Posts Tagged ‘obfuscation’
Access and Visitation, only $10 mill/year (annually, since 1997).
Oh No!
I just lost the top half of my last, colorfully-illustrated, and highly annotated, sarcastic scatalogical post, “Thrusting Abstinence Education on the Unwary Public” (as summarized, with links, by Wikipedia, in about 2005). It’s coming. I’ll expose it soon. It exposes the money that traded hands in private before the PR professionals, using their media connections, pushed two policies that are now coursing through the bloodstreams of the 2 largest United States Executive Branch departments and affecting, I say, all of us. These were the Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood/Abstinence Education initiatives (as to HHS) AND . . .. AND . . . .the “No Child Left Behind” policies (as to Educ.)
Regarding that. . . . .
I figured, since the Bush Admin public servants want to Push its way into the public’s thoughts (first) and pants, skirts, or burqas, etc. as to trying to regulate whether (let alone with whom!) we (or our children) do or do not engage in sexual intercourse, whatever they find where they don’t belong is their own problem, and any tone of response communicating “get out!” is appropriate. The moral being, #1, don’t take rides from strangers promising Health, Human Services, or any other ecstatic experiences or transportations, or accept candies from them, either, and #2, more of us need to restructure our lives so as to keep better track of our track of our Congressmen, and whatever % of them are Congresswomen who vote on how to dispense $$ collected from us through taxes. If these are being used Inappropriately (and failing kids K-12, then trying to back track and teach an abstinence Congresspeople themselves do not exhibit, either as to finances or their personal sex lives (not unilaterally for sure is most definitely INappropriate).
Who knows, the candy {whether in form of ideas, or psychotropic, as in Ritalin, etc. through the school systems, etc.) might have drugs. Besides which, anyone calling you, or people in general “Human” probably isn’t. Would such a person call their own offspring, or spouse, a “human”?? Then how come other, more distant people of the same species become suddenly “humans” and need “servicing.”
Marriage affects health, sure, but in definition is a commitment between two individuals who have exchanged vows, generally in front of witnesses in their community, and have also a certain public document. By definition, and usage, it’s private! Where it becomes public is only where an individual in it breaks a law, particularly as to domestic violence and child abuse, but also any others.
Similarly, a nation is not a living, throbbing organism to be run from the top and have its temperature taken by elected officials and parts re-arranged at (its will). We are not bees, we are not ants, we are not to be treated like them either. Our elected and/or appointed officials are not bee-keeprs or ant farmers, even if and (when) they may think they are and such activities have apparently given their otherwise meaningless lives purpose, by labeling others misery or happiness.
In PARTICULAR, we mothers are not to be bred for our children, and then judged as to our health by virtue of whether the “sire” of the kids is in the house or out of the house. And that, friends, is what this nation is currently (at our own expense) in the business of. Studying itself. The top half is studying the bottom half, only it’s not even close to “half.” The bottom half (sic) exists to serve, and pay the top half (sic) to study it.
That’s how I read the situation currently, anyhow. I may be jaundiced by my particular run through the last 20 or so years, but I have networked, read, studied, and collaborated plenty, as well as read what others are networking and collaborating about as well. When it’s one own’s life & kids (as opposed to, say, job) at stake, one tends to study more closely.
Moroever, the columnists promoting this already had their hands in the till by taking money from the public in the form of grants. So the hand was ALREADY in our pockets financially. Moreover, it appears the infamous (to me at least) “No Child Left Behind” (which takes the cake for vague, amorphous rallying cry if I ever heard one. First of all, it’s false — what about private schools? What about where are we going? what about the talented children already being held back in the schools, which is from what I can tell, probably the majority of them. What about keep your hands off my kids too, until you can talk sense? This initiative also started in similar manner — a man was paid to promote it, but failed to mention the pay.)
