reblogged on Red Herring Alert, in an interesting juxtaposition of articles.

This version of the same post makes some charts more readable. The gist of the material is the Ellen Pence / Casey Gwinn connection (representing the Duluth, MN-based “DAIP” as it now goes by, and the Family Justice Center concept (now called “Alliance for Hope International” as a California nonprofit of which the “Family Justice Center Alliance” has become a program). It also intersected with Telling Amy’s Story, and got under my skin at the time, as it still does.

As does the entire “Family Justice Center” setup.  I still remember “connecting the dots” on discovering that the San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation (it’s full original, corporate name) existed to funnel money to Camp Hope, Inc. — but Camp Hope, Inc. wasn’t staying properly incorporated.  No matter, shut down one version, file for a new one, move the money.  It was a minor, minor detail — charitable registration number was so close, and more recently realizing it’d changed names AGAIN, that got me reviewing the earlier tax returns of this operations. I have been living IN California before, during, and while, this business model was created, funded, and replicated.  It’s worth an entirely separate blog to alert people to what, exactly IS that business model — but I am only one person.

The fuller background on the original (a) philanthropic private wealthy couple and (b) public funds behind the multiple names surrounding both the San Diego Family Justice Center and the associated “Camp Hope” theme, are another separate story which I also learned considerably more fascinating background on this past summer. By doing, the usual thing — scrutinizing tax returns and looking up the entities and people named in them.  Some of this is exposed below in the section with light-brown-background and teal borders.  Actually, influence from “Fuller Seminary” leadership may have been involved so, “fuller background” could be a pun, also.

“Getting” the reality of the Family Justice Center Alliance is, I’d say, as important as getting the reality of the Duluth Model, CCR, treat everyone and let us be the train-the-trainer people concept. So I will continue to bring it up, where it ties into the other subject matter.  Both involve replicating BUSINESS models.  A close diagnosis of the original models then, is always appropriate — and by “diagnosis” I mean, accounting-wise.  This can’t be just one organization, but involve the various related organizations (translation:  “networks”) to construct something of a picture of operations.  Even for people who weren’t “there,” right on scene locally — it can still be done.

6/4/2011 post begins here.  Interjections from 2016 will have a different background color.  If they get too long in the writing, I’ll move them to a separate post.  It also looks like HHS/TAGGS database just got radically revised and (at first glance) I don’t see how one can access any data before the year 2007 (previously, it went back to 1995).  See very bottom of this post.

I am moving part of this post to a 3rd “Part”….

The Nonprofit Preventing Family Violence and Dispensing Family Justice world can be a very friendly set of associates.  In getting to know these individuals, besides hearing what they say & write (including positively about each other), I think it’s also helpful to look at who is paying how much for the time and the talents.Getting to know each other …

On a  recent [in 6/2011] post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.

(broken link to “Interview of Ellen Pence by Casey Gwinn was “http://nfjca.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=bd05931ed27e4ab9afc89c5878e74ce21d“)

(second broken link to “Interview of Ellen Pence by Casey Gwinn” was “http://telling.psu.edu/“)

[This color background inside green borders in this post designates my 2016 UPDATES}

2016 “Broken link” substitute:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZeppoVr5f0&feature=youtube (Found by searching; found at a wordpress blog complaining about the feminist ideology.  I may know the individual who posted it)..  Youtube summary with this video (may not be the same one) describes it as:

On March 29, 2010, Casey Gwinn interviewed Ellen Pence in St. Paul, Minnesota for three hours. Ellen and Casey focused on the recent release of the Blueprint for Safety by Praxis International and on the work and future of the Family Justice Center movement in America. This video is a 41 minute edited version of the interview. It was played at the International Family Justice Center Conference on April 28, 2010. The National Family Justice Center Alliance, in partnership with the Verizon Foundation, will be making available the entire interview in the next 60 days. Please remember Ellen in your thoughts and prayers as she battles cancer. She has played a powerful leadership role in the domestic violence movement for over 30 years. The impact of her vision, work, and leadership is profound and will help shape the struggle to stop domestic violence for many years to come in the United States and around the world.

Ellen Pence did battle, but did not beat, cancer, and died within about two years.

Ellen Pence Obituary, January 19, 2012 by Julie Bindel in The Guardian (UK)

Ellen Pence aimed to teach offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and to desire change

It is not an easy task to make an audience roar with laughter while lecturing on domestic violence and homicide, but such was the compelling humour of Ellen Pence, who has died of breast cancer aged 63. Pence was a pioneer in creating and promoting innovative strategies to deal with domestic abuse. The training she developed, and the accessible and motivational way in which she delivered it, changed the way violence towards women and children in the home is viewed.

In 1980 she founded the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, widely known as the Duluth model (named after the Minnesota city where it was developed). Based on an inter-agency approach in which police, probation services, courts, social services and women’s advocacy projects work together to assess risk, protect victims and deal effectively with the abuser, this strategy remains a blueprint across the US and UK.

.. The Duluth model pioneered the somewhat controversial perpetrator programmes for abusive men which now run in several countries as an alternative to, or as part of, a custodial sentence for domestic violence offences. Pence always had a clear understanding that abusive men can change if those working with them have the appropriate training, skills and tools. She created the programme with the aim of teaching offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and to desire change.

If you don’t know this material yet, please read the rest of the article.  The key concept of promoting TREATMENT PLANS as alternative to CRIMINAL (“custodial” — meaning, incarceration) sentence for “domestic violence offences”), i.e., often called “batterers intervention programs” is a MAJOR big fish to swallow along with the field.  It is in my opinion, one of the main problems with the response to DV as those intent on their persuasive abilities — and focusing on TRAINING, at many levels has simply reinforced a focus on the perps, and not those perpetrated upon.  This is now so engrained it would be tough to re-consider.  Entire conferences, associations, agenda, and grants streams might need to be re-arranged — and once people are involved, who wants to do that?
Read the rest of this entry »

Ellen Pence and Casey Gwinn — Will the real Minnesota Program Development Inc. please stand up?

with 8 comments



The Nonprofit Preventing Family Violence and Dispensing Family Justice world can be a very friendly set of associates.  In getting to know these individuals, besides hearing what they say & write (including positively about each other), I think it’s also helpful to look at who is paying how much for the time and the talents.

Getting to know each other …

On a  recent post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.

Interview of Ellen Pence by Casey Gwinn

Interview of Ellen Pence by Casey Gwinn

(Telling amy’s story comes out of Pennsylvania, and I’m starting to wonder who paid for that one, too.  The Amy in question ended up being shot by her stalker/abuser and probably just fortune/luck/God (etc.) that her parents and her child wasn’t also shot — as all were foolish enough to drive her back to the house for some diapers (etc.) RIGHT after a strong confrontation with the man.  Amy now being dead, others, heads of domestic violence prevention groups, are telling her story — and they are telling HALF her story.  They didn’t even notice that it wasn’t too bright to lose one’s life over some nonfoods that could be purchased cheap at a local store.)  But doesn’t it look official and appropriate — “Telling amy’s story.” )

Personally, what inspired me much more (while in or shortly after leaving the abusive relationship) was stories of women who were NOT shot to death, and how they recovered, went on to succeed in their new lives, and these stories were told in their own words — which could happen because they lived.  They did not die!)

Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:


Born in MinneapolisMinnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A.(in ???_______)   She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 (?? see bottom of my pos) and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.

(incidentally, St. Scholastica ain’t your average private liberal arts college.  See the 27-member Board of Trustees, for one.  Catholic/ Benedictine Order influence)


Here (for the new to this) are some of the “Power and Control” Wheels circulated through The Duluth Model.  I’ve linked it to a young woman’s memorial fund who was trying to break out of this cycle while murdered.  Her relatives hope that publicizing this may help others…  (does it?)  They formed a nonprofit to commemorate here and use the wheel with the permission of:

Used with permission of the
202 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802

Not knowing the “Lindsay Anne Burke” case from Rhode Island, I find out that she was girlfriend to a man who’d previously fathered two children, and had had their mothers get restraining orders out on him.  Moreover, she started dating him around the time his second child had been born!

A law was named after her dramatic case (PROJO — R.I. paper — describes, 2005)(2007, warning!: graphic account of trial & testimony).  QUESTION:  If these groups have been educating and warning women about the dangers of stalkers, controlling personalities and in general domestic violence issues since the 1980s, how come this still happens in the 2000s ?  Sadly, we see the Burke memorial fund suggesting people contribute to the local Coalition Against Domestic Violence.    Yet this horrible murder was clearly preceded by not one, but two domestic violence restraining orders in the context of custody battles — children born in 1998 & 2003 —  and the officers are saying they had no record?


You can see readily how the collaborative response from Duluth might have things in common with the San Diego-based Family Justice Collaboration model, including focusing on training, and credibility when it comes to a great grants stream.  One difference is that Pence did not come from public employment in law enforcement or a LEGAL or ENFORCEMENT background, but a SOCIOLOGICAL perspective.  I don’t believe this can be said of Casey Gwinn’s background. However, it’s clear they have common ground.

In 1979, there was already an existing domestic violence prevention group around.  From what I can tell this group (associated with a university) got basically outclassed and, if I may, “out-gunned” (financially and as to web presence), although it’s still around, it’s hard to find through Google Search, and its current “history” page is blank.  It is based in Minneapolis, not Duluth and is associated with (Dr.) Jeffrey Edleson.  I reports income of of about $1.6 million (per Guidestar) and is in this tax-exempt

Category (NTEE):Crime, Legal Related / (Protection Against and Prevention of Neglect, Abuse, Exploitation)

Year Founded:1979 Ruling Year:1979 (EIN# 411356278).

It shows 15 board members, 53 employees and 35 volunteers and receives a lot of grants in support.  It has not tried, from what I can tell, to change the entire world or justice system, or franchise itself.  It does not appear to be drawing from HHS funds, perhaps that’s why it’s a measly $1 million and not a bustling $3 million or $4 million per year, as others…  But the question that comes up, why form a group only a year later that is hellbent on transforming the distribution of justice through training projects?


About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:

Given the economy, perhaps you should attempt to get a job in one of these places, get on the conference circuit and establish your reputation, and then you can run things AND perhaps have a retirement, and a mobile lifestyle (at least periodically) as well.    How is it that justice can’t be achieved and violence prevented by the process of equal enforcement (whether towards men or towards women or towards children) of the existing state laws against assault & battery, against felony child-stealing, against rape, against molestation of minors, against abuse in general?    Why is it necessary to form nonprofit after nonprofit (staff them, sometimes set up buildings, or lease buildings), build curricula, train & retrain judges, and everyone else, and sell “risk assessment kits” to family law professionals?

What are people so angry about, that they have to keep assaulting and trafficking each other, and where did they learn this habit of treating people like animals, including selling them?  . . . Hardly the answer for a single post (or lifetime), but did you ever consider why — given that these things seem to be part of human nature, if not the history of our species — it is now suddenly thought that an institution or resource center could somehow change human nature and stop this, bringing in world utopia, starting with organizations that — by this point in time (say, starting in the 1980s) are actually run by people already involved in running the major institutions of our states and local communities?

Then these organizations, with leadership by public employees or former employees, already whose salaries were paid by the public, drawing on FEDERAL support pooled from the IRS, and distributed largely according to decisions that many local populations are unaware of — meaning from a database of wage-earners in and out of state.

If you can’t grasp the concept — let me illustrate.  Have you ever heard of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.?”  (pause to allow search).

I have — but only because I research the grants system.  Better known is its subsidiary (?), “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project,” and the well-known (among domestic violence circles, and many victims have received some literature on  “the Duluth Model.”  This is from a facebook page based on a Wikipedia Article which is clearly not written by someone involved with the DAIP.  (Contributors).  I came here after attempting to find Minnesota Program Development Inc. on the Minnesota AG’s list of charities.  So far, it doesn’t exist.  Until recently, I’d thought it was some sort of workforce development organization, similar to MDRC a group that kept cropping up as fulfilling contracts with the government, and/or evaluating them.  The kind of contracts & grants I’ve been looking at here, i.e., fatherhood promotion and the legal rights dilution process.



“MDRC: Manpower Development Research Development, “What IS MDRC?

Too often, public policies that profoundly affect the lives of low-income families are shaped by hunches, anecdotes, and untested assumptions. Ineffective policies waste precious resources and feed public cynicism about government. Most important, such policies may hinder the very people they are designed to help. MDRC was created to learn what works in social policy — and to make sure that the evidence we produce informs the design and implementation of policies and programs.

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

A Foundation/Federal Agency blend has significant power and influence.  Its apparently top 3 Board of Directors are from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, you DO know who they are, right?), the JFK School of Government at Harvard, and The Urban Institute.  Reading below the line, I notice the  first one (the list is alphabetical) is Ron Haskins, well known (nay, infamous!) for having pushed through the Access and Visitation Grants section of the 1996 Welfare Reform, and from his work at HHS.  Translation:  Fatherhood promoter.    The last one, Isabel V. Sawhill (both of Brookings Institute) and both known as collaborators and researchers on fatherhood and family issues, along with such as Sara McLanahan, Ron Mincy, and others.

Inbetween, we have people from Harvard [Economics], Harvard [Education and Economics], Harvard [Education], Princeton, @ Univ. of Chicago [School of Social Service Administration], UNC (North Carolina), a bank (Citigroup) the president of a foundation, and “Chair, Steering Committee Association of Corporate Counsel Value Challenge.”  Counsel, as in lawyers — corporate lawyers’ association.

Clearly, this is an influential group of some very high-ranking people influencing and possibly directing policy of masses  — like THE masses (see K-12 education influence) of population, with an emphasis on the poor.  Their (2009) budget being over $80 MILLION (66% from gov’t, 28% from private foundations,  1% from Universities, and a small sliver from others) takes a few pie charts to even visualize.  I’ve dragged it here  — or see link:

Financial Profile:

With an annual budget of more than $80 million, MDRC derives its revenues from a wide variety of sources. About 67 percent of MDRC’s funding comes from federal, state, and international government contracts. The rest comes from foundations, corporations, universities, individuals, and other sources. MDRC uses these funds to support the work of its five research policy areas: K-12 education, youth and postsecondary education, families and children, low-wage workers and communities, and health and barriers to employment.

We are all citizens, but some citizens have more influence than others, and those running foundations, perhaps as much as government.  Moreover, foundations are historically close to the running of the U.S., however much we struggle to view ourselves as individually sovereign citizens with individual rights, and seek to uphold the law without respect to, say, connections or wealth.  BUT our society is a jobs-focused, Public-education-grounded (for most children), earn wages and consume products and services (including products and services we probably don’t need most of), while the leaders and innovators work on consolidating their wealth to organize new technologies, explore outer space and deep oceans (great projects), build bridges and highways and so forth.       It bears a humble reminder from time to time how relative & subjective the word “freedom” is.

What we sometimes forget (and it’s certainly not mainstream media headlines) is that a lot of this “technology” is in management of humans, and measuring how well that management has been working.   We may think in terms of civil rights and due process, but there are groups like MDRC (and with the foundation influence) thinking in quite different terms….  And that nonprofits, corporations (including those that fulfil government purposes, for profit), and foundations define themselves, in the U.S., in relationship to the IRS, the strong-arm-collection agency of the taxes that support every governmental function and institution.


(1)  From “infoplease” article:

The US Tax system has a dubious history, obviously.  Originally, early (1791, this source says), it internally taxed certain [sales of] goods, including slaves.  A quick review from this “infoplease.com” page does indeed relate to business at hand today — why some people can have laws to protect them enforced, and others can’t — and why more of us should pay more and more organizations to figure out why…

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation’s first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.   

Hmm. . . . .Seizure of property and prosecution….

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.

So, a good part of what we may call government included from the start raising money by selling slaves (not to mention that those who governed OWNED slaves), and then a nice income tax to help wage the civil war to free slaves (and prevent the South from seceding, etc.).  Now, presidents seem to rise (or fall) on what they do with taxes, and as we see above, groups like MDRC who know how to qualify to be wealthy and pay less taxes, and do business with government, decide without our real input, what to do with the population of the United States who do NOT know how to do these things, or run government.  While this isn’t technically buying and selling slaves, by controlling/influencing JOBS, FAMILIES & EDUCATION, it sure is great people management.  I imagine this is real heady work, helping influence a country of this size and wealth.  But the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller, etc. were always pretty good at these activities…..


On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan. . . . On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton,  In 1997, Clinton,…President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001…. [[OK, that’s enough!]]

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.comhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1OKM4FlHq

(the ground was ripe for 1996 PRWORA act, which then allocated $10 million a year to run social science demonstration projects on people, through various agencies, and at the bequest/behest of the “secretary of Health and Human Services.”  It’s understandable, in this context, while policies voted in to do something — anything (or allegedly do something, or anything)  about welfare, or child support enforcement – might be popular.  This is the world we inhabit, whether or not we are conscious of it…..)

Or, say

(2) from MISES institute article:  “The Income Tax:  Root of All Evil“*

“The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913,” wrote Frank Chodorov.  Indeed, a man’s home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.

Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.

How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?

OK, if you are a woman or descended from people who needed a special amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to VOTE, not exactly in the 1700s, (or, if you, now more enlightened, see what they’re missing) — they still have a point.   The American people ARE no longer the master nor does the government appear to think of itself in private and in practice, at least, as the “servant.”  However, public proclamations justifying more and more expenditures to solve problems created by the same governental system to start with — will generally use the word “SERVE” as in, “Health and Human Services” or “Family Court Services” or “Child Support Services” or, for that matter, “Child Protection Services.”  And this site is probably a good read, whatever we (or you) think about (particularly any women adn children who have been captive in an abuser’s “castle” while knowing that others outside were cautious to invade or infringe upon it by, say, getting inbetween a man (or woman) assaulting, imprisoning, exploiting, or mentally torturing for years, a wife (or husband, or offspring).

Possibly because the word “SERVE” and ‘SERVICES’ has been so overused (or, like CPS, have developed really bad public reputations), the tendency now is to go for “Centers” especially “RESOURCE CENTERS” and coalitions, of course are also popular, plus partnerships.  Anything almost, but rule of law, plain and simple, and fairly practiced.

*an obvious misquote of “the love of money is the root of all evil.”  Notice, that the person who wrote this (apostle Paul) spoke of something in the heart, loving the wrong thing — but this is speaking an institution set up to collect and pool it, then dispense favor at will to those who qualified.  The system does bear questioning..


(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention.  From HHS):


Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

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

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).

DULUTH, MN 55802-2152
Country Name: United States of America
County Name: ST. LOUIS
HHS Region: 5
Type: Other Social Services Organization
Class: Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

This organization obviously has a budget, and must have a payroll.  Though pretty hard to find by a Google search, and it being a private nonprofit (registered in MN?) NGO, it has to process these funds somehow.  A woman lists it in her resume, as an accountant on LinkedIn.  The question I have is, would it exist without federal funds?

Staff Accountant


Nonprofit Organization Management industry

June 1996 – December 2000 (4 years 7 months)

Accomplishments – Financial Leadership
– Developed annual budgets ($5 million) and financial statements presenting them to management and Board of Directors.
– Partnered with Management Team, defined/executed software conversion, created new chart of accounts, and streamlined individual funding, program and organizational reporting processes.
– Managed annual fiscal audit and all audits by State and Federal regulatory agencies.
Integrated in-house payroll system, processed payroll in multiple states, and eliminated outsourcing costs.
– Recruited, hired, trained, and mentored staff accountants and support staff.
– Wrote, produced, and disseminated organization-wide policy and procedural handbook and administered employee benefits program.
– Managed all employee benefit plans.

Some non-profit!

MPDI is still training (seems to be the emphasis, and disseminating information)  (notice Who they are training)

Found at the Minnesota Coalition for Battered Women (also a grants recipients but nowhere so large as this one):

A Multidisciplinary Response To Domestic Violence

Date and Time:
05/05/2011 – 8:00am –

A Multidisciplinary Response to Domestic Violence Part 1 (Part 1 of a 2 Part Series)
The Kandiyohi County Domestic Violence Coordinating Council

Thursday, May 5, 2011 – 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. – Kandiyohi County LEC Emergency Operations Center – 2201 NE 23rd St., Suite 101, Willmar, Minnesota.

Part 1 of this 2 Part Series focuses on the foundational level principles in providing a meaningful response to domestic violence.  The target audience for this training includes law enforcement, prosecutors, advocates, corrections/probation agents, social workers, and any professionals who respond to domestic violence.  Featuring Scott Jenkins from The National Training Project of Minnesota Program Development, Inc.

Part 2 of this series will be offered in 2012.

BEFORE I GO ON:  Here is a reference to who created the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, and when:

Welcome to Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs

Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs offers domestic violence training and resources based on The Duluth Model to help community activists, domestic violence workers, practitioners in the criminal and civil justice systems, human service providers, and community leaders make a direct impact on domestic violence.

The Duluth Model is recognized nationally and internationally as the leading tool to help communities eliminate violence in the lives of women and children. The model seeks to eliminate domestic violence through written procedures, policies, and protocols governing intervention and prosecution of criminal domestic assault cases.*** The Duluth Model was the first to outline multi-disciplinary procedures to protect and advocate for victims.

Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs was founded in 1980 by Minnesota Program Development, Inc. 

** as we see, it makes no mention of domestic violence that comes up through or is “handled” through the Family Law system (in which criminal activity gets reclassified as domestic disputes, and downgraded to a family, or civil, matter).  Don’t be fooled easily though, recently a subsidiary of DAIP (see site), called “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has collaborated with the (in)famous AFCC on Explicating what is (and, more to the point, is NOT) domestic violence in custody venue.  More on that another time…

Who IS Minnesota Program Development, Inc., then?  I mean, what is their organizational status — who owns them, who runs them, if they are a nonprofit, where are their annual tax fillings, etc.?   What do they DO?


Showing: 1 – 22 of 22 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 1,178,812
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 1,228,812
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 2008 Total: $ 1,178,811
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,178,810
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 1,178,811
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 5 0 ACF 08-29-2005 193187069 $ 1,343,183 
2005 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 4 1 ACF 03-11-2005 193187069 $ 0 
Fiscal Year 2005 Total: $ 1,343,183
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2004 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 4 0 ACF 07-27-2004 193187069 $ 1,343,183 
Fiscal Year 2004 Total: $ 1,343,183
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2003 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 3 0 ACF 09-06-2003 193187069 $ 1,350,730 
2003 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 2 1 ACF 09-06-2003 193187069 $ 0 
Fiscal Year 2003 Total: $ 1,350,730
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2002 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 2 0 ACF 09-14-2002 193187069 $ 1,331,291 
Fiscal Year 2002 Total: $ 1,331,291
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2001 90EV0248  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 1 0 ACF 09-14-2001 193187069 $ 1,275,852 
Fiscal Year 2001 Total: $ 1,275,852
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2000 90EV0104  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 5 0 ACF 08-10-2000 193187069 $ 1,121,852 
Fiscal Year 2000 Total: $ 1,121,852
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1999 90EV0104  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 4 0 ACF 08-19-1999 193187069 $ 1,016,010 
Fiscal Year 1999 Total: $ 1,284,841
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 1998 Total: $ 1,256,950
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
Fiscal Year 1997 Total: $ 800,000
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1996 90EV0104  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 01 000 ACF 09-23-1996 193187069 $ 589,908 
Fiscal Year 1996 Total: $ 589,908
FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
1995 90EV0011  P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 03 000 ACF 09-13-1995 193187069 $ 385,541 
1995 90EV0011  P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 03 001 ACF 04-19-1996 193187069 $ 0 
Fiscal Year 1995 Total: $ 385,541
Total of all award actions: $ 18,027,387

Until recently, I figured, then that this Minnesota Program Development, Inc. — which I knew to be receiving millions  (larger than average grants, at least outside the healthy marriage movement) from the Department of HHS, so I figured that probably they were some workforce development group.  Particularly as it showed up looking for staff; they were hiring.  However, now I am not so sure.

Many of MPDI’s sub-programs were there, and their annual statements and EINs.  But this organization based at 202 Superior Street Duluth, MN, was not.

It is NON-PROFIT (but has no EIN#?) PRIVATE and NON-GOVERNMENT, and its chief purpose is SOCIAL SERVICES (not law enforcement, etc.).  The difficulty I have with this is, through this type of collaboration (however noble the cause), it is taking the policy-setting procedures further and further from public awareness unless they run across its programs, long after they are established.  Given the Technical Assistance / Resource Center grants (not that these are bad ideas), they are always going to be a few jumps ahead of individuals, including people that are the target clientele to be served.  Who works at MPDI?  Where are its financial statements, and how can the public access them?  Who audits its work?  Why should the public be funding this is we have no evidence of its effects, even though it’s clearly an ongoing resource?