So, as to Abstinence Education, thus I figure anyone (promiscuous, married and faithful, or married and hot-Mike-Duvall, or abstinent, or celibate, or in fact ANYONE) should be able to give them a hard time about this. Especially because what was NOT exposed was whose $$ (ours — federal grants) was in whose pockets before the inspired (by $$) PR eulogies began. I guess you get the general idea of how I felt about that. The moral there, and with this Access and Visitation grandiose talk is, when someone on the federal dole comes up to you UNSOLICITED especially, saying “you need a ride? You look lost, you need some direction? You look poor! I’ll help you — just sign on the line (and give me your offspring) here. Come, let me give you a (mind/face/family-) lift — then the appropriate response is to ignore the talk and survey the surroundings, particularly for the closest exit. And any other strangers (to you) in the vicinity behaving oddly.
ANYHOW, another post. THIS one, is on a grants system set up back in, I gather 1996:
- 2 years after National Fatherhood Initiative (1994)
- One year after Clinton wrote the (in)famous, “let’s revamp the Exec. Dept. to include more Dads (1995).
- 3 & 4 years before Congress voted”inexplicably” that the true crisis for the United States was fatherlessness, and they “resolved” (National Fathers Return day being one such resolution) to DO something about it (in both houses: 1998/1999)
- only 5 years before the half-bald, mustached, slightly-smiling, white guy to the right (see photo) was “unanimously” appointed Secretary of the HHS (2001-2007), and I gather in 2007, he kinda sorta was encouraged (??) to step down. At least he resigned.
- But not before the ball was really rolling on this idea that the REAL problem is Kids Minus Dads.
Since he’s white, middle-aged and half-bald,(and right-wing conservative), (and apparently well-off) why doesn’t he limit his concern to what he actually has lived? But know, he and his NFI prominent thinkers are going for the usual suspects, African American mothers who aren’t married to their children’s fathers. But attacking African American mothers, unmarried, isn’t QUITE PC enough, so the circuitous route is to express for or the kids lack of ROOTS (as defined , to their Dads).
- Psychologist Wade Horn, from NFI to HHS, and out again.).
DO YOU think I’m kidding? I’m not!
JUNE 17,1999, Congressional Chronicle(tm)
Topic: National Fathers Return Day
Mr. LIEBERMAN. (speaking) Mr. President, I want to say just a few words on the jarring statistics from that report and column for my colleagues. Of African American children born in 1996, 70 percent were born to unmarried mothers. At least 80 percent, according to the report, can expect to spend a significant part of their childhood apart from their fathers.
(in some cases, those fathers got shot, in some cases those fathers were not interested in them to start with. In some cases those Dads may have been in a war and gave their lives for the country. In some case those fathers were violent. Perhaps in some cases those fathers may have been sports idols and are on the road. Does THAT put them at risk, per se? In some cases those fathers were womanizers. Should we put the Dads back with their sons and daughters to learn that this really doesn’t matter, when it’s Dad? In some cases, perhaps Mom OR Dad had a religious awakening, mabye like Mr. Horn’s, in which case the uninterested (in that brand of God) spouse may wish to continue (or re-act) by doing drugs or watching pornography, or being promiscuous.
I know one family (not African American) whose Dad decided to come out of the closet, with his new paramour, while his offspring were adolescents. Guess what. Those kids didn’t sleep in his home. Those poor (well, they weren’t poor) kids would have fallen under the Access Visitation grants definition programs. They had a noncustodial parent. If their Dad were nasty, or either parent poor, he could’ve been recruited through the child support program to further harrass her or impoverish the kids. It only takes one bad apple to get the whole family ensnared til kids reach age of majority.
Suppose Mom finds a second, healthy marriage. According to these theories, the kids are still at risk, because it’s not “Dad” in the home.
(LIEBERMAN, to CONGRESS, 1999, con’td.) We can take some comfort and encouragement from the fact that the teen pregnancy rate has dropped in the last few years. But the numbers cited in Mr. Kelly’s column and in the report are nonetheless profoundly unsettling, especially given what we know about the impact of fatherlessness, and indicate we are in the midst of what Kelly aptly terms a “national calamity.” It is a calamity. Of course, it is not limited to the African American community. On any given night, 4 out of 10 children in
this country are sleeping in homes without fathers.