The Four Resource Centers I seem to have identified not because (as a member of the public) it was ever explained or publicized AS “four resource centers” but because I have been searching TAGGS grants, and noticed that these were some big recipients in the field of violence Prevention.

This chart (better if you search the categories on-line yourself, I searched ONLY on the person’s last name, that I happened to know from prior searches):

Shows that these are EV grants (Education on Violence, presumably), they pull from 3 program codes:  93671, 93592 and 93591.  ALL are “social services” and ALL are “discretionary.”  The projects are visible, and no abstract description (other than the project title) is yet on the database:

Grantee Name Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions Award Abstract

Has it been proved that “Information & Technical Assistance” saves lives, yet?  I’d like to know.  

I searched on “Four Special Issue Resource Centers” and came up with (this time) only grants with principal investigator, Ms. Gamache, and all headed up by MPDI.

FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS?  What constitutes a “Special” issue as opposed to a normal issue, or a legal issue?  (I linked to the HHS definition and listings.  Some are by topic, some are by population as you can see.

However these heavily HHS- funded four resource centers, to my knowledge exist in other states.  One is the Texas DV Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE).  Another is, I believe, the Nevada NCFCJ, which is a family law group. Another, in San Francisco, CA (with office in Washington, DC, as I recall?) is the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” with website “http://www.endabuse.org.”  Another is probably in Pennyslvania (PCADV), and another was (last I heard) in SD, focused on Indian Tribes, and called Cangleska, Inc.  These were identifiably by the amounts of their grants.   Cangleska, Inc., had some financial irregularities and I ran across some press where the tribal elders had fired the people running it (a husband/wife couple) for this reason.

Thanks to our wonderful internet, cross-referencing and on-line organizations (with no real “brick and mortar” site) can indeed exist.  Something could be a “resource center” but have no actual front door, I suppose.    Names also change, for example on the HHS listing, I see:

Health Resource Center on
Domestic Violence

www.endabuse.org exit disclaimer

Well, “endabuse.org” is basically “FVPF,” as it says:

The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence

The National Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence (HRC), a project of the Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF), works to improve health care and public health responses to victims of family violence. The HRC works closely with the American Medical Association and other professional health associations to produce practice and policy guidelines for health care professionals responding to domestic violence. The HRC provides technical assistance, training, public policy recommendations, and materials and responds to over 7,000 requests for technical assistance annually. A number of the resources developed for health professionals and the domestic violence advocates who work with them are available on the FVPF web site, www.endabuse.org exit disclaimer

Not mentioned here is that, for example, the same organization also attempts to reduce domestic violence through “fatherhood” based institutes, as I have mocked before on-line at this blog (in 2011)…

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

National Institute on Fatherhood and Domestic Violence

Fatherhood can be a strong motivator for some abusive fathers to renounce their violence. Some men choose to change their violent behavior when they realize the damage they are doing to their children. […]

But I’m a little slow, because the “FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND” has changed its name — again.  Click on “endabuse.org” and you are now redirected to “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE“(.org) and the announcement, and an entire website makeover, with a Green color scheme, not  vivid red, as before.  Not only do they have a new website (and obviously some good HTML help), they also have a new physical residence, high-profile for the SF area.  FIRST, the family (through fathers) — NOW, the WORLD.  COme visit their Global Leadership Center at the Praesidio, and know that if you’re an American taxpayer, you helped build it:


The Futures Without Violence Center at the Presidio is a global center for action and thought leadership, where individuals and allied organizations from around the world will gather to realize the potential of a world without violence.

The June 1st move to our new headquarters represents years of focused vision, support and hard work from many supporters and our dedicated staff. Housed in a historic military location on the Main Post of the Presidio National Park in San Francisco, this international center will serve as a global town square to promote the safety and wellbeing of all through education, advocacy, and leadership programs, giving voice to women and girls, men and boys everywhere.

Copyright © 2011 Futures Without Violence. All rights reserved.

(The DUNS# lookup shows the title has also been changed, but not yet the address.  DUNS# are for US Govt contractors and grantees)

Lord help us, we have been sponsoring people who think they can stop war (often over economics) and that the public should support this concept.  They forgot the origins of the income tax, which was to wage it, and beyond that — the intent to change human nature (without its informed consent) is going to have a little competition from, say, the Catholic Church and conservative Protestantism who — rather than consolidation efforts, are still endlessly splitting ranks over ordaining women, or gay / lesbian pastors.  San Francisco, as a global town hall forum for this group (and its many supporters) will teach ’em a thing or two!  Not to mention, what would Islam say — in some international circles, it hasn’t reconciled itself to letting women drive, let alone vote!

Guess this goes to show why it’s important to look at IRS-based indentifiers (EIN, DUNS) and organizational origins & funding.  For example, I doubt a search on “Futures without Violence” would pull up this:

Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Family Violence Prevention Fund  SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103-5178 SAN FRANCISCO 618375687 $ 31,000

(note:  single change in zip code, last digit)

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recip

Futures without Violence has a powerpacked Board of Directors (US House of Rep, a Judge or two, Pres. of Business Operations of Univ of Calif., you should really take a look), however it’s Chaired by Dr Jacquelyn Campbell,  She is also well-known for her Danger Assessment for Domestic Violence Victims and the focus is from the medical/nursing/health perspective.   The Honorable Ronald B. Adrinne of Ohio, his blurb acknowledges that this group is funded by the U.S. DOJ:   “He chairs the faculty of the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, a joint initiative of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Futures Without Violence (formerly Family Violence Prevention Fund), financed by the U.S. Department of Justice. ”

Keeping track of the names, the “NJI” (Nat’l Judicial INSTITUTE on DV) is a NCFCJ & Futures (aka, formerly FVPF) joint initiative financed by the DOJ.

So why is it we need more Family Justice Centers, then, with all this clout already on the scene preventing violence and crafting futures without it?  (Even if the world became vegetarian — unlikely — there’d still be local, tribal, and international wars over land and over controlling the food supply, in the bottom line, money….., don’t you think?  And why do we need in addition a continuing Minnesota Program Development, Inc. person coordinating Four (only) of the “Special Issue Resource Centers?”

The “NCFCJ” is already one of the Four Special Issue Resource Centers.  Bolstered by ongoing grants, drawing from fund-pooling enabled by the 1913 passage of a certain amendment to the constitution, resulting in the enforcement arm aka IRS — in a time of economic job losses, the former FVPF is another.  Clearly we are moving away from government in local or even county or even state courts, to policy being set in distant places, without public awareness (unless they dedicate their miserable — or joyful — lives to following this stuff) (I wouldn’t say a joyful life would consist of running around after shape-shifting and name-changing governmentally sponsored hybrid organizations to see if you can protect yourself, or offspring, from their next well-intentioned (presumably) plans for — you and your offspring.

Now let’s look at this DUNS 618375687 that just renamed itself “Futures Without Violence” and got a nice new building — 2010 Activity only:

Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions (I copied only 2010, obviously)

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2010 90EV0401  CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 618375687 $ 250,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 4,528,812

We can see that it’s drawing from three TYPES of grant series, in the FIRST year (see “year of grant) column:  The well known (to me at least) 90EV series, the CCEWH, the ASTWH (though they have similar descriptions, one is labeled FY09, and FY10 gets a new series of labeling.)


The sleeper here, a baby by comparison, is Futures Without Violence, at only a $250K bite of the  $3.350 million of funding.  WATCH OUT (trust me….) this is just seed money:

2010 90EV0401  CREATING FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE  1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 618375687 $250,000

“Futures without Violence” is a household move, a rename, and a facelift of the same old concept that constantly training and educating others, or running risk assessments, is somehow going to change a District Attorney’s, a police officer’s or a family law judge’s, or for that matter, a father’s opinion about crimes perpetrated against women & children.    It is a continuation of promising (but — delivering???)  increased chances of survival and becoming free from abuse, including economic abuse, to distressed women and children, and it also by simply existing, has provoked antagonism from fathers-rights groups who take funding FROM THE SAME DEPARTMENT, HHS!

(searched on USASPENDING.GOV)  recognizing that this group draws from both HHS and OVW sources, here a May, 2011 contract from OVW:

Transaction Number # 4

Federal Award ID: 90EV0401: 0 (Grants)
Reason for Modification:
Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
CFDA Program : 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants

Do you think ANY of this is going to build, staff, or support shelters?  (I doubt it, but one can always call them and ask, I suppose…)

In public, – they pretend to be the squabbling couple — DV vs. FR.  But in practice, they get along quite fine, and know what to do with the respective federal grant streams, wouldn’t you say? The real gap is Practitioners and Hotshots versus the Practiced Upon (which justify funds for “servicing” them).

Futures without violence is a cooperative agreement with the Family and Youth Services Bureau.  I suggest writing your local legislator and asking what the point is; the US is already the world’s largest per capita jailor, and its jails are clearly racists, judging by who’s in them, compared to what % of the population a certain minority is in the UA.   These overcrowded jails are possibly a product of one of the worst public educational systems in the “developed” industrial world, and that’s not because of how much money is spent on it, either.

Click on these funds, and notice some detail.  You’ll find, typically over $1 million of “discretionary” expenditures:

ward Number: CCEWH101001

Obviously, the real money is in Technical Assistance and Training  /// Education.  The sky’s the limit.  It’s “discretionary.”  Relocate.  Revamp the website — or start a new one.  Hire staff.  Get topnotch, hotshot boards of directors in some of the cities known for the highest homicide rates around and whose urban areas still have all kinds of domestic violence homicides/familicide, and wipeouts (while the conferences continue) and no one reports much at all on the family law system’s role in this, or child support’s.  Talk about the problems created by a crumbling infrastructure, while building your web – and conference-based own.  Become a trainer!  Until the country finishes going bankrupt, or getting bought up by overseas interests — and becoming a defunct through mismanagement nation — you can have a real, paying job and go purchase food, housing, rent, transportation and a college education for your kids.

I SEARCHED THE FVPF “Futures without Violence” DUNS # on “USASPENDING.GOV” (for what it’s worth) and under “Advanced Search,” scrolled down (ignoring basically ALL the categories) to put it in under “Parent DUNS Number : 618375687*.”  Found 15 contracts, some performed (per the map) in Georgia?

FVPF draws from a variety of sources:  HHS is not the top source.  Totals that this (2011, today) search drew show:

  • Search Term: “Family Violenc..  (FVPF)
  • Total Dollars:$38,512,886
  • Number of Transactions:89

Top 5 Contracting Agencies

1. Office of Justice Programs $21,134,457 (55%)
2. Immediate Office of the Secretary of Health and Human Services $11,207,290 (29%)
3. Administration for Children and Families $5,500,562 (14%)
4. Health Resources and Services Administration $272,394 (1%)
5. Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code) $218,997

Here is a “timeline” chart reflecting funding (this also, I believe, includes contracts to FVPF, not just grants).  The interactive database allows a Map, Timeline ,and Advanced search options.  The “TIMELINE” bar chart shows clearly that the year 2005 (Reauthorization of VAWA) showed a huge jump in number (it was 22) of awards (grant or contract) for FVPF, but the highest total amount of awards, year to date was 2009, when they got $7.825 million of awards  I’m sure this would allow expanded infrastructure capacity.  The question is — what are they doing with it? Does training really induce honesty, accountability, or greater ethics?

Or does it breed — more & more training entitites with increasingly global aspirations?  And as so many US jobs are being outsourced, and US land being bought up by foreign entities, perhaps we should ask some of them  — how about some Arab countries for starters — to start contributing to the public monies supporting VAWA-style sensitivity and arrest accountability trainings, even though “endabuse.org — excuse me “futureswithoutviolence.org originally called itself the”Family” Violence Prevention Fund.  Looking at these charts, I feel that the operative word is the last word, “FUND.”


The Duluth Model or Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program developed to reduce domestic violence. The Duluth model was developed by Minnesota Program Development, Inc., a nonprofit agency in Duluth, Minnesota. The program was mostly founded by social activist Ellen Pence. The Duluth Model is featured in the documentary Power and Control: Domestic Violence in America.

Origin and theory

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project was the first multi-disciplinary program designed to address the issue of domestic violence.  This experimental program, conducted in Duluth, Minnesota in 1981, coordinated the actions of a variety of agencies dealing with domestic conflict. The program has become a model for programs in other jurisdictions seeking to deal more effectively with domestic violence.