We are NOT amused at what’s actually taking place in government grants la-la-land.
Well, since all my technical (wordpress) wits was far below the level of the rhetorical wit, this crudely dropped the readers midstream, with no buildup or momentum, into the usual back-story commentary on the Wikipedia entry on the not-exactly-breaking-news that columnists and PR sorts sometimes do pay attention to what side their bread is buttered on be for buttering up the ideas of the person with the butter.
Ah well. . . . .
So I decided to “punt” and go to this topic: ACCESS & VISITATION GRANTS, where the real “conflict of interest is” in the courts.
Anyone that doesn’t like my profiling Wade Horn according to his race, gender, state of follicle challenge, age, and demeanor can go jump in a lake. I don’t like being profiled according to my gender, or having my household profiled according to how many adult males biologically related to my children in it, rather than to whether or it has a violent, battering, assaulting, property-destroying and chaos-inducing male (biologically or not biologically related to my children) in it. He can’t change his race, I suppose. He could even change his gender, if this were part of his right-wing religious preferences which I bet it ain’t.
I can’t change my DNA, nor can my ex, nor can my kids. But what I CAN change is whether or not I am going to sit around my home being slapped because I’m female in front of children, and mine happened to be female. Then let some (male) _______ (or female) come to me, after having ignored years of that, and then push this dogma that the real problem is, there’s not a “man” in the house.
There WAS a man in the house, and that was solved with a restraining order, temporarily.
I don’t feel like changing my gender either. And it makes equally as much sense (i.e., NONE) for a bunch of men (and some women) to get up there and saying, it’s a GENDER problem, starting with African American children (of either gender) — and they did! See below! — not having their OWN fathers living with them as it does to say it’s a RACE problem. I dare a bunch of Congressmen to get up there and have a national white folk day. And get it nationalized, with a straight face. CALL it that. Push it all over the state, county, and nonprofit institutions just like fatherhood and healthy marriages has been. State that as a lot of black folk are in prison, obviously the problem is their race — not the prisons, not poverty, and not communities, not behavior. And not racism. I am waiting for the day.
With President Obama now, no one would dare (let’s hope!) But one profile we CAN all gang up on is mothers, especially single mothers. Good grief! In another day and time, this would be Jews. In another, Tutsis. In another Hutu. In another Armenians. But the gender for all times to hate (and particularly if it stops hating its own, or protests) is for sure female. They must give up their kids and make sure that they have contact with Dads, even if Dad kills them (and this has happened), kidnaps them (and this has happened) and even if the ongoing conflict with a chaotic or controlling personality introduces years of needless conflict — AND more poverty — into the children’s home. And if Dad can’t restrain himself, or might rape, kidnap, beat, or hurt the kids during a visitation, no matter. There is ANOTHER government-funded and/or free-market-niche to make sure they still have contact: “Supervised Visitation.”
Now that’s not really safe either. No matter. There’s ANOTHER program to train the supervisors. How’re they going?
2008:
“Danger Zones: Battered mothers and their children in Supervised Visitation“
Supervised visitation centers (SVCs) have developed rapidly across the United States. Increasingly, courts are restricting contact between abusive intimate partners and their children by ordering visitation or exchanges to occur at SVCs. This article describes some of the key lessons the authors learned over 18 months of planning and then another 18 months of implementation at a SVC developed specifically to serve families for whom domestic violence was their primary reason for referral. The authors have organized their experiences around five major themes: (a) battered women in supervised visitation, (b) how battering continues during supervised visitation, (c) how rules at the SVC evolved over the first 18 months of implementation, (d) the importance of well-trained visit monitors, and (e) the need to embed SVCs within a larger context of coordinated community responses to domestic violence.
Key Words: battered women • batterers • children • supervised visitation centers
This version was published on November 1, 2008
2004:
There is no way to predict whether a specific batterer is likely to kill his partner. {!!}} Even though data are available about batterers who actually commit such murders, the batterer’s violence behavior alone does not provide enough information about accurate predictions about which batterers will go on to kill the partners. Psychotherapists can use a variety of checklists and other instruments to help determine the level of risk for a lethal incident, but these assessment devices have not been validated by empirical research. [16]
Who conducts risk assessment?
Despite their close ties with domestic violence shelters in their communities, many supervised visitation program staff do not have the level of expertise necessary to conduct formal risk assessments. Therefore, it should be domestic violence professionals who should conduct the assessments, not visitation personnel:
For those who haven’t “got” this yet, the majority of these studies are, (I finally “got” this) not about our safety or our children’s safety, or our children’s best interest, or to prevent family violence. From the front lines, and a front lines person who knows many families going through this AND has attended conferences, and probably reads as much as a lot of the professionals (at least to pass for one in a number of situations; all I lacked was the degree) on this, and has a REAL vested interest — my life, my family’s lives, my livelihoods, the safety and well-being of the communities I was in during all this stuff (before and after separation) and so forth — I pay attention, and try to place accumulated information in a growing database and I refile as necesary when stuff “doesn’t fit.”
It’s not about our lives, it’s about the professions. Here is a statement from a real well-respected site, now 5 years old, saying that the issue is not that we are bringing supervised visitation into the picture at all, but that it’s just that the visitation personnel are not properly trained by professionals, domestic violence professionals.
Here’s a question raised (finally!) by someone addressing a(nother) conference of ALL kinds of professionals associated with this topic about preventing violence, protecting children, and all kinds of REALLY nice healthy topics. I am thinking that PROBABLY the conference (Jackson’s Hole, Wyoming?) might have been an clean safe place. This (male) professional in the field started the first Domestic Violence Unit in Washington, D.C., he says in his opening remarks.
He broaches again the question I’ve twice posted on this site, in articles from 1989 and 1992, as to whether children need relationships with their (abusive) fathers. Let’s see if he qualifies in our eyes as a Professional. But first, the quote.
2009, June 2:
Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?
Even the question is a little “framed.” “have been abusive . . . in the past” is not the typical situation of a woman trying to leave abuse with her children. This mindset implies it was “over with” and that while broken bones, teeth, bruises, and blood may indicate “being abusive” (i.e. COMMITTING a pattern of misdemeanor or felony-level domestic violence), stalking, property destruction, intimidation of relatives, or keeping one’s ex in a nonstop pattern of defense against allegations in family court arena do not.
Oh yeah, incidentally this was the U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, and his short speech is on the date link.
It appears to me to be the present policy (I include practice) that mothers moreso than fathers, are considered dispensable to children.
Do children need a relationship with their fathers even when their fathers have been abusive to them and their mothers in the past?
Actually, by the time one sorts through how contradictory one policy is from the otehr, and then read about the conferences where organizations sponsoring BOTH sides of the contradictory policies collaborate together (but the parents involved are not invited, generally, nor their kids) I’d have to say that in the long run, one concludes that when it comes to dispensing TAX DOLLARS (my shorthand for grants, federal, local, state, and private) what’s really dispensable, and is being lost, are:
1. Justice.
2. Children.
(With justice, children will be safe, as long as laws against domestic violence and child abuse remain on the abuse, and SHOULD they ever start being consistently defined, and enforced).
and
3. OPM. Other People’s Money AND OPL. that’s other People’s Lives.
What really seems INdispensable, once underway, appear to be the systems dispensing 1, 2, and 3, above.
I am going to (re-)introduce you this concept “Access and Visitation” and its costs, starting with the HHS own site describing it. If the prose is lame and lacks vigor, just understand that I blew my wad on the first topic, so this is a pale second offering from a drained commentator.
However my commentary cannot possibly be as lame, nonsequitur, and incoherent as the concept of Designer Families at Public Expense, as executed by a centralized opaque bureaucracy in cooperation with private and nonprofit businesses, not to mention religious organizations that haven’t quite yet “got” that hitting women ain’t legal.