MPDI, as I search it on “USASPENDING.GOV” shows itself not to be as big a “player” as FVPF although it’s been around as long.  See?

  • Total Dollars:$27,989,388
  • Transactions:1 – 25 of 41

If you do this search (and you should), and sort by date, or dollar — it’ll show that on the JUSTICE side, the grants are category 16.526, Office of Violence Against Women Technical Assistance Initiative, or “16.588, VAW Formula Grants (Technical Assistance Program), or 16.589, (etc.)

16.588 : Violence Against Women Formula Grants
Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs
CFDA Program : 16.589 : Rural Domestic Violence Dating Violence Sexual Assault and Stalking Assistance Program
and on the HHS side, the grants are the usual discretionary stuff I have already posted:
CFDA Program : 93.592 : Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters_Discretionary Grants
IF a battered woman’s shelter is going to get any help, it’s likely to come if (and ONLY if) whoever gets these “discretionary” grants (or “State Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” grants) feels like forwarding some.  People like Sandra Ramos of “Strengthen Our Sisters” in NJ (see recent post, bottom). who actually get the help to real-time, real women, and can show it, as seen in the faces of the women she’s helped — can forget it, if they are not into building a larger, nationally-organized infrastructure — primarily circulating training and resource materials among each other, and marketing some of this, too.  Independent success is competition, in this world, it would seem.
Like FVPF (as my search shows on a US map) they have a surprising involvement in the state of Georgia, which turns out to be Dept. of Homeland Security, or Veterans Affairs, or US Coast Guard, trainings — i.e., DOmestic VIolence Video, etc.  (one can click on exact purchase orders)
  • Total Dollars:$57,032
  • Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
This group shows up with 80 employees and revenues of over $3 million, per “Contractor Description” to produce such trainings:
Organizational Type
Number of Employees  80
Annual Revenue  $3,710,570
In the long list of categories to describe federal contractors — is its ownership a small disadvantaged business?  or from a Hist. Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) ?  No.

Who is this contractor, MPDI, again?

Is it Black American, Native American, Asian-Pacific American, Subcontinent Asian (Asian-Indian) America, Hispanic American, Alaskan Native, or Native Hawaiian owned?    No.
Is it an Indian Tribe or Tribally Owned Firm?  No.
Is it Veteran or severely disabled veteran-owned? No.
Is it WOMAN Owned (after all, it’s certainly utilizing VAWA grants)?  No.
Is it in any way, shape or form, Minority Anything? – – – – – – No, No, No, and again, No.   For one, it’s in MN, and although MN has plenty of Native American tribe activity, MPDI, while quite willing to train anyone and everyone on how to deal with these populations is not owned by any of them.
(Well why NOT?)
Well, is it in any way, shape or form, a government (Federal, State, County, Municipal) or GOvernment Owned firm?  no.

Is it a shelter, battered women’s or homeless?  Hell, no:

Domestic Shelter  N: Other than Domestic Shelter

In the entire list, the only category MPDI checked “Y” on is “nonprofit.”  And its revenue exceeds $3.750 million (that’s per year) and it employed 80 people (do the math, subtract expenses and operating revenue).  Go figure . . . . ..

It trains everyone in authority how to change the world so that shelters become obsolescent and to save others.  It’s a multiple, cross-disciplined collaborative model of how to do this, it sets up and supervises (I guess) special- issue (see above populations for a sample) resource center builder, paid for by all of the above who are still working.

(The product in the particular 2006 one I just quoted from reads:Product or Service Information (Award) (Contract was for $22,800and place of performance, Duluth, Purchaser, Dept. of Homeland Security — so I’m guessing they flew some people up to Duluth to get trained….)

Major Product or Service Code  69: Training aids and devices
Product or Service Code  6910: Training Aids
(did they view it, or get interviewed to help create one?).  A VIDEO can be sold over, and over, and over, and over, again…….)
Despite over $3 million of annual revenue, it looks like this group forgot to register with the Office of Attorney General in Minnesota, although some of its subsidiaries didn’t.  Under this state’s site on how to tell a real charity from a fake one, we note:

Charities that provide few services. In other cases, nonprofit organizations may solicit donations for a charitable purpose, when little of the donated funds are actually used for that purpose. People may be asked to give money, donate their car, or purchase a product from an organization that promises to help support worthwhile causes. Upon closer review, however, most of the funds may actually be used to pay for high fundraising costs or executive compensation. These organizations may be nonprofits with tax-exempt status. This means that donors must take time to research all unfamiliar organizations before donating to find out how much of your money is actually going to worthwhile programs.

Follow these tips to be sure your money is spent as you intended:

  1. Is the organization registered with the State? Charities must register with the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office before they may solicit donations in Minnesota if they have raised or expect to raise more than $25,000 or have paid staff. Before you give money, research whether the organization is registered by visiting the Attorney General’s website at www.ag.state.mn.us or calling (651) 296-3353 or 1-800-657-3787. It should be a big red flag if an organization calls you for a donation and is not registered with the Attorney General’s Office.
  2. How does the organization spend money? Take time to research how the organization has spent money in the past. Charities that are registered with the State must file an annual financial statement showing how much money they have raised and how they have spent it.  The financial statement is called a Form 990. You may obtain copies of the Form 990 from the Attorney General’s Office. You may also obtain from the office copies of contracts between charities and their professional fund-raisers so you can determine what percentage of your donation is going to charity.
  3. Is the organization tax-exempt? Find out if the organization has been granted tax-exempt status by calling the IRS tax-exempt hotline at 1-877-829-5500 or searching Publication 78 on its website atwww.irs.gov. It should be a red flag if an organization asks you for a donation for a supposed charitable purpose but does not have tax-exempt status from the IRS. and:
  4. Don’t be pressured by emotional appeals. Take time to do your homework before you give. Some disreputable organizations may pressure you to give money immediately, in some cases making you feel like you are letting down a good cause if you don’t. Don’t be pressured— any reputable charity will appreciate your donation just as much if you take the time to research the donation first.
I find it hard to believe that anything of this size would NOT be registered with the state.  I will look at the IRS.gov site — but for sure, organizations that go STRAIGHT to HHS and DOJ grants (and get them, consistently) don’t have to appeal so much to the public — who then may be unaware of their size and influence.  They simply go for the money that the IRS collected from the public. ….
On their search site, it reads, right underneath the search button:
NOTE: It has come to our attention that some of the information on this site may be compromised. We have removed the information in question while we look into the matter.
(I don’t see how to key in a DUNS# for a search and the title of MPDI didn’t surface on a simple title search there.)

Cumulative List of 501(c)(3) Organizations, IRS Publication 78
Find a searchable listing of 501(c) (3) charitable organizations, or download the complete Publication 78 in compressed text format, or an expanded version of Publication 78 with EINs ** in compressed text format, or view the Documentation of the Publication 78 file.

(**I’m downloading this one — it’s going to come in handy)

I’m puzzled, because per IRS search, in Duluth Minnesota, there are 450 registered charities.  Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs shows up (and is registered with the State of MN), as does “Mending the Sacred Hoop” and “Praxis, International.”  All of these have their own EIN#s (I looked).   But MPDI, which lives (allegedly) at 202 E. Superior Street, in Duluth does not, at least that I can find to date.  What is a nonprofit “agency” anyhow?
Praxis started? in 1996 (same year federal legislation enabled “access visitation” grants series, one of the target purposes was supervised visitation…

Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities.

(YEAH, OK, we get it.  Changing the world.  And who isn’t??)

Praxis works (among other things) with OVW Supervised Visitation and Exchange Centers, it says here:
Supervised Visitation & Safe ExchangePhoto of a planning sessionBeginning in 2002, Praxis worked in partnership with the Office on Violence Against Women to provide technical assistance to the Safe Havens: Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Demonstration Initiative, and to provide training and technical assistance to grantees in the Supervised Visitation Program. While this project ended as of April 1, 2010, we continue to support visitation programs and their community partners via the resources developed during that partnership and found on these pages.
It has a product list
To review:  The Executive Director of PRAXIS INTERNATIONAL is Ellen Pence:


Born in MinneapolisMinnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.

I was able to (finally) discover that Dun & Bradstreet considers one (of several) subsidiaries ? of MPDI to be the same as MPDI.  This subsidiary is the one that focuses on Batterers Intervention Programs — which are hotly debated as to effectiveness, which probably is why they are still ongoing (because they are NOT confirmed to work effectively).  When in doubt, throw more money at it, and expand the focus.
202 W 2nd Street looks/looked like this, at least in 2006:
This would be where perhaps where they run (or at least organize) the DAIP classes, self-referred, court-referred, church-referred men’s programs, programs for women whose men are in the programs, and another one for battered women who battered back….
By contrast, the MPDI address is actually a government building (or at least website), which when searched, pulls up this:
OJP Logo
Office of Justice Programs
A Division of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety:
WHDepartment of Public Safety LogoICH (I noticed today) was getting plenty of HHS grants also, in fact what MPDI or individual tribal groups didn’t get, they did, it seems.
A Fathers group lists this address as a Visitation Center, which makes sense, given DAIP / MPDI’s emphasis.:
Duluth Family Visitation Center
A safe place for children and parents.  Our mission is to provide a place that is safe and free from violence where children can build and maintain positive relationships with the parents **
Visitation Center
202 East Superior Streeet
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781 Ext. 204
A description tells how the MN Legislature later mandated this type of intervention project throughout the state.  DO THEY WORK?
Effective Practice
Description The Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) began in 1980 as the first project of its kind to coordinate every criminal justice agency in one city in an effort to deliver justice for battered women. This project served as a model nationally and internationally. The DAIP collaborates with the area shelter for battered women to provide advocacy for battered women while they work through the legal system.
Results / Accomplishments Due to DAIP’s success, in 1991 the Minnesota Legislature mandated that each of the 38 Legislative Assignment Districts establish an intervention project coordinated by a battered women’s advocacy group. As of 1997, there were 44 intervention projects in Minnesota.
(**INCLUDING PARENTS WHO HAVE BATTERED THE OTHER PARENT, OR MOLESTED THE OTHER CHILD?)  (Does this include parents who have “alienated” the other parent by reporting abuse, or allowing a child to reported to another mandated reporter, but then through the family law system, have this infrastructure turned against them?)
I  thought my readers might want to take a look at the physical address for such an influential group.  I cannot drag it (because map is so interactive) but am looking at a storefront (many windows, display cases) called “Center for Non-Violence” and on the outside of the building, like a banner, the Power & Control Wheel (or, perhaps it’s the DAIP logo seen on their website, more likely) on a corner.   This is also the home of Mending The Sacred Hoop (separate set of logos, subset of  “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” (as opposed to “Project”)

The Executive Director of this organization, “Linda Riddle” fled an abusive marriage in 1987 and is very active in homeless coalitions, and much more.   Speaker Bio:

Linda Riddle brings more than 20 years of involvement in the battered women’s movement to the Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs. First, as a battered mother with small children, a woman who received helping services – she became an active board member of the Women’s Resource Center of Winona, MN in 1987, and then became the executive director of Houston County Women’s Resources (HCWR) – a position she held from 1992 through 2006. At HCWR she developed and implemented progressive new programming in her rural community, including both resident and scattered site transitional housing for homeless victims of violence and a flexible supervised visitation and exchange program. Ms. Riddle has a deep love for political and social action, and works through the MN Coalition for Battered Women and the MN Coalition for the Homeless to help shape legislation and funding for Minnesota organizations and the people they serve. Now beginning a fourth year in Duluth as the executive director of DAIP, Ms. Riddle is moving the Duluth Model forward into a new era of social change to end violence against women and children.

Social change is fine. But $29 MILLION of funding over a period of years is a lot, with over $30 million from the “ENDABUSE” new group in its new location (and website facelift, “Futures without Violence” (still one of the “Special Issue Resource Centers.”

Meanwhile, I could show you a very small organization (staff, 7 people) with probably just as modest a physical presence, in Denver, that has (parallel to this) helped totally transform the family law and child support system.  Its location is HERE, just 2 miles (or a 10 minute drive) away from the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence.  Don’t tell me these groups don’t know about each other… in a MidWestern town with clean streets and a bit of office space (plus internet, plus political connections) it is indeed possible to change the world.

Now, we need more “justice centers”? ??  At what point does a person get to say STOP?  Where’s the justice, and why hasn’t domestic violence — or family violence — stopped by now, with all that intervention going on?  Are we chasing the virtual Holy Grail here, or what?

(Sorry about the laborious length of this post, which started when I saw several DAIP-type programs at a Family Justice Center ALLIANCE Conference in San Diego.)

While “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” is not of the size and funding of “MDRC” — I feel it’s in the same business, with slightly different staffing and origins.  It is in the Development of PROGRAMS based on personal visions of the founders — and being spread with Technical Assistance and capacity building public funded help like a fast growing tree nurtured by the IRS and the dual prongs of HHS and DOJ (all EXECUTIVE BRANCH of USA) grants.

Kind of reminds me of the transplant of Eucalyptus Trees to California.  Starting to crowd out the native vegetation and now an accepted part of the landscape, even though they don’t produce the lumber behind the original idea.

I understand that people want to respond to PROBLEMS and then start and continue PROGRAMS to solve them.  But now the PROLIFERATION OF PROGRAMS has really become a major PROBLEM itself.  These programs have tremendous leverage because of their existing structures, and relationships.  Too much of the public remains clueless that half of them even exist.

And — people “served” doesn’t mean people — or even lives! —  “saved.”  Nor do judges (etc.) trained necessarily increase judicial ethics or “domestic violence awareness.”  I see the grants, I see the people, I see the programs described, and you can’t beat those website — but where is the data that any of this is actually helping?

Instead, the Supervised Visitation Network is being used AGAINST the mothers and children it supposedly is to protect.

How many foundations, acronyms (CPR, MDRC, PSI), Federal $$ and Ivy League hotshots does it take to “screw” . . the Poor?

leave a comment »

INTRO (added 07/17)

For international visitors, or others who may not get the pun in the title:

There’s a common joke used to degrade people of certain ethnic — or professional — profiles, usually to insult the intelligence of the target group. It refers to screwing in a a lightbulb, something a child can do, and goes “How many ______s does it take to screw in a lightbulb?” and the answer is a clever twist on why it takes so many. ”

The word “Screw” has another off-color connotation, pun intended here.

In this case, it’s NOT a joke; the more I look, the more I feel the USA is screwed. By whom — read on. I experienced total devastation through this system, so far, and without committing a single crime. My “social” crime was not taking the low road, but the high road, out of a marriage that probably shouldn’t have happened, but did, and then my misplaced value on marriage (exactly what these people are promoting) resulted in my staying in just short of us becoming a statistic. There weren’t real other options, that I saw — welfare, and a battered women’s shelter with one toddler, and pregnant with another child? That wasn’t in my vocabulary or background – we were a WORKING family.

We didn’t fit — at all (nor do many women affected by religious-based violence) the target profile of these programs — AT ALL. I was full-time employed while pregnant, and gave birth to very healthy children, fully covered by insurance provided by my work, not his. By the second child, almost every infrastructure was shut down — for me — and came only through him, and he wasn’t very forthcoming.

Women are NOT going to be safe in their marriages, if the marriage goes sour or violent, or OUTSIDE them unless we can be safely independent without excommunication from our communities.

Society has to handle its love/hate relationship with the PAID wages of employed mothers (meaning, child care, school system, after care, a certain scenario. Because the public school system in this country discriminates against the poor, that also impacts their future) AND the UNPAID benefits nonworking mothers provide to their familis and children.

CORPORATIONS historically have cared about their profits first, and their employees second, until forced to do differently. This splits up families, obviously. SCHOOLS in the US are also a jobs basis and designed on the corporate model, the “employer” being the government (although that government gets its wages from the very parents and non-parents it claims to be serving and educating).

CHURCHES, MOSQUES and SYNAGOGUES also must deal with money matters, and typically exist (from what I understand) in the US as “nonprofit” tax-exempt corporations. They have mortgages and typically pay their leaders (although not always). Therefore when a financial conflict of interest arises because a prominent — or even just attending — father begins assaulting a daughter or a wife, the temptation will be to cover it up for the “greater good,” i.e., continuing the community, but sacrificing the individual’s rights or safety. Some readers will remember, this was attributed to why Jesus Christ had to be sacrificed – – because if he “rocked the boat,” the Romans might come in and make it worse for the Jews. Which, later, obviously happened.


As a woman who has seen the best and worst of a religion I adopted as a young woman because my own family was destitute of one, of a personal family identity outside one father’s professional profile (for the most part), I am quite willing to reject “religion” when it fails to practice what it preaches as I see my government, and its institutions have also utterly failed the people they preach about “serving.”

These foundations have utterly forgotten what the Declaration of Indepencence declares, and are mostly concerned about their own positions in life, and structuring a society to preserve their right to run others’ lives without their informed consent, and at their expense, too.

When a president cannot say the word “mother” along with the word “father” when describing “Families and Children,” and this president is held up as a role model and leader, women, and mothers of children, and the children ARE “screwed.” Linguistically, they are just sperm incubators, a delivery system for kids. We also get to now be scapegoats for society by either declining to marry, or leaving a marriage, yet the actual scapegoats are the society’s engineers, not the people who have become simply the gas in its (think) tanks or the blood in its veins.

It takes time to gestate and raise a child, and I think we are approaching the time when women are going to start saying NO! We will NOT produce babies for you to abuse, waste, or box up and become half-human order-takers and low-wage laborers, or young men and women to go fight your wars over land, oil, and the global economic system. If I participate in this happening, perhaps I will have in part helped compensate for having been unable to stop domestic violence they witnessed growing up, or divert and protect them from the INSANITY that took place the moment some professional, probably on the take either literally ($$) or by business referrals, knew how to “let the games begin” by getting our case into a custody battle.



This dates back 5 years.


(DOLLARS and SENSE logo here)

29 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 USA


Copyright © 2010 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Dollars and Sense logo

Marriage Promotion, Reproductive Injustice, and the War Against Poor Women of Color



On December 22, at the stroke of midnight, Renita Pitts became a single woman. Renita is 44 years old, a mother of five with 14 grandchildren. She has been on and off of welfare for most of her life. After she had her fifth child, her husband brought crack cocaine into their house, telling her that it would help her lose weight. She became addicted and struggled for 13 years with that addiction. Throughout her marriage, Renita says, she was afraid to leave her house. “I couldn’t trust my husband with our children long enough to go to school. If I left for even an hour, he would have a full-fledged party going on when I came back,” she says. In addition to being a drug addict, Renita’s husband was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. She says they fought frequently, and she had to call the police again and again.

Renita and her husband separated shortly after she stopped using drugs and returned to college. She had also begun attending church. According to Renita, her husband “was insecure because of my security.” He gave her an ultimatum, saying she must leave school and stop going to church. When she refused, he left.

Despite the abuse and the drugs, Renita says, she felt many social pressures to stay married. Regardless, she says, “it was important not to have him in my life, constantly pumping me full of drugs.” She says the relationship had become so abusive that if she had stayed in it any longer, “someone would have ended up dead.”

With the help of California’s welfare program, Renita is currently enrolled in the African American Studies and Social Welfare departments at the University of California at Berkeley and works on social justice issues at the Women of Color Resource Center. She was happy to see her divorce finalized in December.

The life stories of Renita and many other women like her are not on the radar screen in Washington, however. Legislation that would promote marriage among low-income people is currently wending its way through Congress. The so-called “Healthy Marriage Initiative” includes a range of provisions designed to encourage women on welfare to get and stay married: providing extra cash bonuses to recipients who get married, deducting money from welfare checks when mothers are living with men who are not the fathers of their children, increasing monthly welfare checks for married couples, offering marriage and relationship education classes, and putting up billboards in low-income communities promoting the value of marriage. Several provisions specifically target Latino and African-American communities. So-called marriage promotion policies, such as those in the Healthy Marriage Initiative, have been touted by the Bush administration and enjoy wide bipartisan support in Washington. Many advocates, however, are concerned that, if the bill passes, it would become more difficult for Renita and domestic violence survivors like her to get a divorce and to survive without a husband.

Married Good, Single Bad

The administration’s point man for marriage promotion is Dr. Wade Horn, assistant secretary of Health and Human Services {HHS}, whose Administration for Children and Families {ACF} would run the initiative. In July 2002 Horn wrote, “On average, children raised by their own parents in healthy and stable married families enjoy better physical and mental health and are less likely to be poor. They’re more successful in school, have lower dropout rates, and fewer teenage pregnancies. Adults, too, benefit from healthy and stable marriages.” Critics say Horn sees the wedded state as a cure-all for society’s ills, while ignoring the difficulties of promoting something as intensely personal as marriage. Horn and others in the ACF refused repeated requests for comment.

Marriage promotion legislation has its roots in the 1996 welfare reform act. This legislation ended welfare as an entitlement–it allowed states to deny assistance to fully qualified applicants, and resulted in the abrogation of some applicants’ constitutional rights. It also created a five-year lifetime limit for welfare recipients, denied aid to many immigrant communities, created cumbersome financial reporting requirements for welfare recipients, and set up work rules that, according to many recipients, emphasize work hours over meaningful employment opportunities and skill development. The legislation explicitly claimed promoting marriage as one of its aims.

When welfare reform was passed, Congress required that it be revisited in five years. The Healthy Marriage Initiative that Congress is considering today was introduced in 2002 as part of the welfare reform reauthorization package. Welfare–now known as Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF)–was set to be reauthorized that year, but that reauthorization is now two years overdue.

In September, Senators Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) and Evan Bayh (D-Ind.) introduced a bill to reauthorize welfare for six months without overall changes, but with $800 million for marriage promotion and fatherhood programs over a two-year period. Sen. Santorum has been a strong proponent of marriage promotion. In an October 2003 speech to the Heritage Foundation, he promised to aggressively press for legislation that supported marriage between one man and one woman. “The government must promote marriage as a fundamental societal benefit. … Both for its intrinsic good and for its benefits for society, we need marriage.

{{Did these men, Senators, not take an oath of office similar to the President’s, to uphold and defend the constitution? If these Senators are so concerned about marriage, why don’t they socially shun, and hold conferences about, some of their cheating-on-their-wives colleagues, let alone former Presidents (let’s hope Obama has better sense than Clinton in that category)..?? ONE nation under God, and ONE set of Federal laws, and ONE set of the Bill of Rights for all. Government designing family life is the same as Government deciding religion, and as such is prohibited…}}

And just as important, we need public leaders to communicate to the American public why it is necessary.” The reauthorization bill has died in the Senate, but because of its strong bipartisan support, it is likely to be re-introduced. Sen. Santorum refused repeated requests for comment for this story.

Diverting Dollars

Although the debate about marriage promotion has focused on the Healthy Marriage Initiative, this is just one piece of the Bush administration’s pro-marriage agenda. The Department of Health and Human Services has already diverted over $100 million within existing programs into marriage promotion. These are programs that have no specific legislative authority to promote marriage. Some examples: $6.1 million has been diverted from the Child Support Enforcement Program, $9 million from the Refugee Resettlement Program, $14 million from the Child Welfare Program, and $40 million from the Social and Economic Development Strategies Program focusing on Native Americans, among others. Plus, another nearly $80 million has been awarded to research groups studying marriage.

One beneficiary is in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Healthy Marriages Grand Rapids received $990,000 from the federal government in 2003 to “facilitate the understanding that healthy marriages between parents is [sic] critical to the financial well-being of children, increase effective co-parenting skills of married and non-married parents to improve relationships between low-income adults who parent children, increase active, healthy participation of non-custodial fathers in the lives of their children, increase the number of prepared marriages among low-income adults, and decrease the divorce rate among low-income adults.” The program coordinates local public media campaigns plugging marriage as well as relationship counseling classes, many offered by faith-based providers.

It is precisely this emphasis on marriage as a cure for economic woes that worries many welfare recipients and advocates. According to Liz Accles at the Welfare Made a Difference National Campaign, “Marriage promotion is problematic for many reasons. It is discriminatory. It values certain families over others. It intrudes on privacy rights. The coercive nature of this is lost on a lot of people because they don’t realize how deeply in poverty people are living.” Accles says that adequate educational opportunities, subsidized child care, and real job skills and opportunities are the answer to the financial concerns of women on welfare. She joins many domestic violence counselors in saying that marriage education funded by government coffers and administered via faith-based providers and welfare case workers is at best a waste of taxpayer money, and at worst pushes women deeper into abusive relationships that may end in injury or death

{{including sometimes to the kids. I’m still waiting for someone to explain to us how THAT helps the welfare of children And now that’s it’s known this happening, why hasn’t the policy changed??!}}

In Allentown, Pa., a program called the Family Formation and Development Project offers a 12-week marriage education course for low-income, unmarried couples with children. Employment services are offered as part of the program, but only to fathers. In its application for federal funding, the program set a goal of 90% of the participating fathers finding employment. No such goal was set for the mothers. According to Jennifer Brown, legal director at the women’s legal rights organization Legal Momentum, which filed a complaint with the Department of Health and Human Services, “What we fear is that this kind of sex stereotyped programming–jobs for fathers, not for mothers–will be part of marriage promotion programs funded by the government.”