This is where “Access Visitation” concepts meets the “Supervised Visitation” concept. One encourages and ALLOWS certain services (this is the HHS source of grants) and the other DISCOURAGES but does not forbid, practically the same types of activity (this is the DOJ/VAWA source of grants, as I recall).
One is the government paying a LOT of government institutions (you have no idea, but I assure you, I do!) to make sure “NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS” have “ACCESS AND VISITATION” to their children, even if it means getting them free legal help while in prison to modify their custody orders, something I don’t recall getting of one second past the time our case hit the family law venue.
The converse of this is, when a parent is really bad and needs to be “spanked” or “supervised” somehow, then there is SUPERVISED VISITATION. I could’ve used solme of this and requested it, in fact, one reason was, I didn’t want the kids kidnapped. i asked for this in 2005 and was told No. Then when my kids were taken on an overnight in 2006, and we show up in court, I asked for it again, and was curtly told, there’s no money (meaning WE didn’t have some to fork over) for this. The result was, visits were so traumatizing I was hard put to get them. There was also no real exterior witness or regulation of the fact that the second this man got our children, theyw ere basically, not going to be seen by me again, even when a court order had stipulated, every othe rweek. So there you have it on SUPERVISED VISITATION.
Sometimes this also is used to punish mothers by forcing them to pay to see their chlidren after they speak up about something (seems like it could be almost anything — child abuse, harm done to the kid by the other parent, or some other violation of existing standards) and are silenced by having their kids switched, SUDDENLY, to the other parent. This has been described elsewhere better than I am summarizing here.
But, til I find the missing witty intro to a version of BUSH-WhACKED around MARRIAGE INITIATIVE type post, I give you:
OCSE Access and Visitation Grants Information
I suggest filing this under Congressional Linguistic Cognitive Dissonance.
Overview
With an annual appropriation of $10 million, 54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands) have been able to provide access and visitation services to over a half million non-custodial parents (NCPs) and their families since the program became operational in 1997! In FY 2006, States contracted with over 300 court and/or community- and faith-based, non-profit service providers for the delivery of access and visitation services to NCPs and their families.
NCP is a “NonCustodial Parent.” Primarily, fathers. Note, that the CP (which obviously is another adult) does not even exist as an entity. it’s NCP’s and “Families.”
“STATES CONTRACTED” — Yes, the feds pay the states, and we’re not yet QUITE sure what happens once it hits state level, although some diligent research DOES ascertain that it’s pretty darn hard to track after that.
I. Enabling Legislation
The “Grants to States for Access and Visitation” Program (42 U.S.C. 669b) was authorized by Congress through passage of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Goal: “..to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”
Cognitive dissonance: “It’s about money. It’s not about money, it’s about the children. It’s about reducing welfare distributions. No, it’s not, it’s about noncustodial parental access. Aw heck, Im not really sure! No it’s NOT a pay-per-hour-per child scenario (i.e., children as property), it’s about families. Well, on the other hand, though we really need to entreat these men to get on the stick and get some work (including after they get out of jail) so we will help them for free, LEGALLY, to get back at those Moms, get more time with their kids, in exchange for which we will then lower child support obligations (but, listen closely, this is NOT, we repeat, NOT a pay per child per hour arrangement) (unless it refers to SUPERVISED visitation) and maybe then, if we treat the disgruntled — or unemployed — or incarcerated — NCPS nice, they will respond in kind, step up to the plate and pay the past due child support.
Alternatively, we can switch custody and put HER in jail if she doesn’t pay, because women don’t need to be BRIBED to support their own children, generally speaking. And, again, we’re not ordering, we’re just “supporting and facililating’ (modification of custody orders). Without telling the custodial parent in advance, of course.
II. Allowable Services
According to the statute, States are permitted to use grant funds to develop programs and provide services such as:
- Mediation
Mediation is “premitted” for the States, but “mandatory” for the parents in many states, including mine, and that’s a PROBLEM when violence has been involved, already. Typically by the time the order was obtained (at least I know my case and many others), attempts to “mediate” the concept of not being hit, abused, threatened, etc., have already failed. Hence the protective order to start with. For protection, not negotiation! Well, mediation puts two parents in front of one mediator, which typically (given the little time he/she is going to have) will pick a side and stick to it, throughout the course of the case, which, given these factors, will probably stop when ALL kids hit 18. Or one parent has worn out, given up, or simply gone homeless, meaning, can’t fight back.