Experts at Legal Momentum are concerned that the administration is diverting scarce funds from proven and effective anti-poverty programs and funneling the money into untested marriage-promotion programs. They say there is little information about what is happening on the ground, making it difficult to determine what activities have been implemented.

Feminist economists point out that the mid-1990s welfare reform law served larger economic interests by moving women out of the home and into the work force at a time when the economy was booming and there was a need for low-paid service workers. Now that the economy is in a recession, the government has adopted a more aggressive policy of marriage promotion, to pull women out of the work force and back into the home. According to Avis Jones-DeWeever, Poverty and Welfare Study director at the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “We are talking about putting $1.5 billion into telling women to find their knight in shining armor and then everything will be okay.”

Jones-DeWeever says the view that marriage creates more economically stable individuals is not grounded in reality. She notes that individuals are likely to marry within their own socioeconomic group, so low-income women are likely to marry low-income men. According to author Barbara Ehrenreich’s estimates, low-income women would need to have roughly 2.3 husbands apiece in order to lift them out of poverty. Jones-DeWeever points out that in African-American communities, there are simply not enough men to marry: there are approximately two and a half women for every African-American man who is employed and not in jail. In addition, many social policy analysts are quick to point out that in general, poor people are not poor because they’re unmarried. Rather, they may be unmarried because they’re poor: the socioeconomic conditions in low-income communities contribute to a climate in which healthy marriages are difficult to sustain.

Another criticism of marriage promotion comes from survivors of domestic violence and their advocates. Studies consistently show that between 50% and 60%–in some studies up to 80%–of women on welfare have suffered some form of domestic violence, compared to 22% of the general population. In addition, between 3.3 and 10 million children witness domestic violence each year. Domestic violence survivors say their abuse was often a barrier to work, and many have reported being harassed or abused while at work. Most survivors needed welfare to escape the relationship and the violence. Any policy that provides incentives for women to become and stay married is in effect coercing poor women into marriage. Many women on welfare, like Renita Pitts, say that their marriages, rather than helping them out of poverty, set up overwhelming barriers to building their own autonomous and productive lives.

According to Kaaryn Gustafson, associate professor of law at the University of Connecticut, policies that attempt to look out for women’s safety by restricting or coercing their activities are paternalistic and misguided. “The patriarchal model is really troubling. The gist is that if there isn’t a man in the house there isn’t a family. The studies of family well-being are all very problematic because you cannot parse out the issues of education, socioeconomic status, and other emotional and psychological issues that are tied up in who gets married and who doesn’t.”

Domestic violence ITSELF often is a reflection of a paternalistic attitude, and this DOES stem at least from faith communities. Moreover, we have to look at this United States which used to legalize slavery. Slavery is abusive and a paternalistic attitude justified it. I’ve “just” had enough of this! So, in effect, promoting marriage — both undermines individual civil rights, and duplicates the same attitude which justifies such violence towards a woman because she is a woman!

Reproductive Straitjacket

While marriage promotion as a federal policy began in 1996, many say it is only one part of a much larger system of control over, and sanction of, the sexual and reproductive freedoms of poor women and women of color. Another part of this system is child exclusion legislation, which has been adopted by 21 states. Child exclusion laws permit states to pay benefits for only one child born to a woman on welfare. Social policy experts say it is a response to the myth that African-American welfare recipients were having more children in order to get larger benefit checks. Such laws push women either deeper into poverty, or into abortions. In some states, a woman who chooses to have another child instead of an abortion may end up trying to raise two or more children on less than $300 a month.

Christie, who would like to use only her first name, is a single mother of two. She has been working, supporting her children and herself, and going to college. Since her first child was born, she has also been receiving welfare. While on welfare, she fought to get a college degree in general education; now she hopes to get a job as a Spanish language translator. During her time in college, her welfare caseworker told Christie to quit going to school and instead report to a welfare-to-work program. She says, “I felt that it was a punishment. Just because I was on welfare, they could make me quit school and come and sit in a room and listen to people talking about the jobs I should get. Most of the jobs that they wanted you to have were geared towards the lower poverty level where you stay in poverty and you can never climb the socioeconomic ladder. It’s like that’s your position and that’s where you have to stay.”

When Christie became pregnant with her second child, her caseworker told her she could not receive an increase in her benefit. This forced Christie into some tough choices. “My religion kept me from having an abortion. I worked after I had my daughter, because I felt like it was a mistake that I made, and so I tried to do what I could for my daughter.” Christie says this legislation penalizes women for having children, and creates an overwhelming sense of guilt that permeates low-income families. Rather than celebrating the birth of her daughter, Christie felt that she needed to work twice as hard to make up for her “mistake.”

When states began adopting child exclusion policies in the early 1990s, they were implemented under federal scrutiny. States were required to keep data about the financial status of affected families. These data showed that child exclusion policies resulted in women and children being thrust further into poverty. One of the more sinister effects of the 1996 welfare reform law is that it did away with the requirement that states monitor the outcome of child exclusion policies. Since 1996, states have been able to impose sanctions on families without paying any attention to the results.

According to a July 2002 report by the Children’s Sentinel Nutrition Assessment Program (C-SNAP), a research and advocacy collaborative, child exclusion policies are directly correlated to a number of risks to the health and well-being of children. Infants and toddlers in families that have been sanctioned under the child exclusion provisions are 30% more likely to have been hospitalized than children from families who have not been sanctioned, and these children are 90% more likely to require hospitalization at the time of an emergency room visit. In addition, child exclusion sanctions lead to food insecurity rates that are at least 50% higher than those of families who have not faced sanction. The negative health and welfare impacts reported in the C-SNAP study increase dramatically with each year that a family experiences sanctions.

Proponents of child exclusion legislation, including many members of the Bush administration and a bipartisan array of senators and representatives, claim that women on welfare have no business bringing a new child into the world whom they cannot support financially.

The United Sates has a long history of regulation of poor women’s reproductive activities. From the forced sterilizations performed in low-income communities of color in the 1940s, 1950s, and even later, to state child services departments appropriating poor Native American children and giving them to upper-class white foster parents, many U.S. historians say that sexuality among lower-income communities of color has traditionally been viewed as something that should be controlled. The University of Connecticut’s Gustafson responds, “There is this idea that if you pay taxes you have the right to control those who don’t, and it smacks of slavery. There should be some scope of liberty that should be unconditional, and that especially includes sexuality and family formation.”

There’s no such respect for freedom and privacy under TANF. The program requires women to submit to a barrage of invasive questions and policies; TANF applicants must provide private details about every aspect of their lives. In California, for example, the application asks for the names of up to 12 men with whom a woman has had sexual relations on or around the time of her pregnancy. In San Diego county, before a woman can receive a welfare check, she must submit to a “surprise” visit by welfare case workers to verify that there isn’t an unreported man in the household, among other things.

One of the problems with all of these sexual and reproductive-based policy initiatives is that, according to Gustafson, they distract people from the actual issues of poverty. While TANF accounts for less than 2% of the federal budget, the hysteria surrounding whether and how to assist poor families with children has created an uproar about whether low-income women should even be allowed to have children.

Because the 1996 welfare reform law eliminated the concept of welfare as an entitlement, welfare recipients lack certain protections other U.S. citizens have under the Constitution. In effect, when you apply for welfare you are signing away many of your constitutional rights

Similarly, when a woman receives cash aid and food stamps after leaving a violent relationship, she signs over her right to collect child support to the local county. She is NOT, however, openly told that the U.S. Government is promoting marriage and some of the monies used to collect her child support are diverted into programs that may eventually help the man she just left get back into her life, or even get her children. In other words, we aren’t given full information to make a good decision at the time. This is VERy manipulative and in essence treat as her like less than adult.

For this reason, many advocates today are critiquing welfare through the lens of human rights rather than constitutional rights. International human-rights agreements, including the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, afford women many universal human rights. “Those include access to education, access to reproductive choice, rights when it comes to marrying or not marrying,” says Gustafson. “When you look at the international statements of human rights, it provides this context, this lens that magnifies how unjust the welfare laws are in the United States. The welfare system is undermining women’s political, economic, and social participation in society at large.”

On September 30, Congress passed another extension of the 1996 welfare legislation. This extension contained no policy changes–for now. When Congress does finally reauthorize welfare, child exclusion policies and marriage promotion are likely to be hot-button issues that galvanize the debate. According to Liz Accles at the National Welfare Made a Difference Campaign, there are three steps to a successful welfare strategy. “Access. Adequacy. Opportunity. All three of these hold equal weight. You cannot have benefits so low that people live deeply in poverty. You can’t have good benefits that only a few people get access to. You also need to have opportunity for economic mobility built in.”

Although the marriage promotion bill was defeated this time, it continues to enjoy strong bipartisan support–including support from the White House now that George W. Bush has a second term. Welfare recipients and social policy experts are worried that whenever welfare reform is debated, politicians will deem regulating the reproductive activities of poor women to be more important than funding proven anti-poverty measures like education and meaningful job opportunities.

Sarah Olson is a contributing reporter for Free Speech Radio News and the National Radio Project’s “Making Contact.” She is also a mentor and journalist at the Welfare Radio Collaborative.

RESOURCES Joan Meisel, Daniel Chandler, and Beth Menees Rienzi, “Domestic Violence Prevalence and Effects on Employment in Two California TANF Populations,” (California Institute of Mental Health, 2003); Richard Tolman and Jody Raphael, “A Review of the Research on Welfare and Domestic Violence,” Journal of Social Issues, 2000; Sharmila Lawrence, “Domestic Violence and Welfare Policy: Research Findings That Can Inform Policies on Marriage and Child Well-Being: Issue Brief,” (Research Forum on Children, Families, and the New Federalism, National Center for Children in Poverty, 2002); E. Lyon, “Welfare, Poverty and Abused Women: New Research and Its Implications,” Policy and Practice Paper #10, Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence, (National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, 2000)

I looked up “Children Families and the New Federalism,” and on its database googled “domestic violence mediation” and found this:

Domestic Violence and Welfare Receipt in Maryland (unreviewed)
Strategies for Addressing the Needs of Domestic Violence Victims within the TANF Program: The Experience of Seven Counties (unreviewed)
Assessing Effective Welfare-to-Work Strategies for Domestic Violence Victims and Survivors in the Options/Opciones Project (unreviewed)
Psychiatric Disorders Among Low Income Single Mothers: Mothers’ Well-Being Study (unreviewed)
CalWORKs Project (unreviewed)
Study of Screening and Assessment in TANF/WtW (unreviewed)
Women’s Employment Study (reviewed)
San Bernardino County (CA) TANF Recipients Study (unreviewed)
Multiple Impacts of Welfare Reform in Utah: Experiences of Former Long-term Welfare Recipients (unreviewed)
Tracking Closed Cases Under The TANF Program in Massachusetts (unreviewed)
Supporting Healthy Marriage (unreviewed)
Welfare-to-Work, the Private Sector and Americorps*VISTA (Volunteers in Service to America) (unreviewed)
Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration (reviewed)
Welfare-to-Work Grants Program Evaluation (reviewed)
Connecticut’s Jobs First: Welfare Reform Evaluation Project (reviewed)

Let’s look at who’s behind Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration, which project took place over a 10-ear period, it says:

Investigator(s) Fred Doolittle (MDRC)
Virginia Knox (MDRC)
Earl Johnson (MDRC)
Cynthia Miller (MDRC)
Sponsor(s) US Department of Health and Human Services
Funder(s) PEW Charitable Trusts
Ford Foundation
AT&T Foundation
US Department of Health and Human Services
US Department of Labor
McKnight Foundation
Northwest Area Foundation
US Department of Agriculture
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Annie E. Casey Foundation
Subcontractor(s) Abt Associates, Inc.
Domain Income Security/TANF
Status Completed (final report released)
Duration Jun 1991 – Jun 2001
Type Research and/or Program Evaluation
Goal To implement and evaluate the Parent’s Fair Share Demonstration (PFS).
Program/Policy Description PFS centers on four core activities: employment and training services, peer support through group discussions focused on the rights and responsibilities of non-custodial parents, stronger and more flexible child support enforcement, and voluntary mediation services to help resolve conflict between the custodial and non-custodial parents. PFS is required for non-custodial parents (usually fathers) who are unable to meet child support obligations and have been referred to PFS by the courts.
Notes No notes reported.

And the findings, in brief:

Recent Findings in Brief

12/01/01: Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration: The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children: Final Lessons From Parents’ Fair Share

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

As a group, the fathers were very disadvantaged, although some were able to find low-wage work fairly easily. PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities. PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children. Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

Because I happen to be familiar with the contractor “MDRC” through prior research (i.e., looking around on the web….), I went to CPR (Centerforpolicyresearch.org) and simply typed in “Parent’s Fair Share.”

This is how many links came up:

Search Results

1 Projects – Parents’ Fair Share Demonstration ProjectRelevance: 3006
Assist MDRC in design and implementation of a mediation component in the Parents’ Fair Share Demon…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/284/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:09:47 PM
2 PovertyRelevance: 2008
Many of CPR’s projects involve identification and assessment of programs to reduce poverty and…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/Poverty/tabid/262/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:33:25 PM
3 Incarceration and ReentryRelevance: 1004
CPR has done seminal work on child support and incarceration. As a result of CPR’s studies of …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/IncarcerationandReentry/tabid/263/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:20:48 PM
4 Projects – Child Support Strategies for Incarcerated and Released ParentsRelevance: 1003
Publicize information on the child support situation that incarcerated and paroled parents face an…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/378/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:51:44 AM
5 Court ServicesRelevance: 1003
CPR’s Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes have pioneered the development, implementation and ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/CourtServices/tabid/256/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:15:59 PM
6 Projects – Evaluation of Parents to Work!Relevance: 1002
Evaluation of a program to utilize TANF funds to deliver services to noncustodial parents involved…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/375/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:46:52 AM
7 Child SupportRelevance: 1002
CPR personnel have been leading researchers and technical assistance contractors for nearly ev…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/AreasofExpertise/ChildSupport/tabid/255/Default.aspx1/19/2009 1:09:46 PM
8 Projects – Task Order 38: An Assessment of Research Concerning Effective Methods of Working with Incarcerated and Released Parents with Child Support ObligationsRelevance: 1002
An analysis of child support issues concerning offender and ex-offender noncustodial parents. The …
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/382/Default.aspx12/18/2008 10:54:07 AM
9 Projects – Texas Access and Visitation Hotline IIRelevance: 1001
Evaluation to assess the effectiveness of a telephone hotline offering parents in the child suppor…
http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Projects/tabid/234/id/294/Default.aspx12/17/2008 4:21:13 PM
10 Publications – When Parents Complain About Visitation.Relevance: 1001

http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org/Publications/tabid/233/id/427/Default.aspx12/18/2008 3:46:12 PM
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

They do things like this:

Multi-Site Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Subcontract with Policy Studies Inc.

Contract with Office of Child Support Enforcement

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1999 – 2001

Close Abstract

Multi-site evaluation of eight responsible fatherhood projects to assess various methods of outreach, client intake and service delivery to noncustodial parents in an effort to promote their financial and emotional participation in the lives of their children, and to assess the effectiveness of a management information system developed to for use at the sites.

or “MEDIATION INTERVENTIONS” (based at the Child Support Location) to get them more ACCESS to their children. . .. A whole other set of funding (HHS) is the “access visitation grants system.”

(CFDA 930597, I believe on TAGGS.hhs.gov) another thing I wasn’t told about in my custody issues.

MDRC, like PSI, like CPR, and others, are many of the organizations contracting out these programs. LESS highly publicized (but it’s out) is the court-based organization, AFCC giving awards to Ms. Pierson (of CPR), this organization also pushes mediation.

We are all in all moving quite towards a “planned economy,” whether or not we personally approve of it, or comprehend in just how many ways. LOOKING UP ONLY “Parent’s Fair Share” on the web, these came up:

Promising Practices Home

Operated by the RAND Corporation


For this amazing summary, with so many government agencies, quite an assemblage of persona (and backed by several foundations), done in 8 different areas, the bottom line is, it didn’t affect anyone’s bottom line! No significantly increased child support payments, and not much more involved fathers. Says so right here!:

  • Overall, from the perspective of the custodial parents, the net result of PFS did not produce a detectable change in their total income as a result of child support payments.
  • With respect to child contact, PFS did not lead to increases in the frequency or length of contact that noncustodial parents had with their children.

In fact, kind of the contrary:

  • For more-employable men, the program had little effect on average earnings and somewhat reduced employment among those who would have worked in part-time, lower-wage jobs.

Back to topTop

Hrere’s the MDRC site report on the Parent’s Fair Share:

The Parents’ Fair Share (PFS) Demonstration, run from 1994 to 1996, was aimed at increasing the ability of these fathers to attain well-paying jobs, increase their child support payments — to increase their involvement in parenting in other ways. These reports — one examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ financial and nonfinancial involvement with their children and the other examining the effectiveness of the PFS approach at increasing fathers’ employment and earnings — provide important insights into policies aimed at this key group.

What it doesn’t say — we failed at both goals…

By the way, MDRC stands for Manpower Development Research Corporation. These Corps are sprouting up to work with the government (and foundations behind the government policies) to manage society.

From April 2010, Still coming up with “astounding” revelations (for how much$$?) about how life works:

Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships

What Do We Know and What Do We Need to Know?

{{that depends on who “WE” is. One thing seems evident — that the four authors to this paper, below, are employed, or at least have some nice sub- sub-contracting work… Another thing “We” (women in my position) would have LIKED to know is that organizations like MRDC and CPR and PSI and others are (through HHS) making our lives harder, “for our own good” because we dared to collect child support at one point in time. In retaliation for this, our “exes” will be helped by the United States Government to stay on our tails for the rest of time, possibly.}}

No, SERIOUSLY now, as of April 2010, after a decade plus of family/fatherhood programs, what bright conclusions can be drawn?

As described in earlier articles, children whose parents have higher income and education levels are more likely to grow up in stable two-parent households than their economically disadvantaged counterparts.

WHO IS THIS MDRC? Now that some poor folk actually have internet access, we can find out who’s studying (us):

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

The Board of Directors are the Cream of America, as follows:

Board of Directors
Robert Solow, Chairman
Institute Professor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Mary Jo Bane, Vice Chair
Professor of Public Policy
John F. Kennedy School of Government
Harvard University
Rudolph G. Penner, Treasurer
Senior Fellow
Urban Institute
Ron Haskins
Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families
Brookings Institution


Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

Senior Fellow, Economic Studies
Co-Director, Center on Children and Families

A former White House and congressional advisor on welfare issues, Ron Haskins co-directs the Brookings Center on Children and Families. An expert on preschool, foster care, and poverty—he was instrumental in the 1996 overhaul of national welfare policy.

(SEE MY TOP ARTICLE, THIS POST – some people are not too happy about it!)

Encouraging Marriage Helps Everyone

Children & Families, Marriage and Family Formation, Social Issues, Social Norms

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Business Week

Higher marriage rates among the poor would benefit poor adults themselves, their children, and the nation. Although I do not support coercive policies to achieve higher marriage rates, I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.
I also notice that creative solutions to making ends meet are not necessarily on the agenda here. For example, instead of funneling the “poor” in to poor jobs, low-wage jobs, how’s about helping THEM to start businesses and run them?
Or to get grants and pursue some of their dreams, possibly filling in a gap that someone from Harvard, MIT, or a sociologist might not see?
Does anyone besides me see the irony in having someone IN government coach someone else about money management ?? ?????

Responsible Fatherhood and (ir)Responsible Social Policy — MY informal findings…

with one comment

OK, it’s my indignant rant, but I bet you’ll admit an informative one….

You have NO idea what’s up in the honorable and well-funded halls & courts (that’s regal, I’m talking, not legal) of social policy.

In-breeding in Federal Programs to Examine Fatherhood….

The courts are biased against fathers? Yeah, and what other religious myths are still circulating? ??? Poor dears…..

Fact is, rather, the bulk of the US populace is being used, wherever possible, for wide-scale, years-long, federally funded (and let’s look at which foundations are involved, not just non-profits whose money comes from foundations and the feds) social demonstration projects — often without informed consent — and questionable summaries of “findings” in order to justify more expenditures. And more. And more.

This apparatus could simply NOT be sustained if there were concerned, and NOT desperate for basic survival — individuals around in sufficient mass and with sufficient memory of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, what they were about to start with — who fought back about being “used” for elitist pyschologists (etc.) with what is too damn close to a dissociative Nazi mentality willing to run experiments on OPK (Other People’s Kids). And the parents. And report to each other (out of earshot).

Here’s (just one — just one) piece of evidence that fathers are NOT underrepresented (the opposite is true) in these circles, and that the LAST thing we need is more Warren Farrell’s to sell their wares to men objecting to the women they couldn’t keep actually getting free without being punished for it. And roping in plenty of (2nd wives, etc.) women to support their misogyny and need to continue access to young boys and girls “for their own good.”

Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives

February 2008

Prepared for:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

Prepared By:
Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale
The Urban Institute

This report is available on the Internet at:

This report is part of a larger project:

{{Did you GET that??}}

Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) Demonstration Projects

Printer Friendly version in PDF format (12 pages)

At the end of the report is, naturally, credits to the authors. Although they appear to come from two reputable institutions, The Urban Institute and Johns Hopkins, a quick Google search shows that one author (Ms. Nightengale) was formerly principal at The Urban Institute itself, i.e., professional referrals, apparently). cf. Wade Horn, formerly of HHS, but also of The National Fatherhood Institute (f. 1994)…. Real independent…

You can look at the report here — but these are the authors credited for it:

About the Authors

Karin Martinson is a senior research associate in the Urban Institute’s Center on Labor, Human Services, and Population. Her research interests include welfare reform, employment and training programs, service delivery systems, and work supports. She has worked on numerous program evaluations in these areas, with a focus on implementation studies of programs and services for low-income families.

Demetra Nightingale is a principal research scientist at Johns Hopkins University. An expert in social policy, she has focused for more than 30 years on issues related to employment, welfare, poverty, and the alleviation of poverty. She has written many reports, books, and articles.

SPOKE.com lists her as a principal researcher at The Urban Institute

Here (from The Urban Institute) is a list of 51 articles, some shared with Karen Martinson:

View Research by Author – Demetra Smith Nightingale

// And here’s the Google search on Dr.. Nightengale — obviously a social policy researcher…

And here is a bio blurb:\from where she is now:


Dr. Nightingale holds a Ph.D. in public policy from the George Washington University. She has directed numerous program evaluations and policy studies, publishes extensively, and sits on many advisory groups, boards, and task forces. Before joining Johns Hopkins, for over twenty-five years she was at the Urban Institute, most recently as a principal research associate and program director in the Labor and Social Policy Center.

Understand, I’m not PERSONALLY criticizing a person who obviously can write and research and has chosen social policy as a field. I’m sure there are reasons she and others in the field ended up in their fields, just as there are reasons why I, a former teacher and musician (and dual-degreed) ended up marrying a man who didn’t respect woman, and having a helluva a time just staying a live, let alone involved in that profession, during and after marriage. My research on this blog is in part of an intent to know WHY I shouldn’t be able to leave and get on with life, given that my only apparent crime was poor choice of spouse and giving that marriage “the old college try” before leaving, shortly before it got lethal, as opposed to merely dangerous.

I believe the answer lies in the fact that what we expect to be halls of justice and law (let alone expecting the soon to be nationalized school system, either, to be as involved in education as in behavioral conditioning) have become dispensers of pop psychology and use of the human populace as a research subjects, and doing so at public expense — ALL of the public who pays taxes…

On my last post, I posted writings from an attorney, and a Ph.D. The Ph.D. (Warren Farrell) probably gets more press, but I found her reasonings to be more sound. I think we are entering into an age in which the presence of “Ph.D.” in any social science field should be a contra-indicator, not a positive.