Moreover, all the opposing, “NCP” has to do is start a debate on almost any issue between them, and then it goes to mediation. This is simpler than presenting facts and evidence in the courtroom, adhering to all those rules of court, etc. All he/she has to really do is win the favor of the mediator, who then (although this isn’t strictly legal, it’s practice) sways the judge who then upends whatever the last status quo was. Note, abusers are great manipulators, it’s kind of their profession, that two-sided thing, or the abuse couldn’t be kept up for so long.
- Development of parenting plans
- Education
(And a REAL market niche for the would be parent educators, therapists, and counselors (see next item)
- Counseling
- Visitation enforcement (including monitored and supervised visitation, and neutral drop-off and pick-up)
Development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.
III. Annual Funding
- $10 million is divided among the States annually based on a funding formula contained in the statute.
- Funding Formula (according to statute):”The allotment of a state for a fiscal year is the amount that bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants under this section for the fiscal year as the number of children in the state living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all states.”
- Minimum Annual State Allocation $100,000 This statutory provision ensures that states with small populations of single parent households with minor age children are guaranteed a base amount of $100,000. Those states with larger populations are awarded an allotment according to the prescribed funding formula.
Required State Match States are required, by law, to provide a minimum 10% match of the Federal grant amount. This match requirement can be fulfilled via cash or in-kind contributions by the state and/or local grantees.
IV. State Administration
- Designation of State Agencies Following enactment of the AV Grant Program in 1996, the then-Governors of States were asked to designate a State agency that would be responsible for receiving the grant funds. Roughly half of the State AV Grant Programs are administered by State Offices of the Courts and the other half by State IV-D Agencies.
In California, it’s the California Judicial Council, which is THE policysetting arm of the Judicial branch in the state. Then it goes to the Administrative “office of the Courts,” and so forth. So we have pretty much a socialist type setup here. Read on.
- Funding Responsibilities States are required (that’s “REQUIRED“) to ensure that funds expended under the Access and Visitation Grant respond to and support the program goal which is “…to establish programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children…”.
Comment: The thing that facilitated noncustodial parents’ access to their children PRIOR to this was called a court order. It was signed by a judge, stipulated some terms of custody & visitation, and people who interfered with this were (depending on when the law I am thinking of was passed) to comply, or suffer possible contempt of court (order) sanctions, and fork them over to the otherr parent. The thing was done in a process called, formerly, the “LEGAL” process, also casually referred to in some circles still as “DUE process.” It’s what our country is about at its most basic denominator: Constitution, Bill of Rights, and so forth. Remember those? So, these grants and grant programs can’t quite come out and say “ORDER NONCUSTODIAL PARENT ACCESS” because, after all, they come from the U.S. Exec. Dept., which is supposedly separate from the Legislatives, which is supposedly separate from the Judicial.
This was actually intentional, from what I understand of the ffounding fathers. They wanted these strong powers distributed among different players. NOT centralized in one or just a few players, in which case we’d be an oligarchy, not a republic (cf. Pledge of Allegiance, US Citizens, if you forgot what that means). “I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which (this flag) it stands, one nation, under (expletive deleted, according to some sources), indivisible, with Liberty, and Justice, for all.” While we know it doesn’t exist yet, this is the pledge and that is the gol. Notice: “Justice” not “program goals.
JUSTICE is a process. It is a MEANS. “Program Goals” is an end, and apparently the end justifies the means here.
- shall administer State programs funded with the grant directly or through grants to or contracts with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit entities“;
- shall not be required to operate such programs on a statewide basis; and
- shall monitor, evaluate, and report on such programs
- Reporting Requirements The enabling legislation requires states to monitor, evaluate, and report on services funded through the Access and