This is an adequate living, apparently, all this research (note. None of mine produces a dime…)

“Evaluation of the Partners for Fragile Families Projects” (Acting Project Director 2003; key
senior analyst); 2001-2007 Contract with U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, Urban Institute contract.
“Evaluation of the Enhanced Services for the Hard-to-Employ Demonstration” (Senior
Evaluator, with MDRC prime contractor and Urban Institute); 2002-2009, Contract with U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services, Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

HHS (translation: Your federal taxes, if you are in US and paying them…) is paying this salary. MDRC is another contractor I aim to report on one of these days, along with more on CPR (Center for Policy Research) and Thoennes/Pearson (both Ph.D.s I believe also), who show up in this featured report today:

So, let’s talk more abound the “independence” of this report, project, or others like it, in looking at its bibliography.

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation, under contract number 100-01-0027. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and comments provided by their project officer, Jennifer Burnszynski. Helpful comments were also provided by Linda Mellgren of ASPE and by Margot Bean, Eileen Brooks, and Myles Schlank of the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families/HHS. The authors also benefited from comments by Burt Barnow and John Trutko and editing by Fiona Blackshaw.

From the Bibliography of the Reporters summarizing the programs they are paid to evaluate, and quoting some of the key contractors profiting from those programs, in the year 2008 in which (in my county) there were, I believe, 10 deaths (femicides) from domestic violence, and women attempting to leave such marriages, some of them tearing up businesses and claiming a police officer also, and a bystander or so…. Not to mention the 18-year imprisonment and repeated rapes and impregnation of Jaycee Dugard by an improperly monitored Phil Garrido, who had already been in jail for kidnapping in rape, there was contacted by a woman, married her, and with her, got that adolescent girl, and IMPRISONED her. Her childhood was stolen, while these studies marched on, and on, and on. She worked from a ramshackle set of tents and out-buildings, supporting her kidnappers own business in a professional manner and raising two children fathered by him.

Quite a different persepctive…

Anyhow, here is “CPR” footprint on this report, under the Bibliography.

Office of Child Support Enforcement, Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Pearson, Jessica, Nancy Theonnes, David Price, and Jane Venohr. 2000. OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Early Implementation Lessons. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, Inc. http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/rpt/process.htm.

Pearson, Jessica, Nancy Theonnes, Lanae Davis, Jane Venohr, David Price, and Tracy Griffith. 2003. OCSE Responsible Fatherhood Programs: Client Characteristics and Program Outcomes. Denver, CO: Center for Policy Research and Policy Studies, Inc. http://fatherhood.hhs.gov/Stability/RespFaPgmsClientChar.pdf.

If you are comfortable with us becoming, instead of a republic with 50 states, a single nation carved up into regions on which demonstration projects about us will be run at our expense, and supporting a bureaucracy which would be jeopardized if this was stopped, then just stop reading, and thinking, and go on paying taxes without thinking, and demanding, accountability. Do NOT, I repeat, do NOT, teach your youngsters to use the internet to research nonprofits and look at their IRS forms, and connect the dots. Do not, in fact, teach them about economics, history, or money in any coherent manner.

Just keep showing up to be demonstrated upon, and believe (like a religion) that this is going to improve someone’s lot in the long run, or our society. Sure.

And make sure NOT to look at the conversation between a family rights lawyer (Kates, Esq.) and a man who provides expert testimony — for fathers — and help getting their attorneys to coach the mother’s attorney to cave in, or risk losing custody to him (Farrell, Ph.D.). Don’t read the decades earlier conversations between Kates & Farrell on the Positive qualities of Incest, and quoting the Penthouse article (by Farrell) on it.

If Incest is acceptable, then by all means, let’s change the laws.  however, if the laws against this are still pertinent, then I suggest we get the Dept. of Health and Human Services 100% out of the courts, and defund anything resembling Farrell & friends!  I for one, am opposed to the concept, as are, I trust, most underage girls, or boys, who have been subjected to it.

Anything else is pure Cognitive Dissonance, and part of the problem.

Cover of PENTHOUSE December 1977, containing the article INCEST: THE LAST TABOO by Philip Nobile

I realize the survival benefit of denial, but at some point, it reaches a point of no return. That point is directly related to the SIZE and WEIGHT of the institutions influencing our individual lives, and whether we are going to also farm out reflective, informative THINKING to experts who have run amok, like a pack of dogs running out of meat and without restraint.

Sorry, sort of, about that last analogy, but it sure seems appropriate, if you are not dazzled by 3-syllable words.

Did I mention that one of the founders of the Center for Policy Research is among the founders, also, of the humongous AFCC (that group of professionals that seems to hearken back to a tax-dodging group run under the Los Angeles County Courthouse, and under its EIN#, but consisting in effect of a slush fund for judges…)

When you have the same personnel PROPOSING projects, CONDUCTING projects, and REPORTING on/EVALUATING on those projects to each other (i.e., policy makers reporting on policy), when the words “demonstration” are used on PEOPLE, then, Houston (and Plano, TX, if you’re there) we indeed have a problem. The ship isn’t going to come in, ever, and that dog ain’t gonna hunt…. until it is recognized HUMANITY is not correlative to educational and $$ status.

Catch you later — — —

Meanwhile, check out this: If the Fatherhood Guys aren’t able YET to totally get the balance swung back in their favor, adn if women as a whole aren’t willing to boycott sex, parenting, marriage, and child support to make a point (perhaps for even just 3 months in a row), it is going this direction sooner than later, while you were, probably, waiting for a court hearing, or wondering (moms) where your kids were on that weekend or joint-custody visitation time….. or between paying to see the children you gave birth to, so your interactions could be further studied and reported on by social policy makers, like those above…..

The Artificial Womb

If you didn’t see this coming, you haven’t been paying attention.

Copyright © 2009, Paul Lutus

ACTUALLY, I was going to link to the IS PSYCHOLOGY SCIENCE page..

To further motivate you to actually READ ‘Is Psychology Science?” (and a close reading will show he’s not particularly female-friendly, but poses some good question), here’s one:

  • During the 2006 meeting of the American Psychological Association, psychiatrists admitted they have no scientific tests to prove mental illness and have no cures for these unproven mental illnesses (more here). I’ve always thought the first step to learning something new is to acknowledge one’s own ignorance. It seems the professionals are willing to take this first step.


At this point it must be clear to the intelligent reader that clinical psychology can make virtually any claim and offer any kind of therapy, because there is no practical likelihood of refutation – no clear criteria to invalidate a claim. This, in turn, is because human psychology is not a science, it is very largely a belief system similar to religion.

Like religion, human psychology has a dark secret at its core – it contains within it a model for correct behavior, although that model is never directly acknowledged. Buried within psychology is a nebulous concept that, if it were to be addressed at all, would be called “normal behavior.” But do try to avoid inquiring directly into this normal behavior among psychologists – nothing is so certain to get you diagnosed as having an obsessive disorder.

In the same way that everyone is a sinner in religion’s metaphysical playground, everyone is mentally ill in psychology’s long, dark hallway – no one is truly “normal.” This means everyone needs psychological treatment. This means psychologists and psychiatrists are guaranteed lifetime employment, although that must surely be a coincidence rather than a dark motive.

This article also raises the question of ethics, as does Liz Kates, Esq., in her “Therapeutic Jurisprudence” article. Unlike her, I don’t think that the family law venue can be cleaned up of the practices, because I believe that its originators and promoters (family law DOES have a history, it didn’t just pop out fully formed, like Venus (unclothed) on a clamshell, or Athena (?? fully clothed and armored) from the head of her male forebear divinity..

EVERY institution has a Daddy somewhere. The field of psychology and social science don’t have very honorable ones… a little too close to Hitler’s minions, for my comfort:

If society correctly evaluated human psychology as a loose grouping of subjective cults and fads, the above summary would not pose any kind of social problem. But in fact there are people who still think human psychology is based in science, all evidence to the contrary. The sad result is that society’s engine of legal and social authority is sometimes steered by psychology, sometimes with unjust and terrible consequences. Here is a brief list of historical examples in which psychology’s bogus status as a science has produced harm (it is by no means a comprehensive list):

  • During World War I, psychologist R. M. Yerkes oversaw the testing of 1.7 million US Army draftees. His questionable conclusions were to have far-reaching consequences, leading to a 1924 law placing severe limitations on the immigration of those groups Yerkes and his followers believed to be mentally unfit – Jews and Eastern Europeans in particular. Yerkes later thoroughly recanted his methods and findings in an 800-page confession/tome that few bothered to read, and the policies he set in motion had the dreadful side effect of preventing the immigration of Jews trying to escape the predations of Hitler and his henchmen later on.The original test results happened to dovetail with Yerkes’ explicit eugenic beliefs, a fact lost on nearly everyone at the time.
  • In an effort to answer the question of whether intelligence is primarily governed by environment or genes, psychologist Cyril Burt (1883-1971) performed a long-term study of twins that was later shown to be most likely a case of conscious or unconscious scientific fraud. His work, which purported to show that IQ is largely inherited, was used as a “scientific” basis by various racists and others, and, despite having been discredited, still is.

(photo, ABOVE)

  • Walter Freeman performing a lobotomy

    In the 1950s, at the height of psychology’s public acceptance, neurologist Walter Freeman created a surgical procedure known as “prefrontal lobotomy.” As though on a quest and based solely on his reputation and skills of persuasion, Freeman singlehandedly popularized lobotomy among U.S. psychologists, eventually performing about 3500 lobotomies, before the dreadful consequences of this practice became apparent.

    At the height of Freeman’s personal campaign, he drove around the country in a van he called the “lobotomobile,” performing lobotomies as he traveled. There was plenty of evidence that prefrontal lobotomy was a catastrophic clinical practice, but no one noticed the evidence or acted on it. There was — and is — no reliable mechanism within clinical psychology to prevent this sort of abuse.

These examples are part of a long list of people who have tried to use psychology to give a scientific patina to their personal beliefs, perhaps beginning with Francis Galton (1822-1911), the founder and namer of eugenics. Galton tried (and failed) to design psychological tests meant to prove his eugenic beliefs. This practice of using psychology as a personal soapbox continues to the present, in fact, it seems to have become more popular.

What these accounts have in common is that no one was able (or willing) to use scientific standards of evidence to refute the claims at the time of their appearance, because psychology is only apparently a science. Only through enormous efforts and patience, including sometimes repeating an entire study using the original materials, can a rare, specific psychological claim be refuted. Such exceptions aside, there is ordinarily no recourse to the “testable, falsifiable claims” criterion that sets science apart from ordinary human behavior.

One might think that psychology might have learned from its past errors and evolved into a more strict and scientific enterprise. In fact the reverse seems to be the case. Here are two contemporary examples:

Facilitated Communication

Facilitated Communication to me is uncomfortably close to what gets termed (but isn’t) “mediation” in the courts.  We are not adults able to speak for ourselves, neither are our children (regardless of their ages), therefore a Mediator must “intervene” and produce a “required outcome” of the “due process” which results in “increased noncustodial parenting time” (the A/V grants and fatherhood thesis, in application), thereby shattering the concept of facts, evidence, and law.

As this DOES produce endless income, no wonder the shattering of the legal process is not of primary concern among the social policy makers….

Perhaps if we can BOTH mock and boycott, something might change.  But this won’t be easy…  And it requires sustainable livelihood to do this, which is getting scarcer and scarcer, as the evaluations and declarations get “curiouser and curiouser.”

{The next subtitle in this article is about “Recovered Memories” and he discredits it.  However, there is a factor where denial serves to protect the nervous system; I have experienced this in a (recent, not childhood) sense, and there IS a ‘dissociation” which seems to occur to preserve survival under extreme circumstances.

When society itself gets dissociative, then we have substantial problems.  I think the desire to change society should be done like Jesus did it — with self-sacrifice, and on a case-by-case basis.  When HE confronted the political-religo-combo, it was threatened, and (as the account goes in the Bible, at lesat) they crucified him.  Wars are still being fought over that, so perhaps if we could cool it on the institutional SIZE, the RELIGIOUS aspects of any institution might be minimized and deflected.

As I write, my President is pushing the HEALTHCARE initiative, which I oppose on the basis of it’s going to end up, soon enough, in who merits living, and who merits dying, who can have babies and who can’t, and after producing them, whose kids ARE they?  All the linguistics I’m hearing (press, TV, etc.) is that they are “OURS.”  That simply defies the concept of biology, until a real artificial womb takes its proper place beside artificial insemination, fatherhood practitioners, and domestic violence advocates, CPS, Child Support agencies, and the rest of them.

What a “village” to raise all these kids…

%d bloggers like this: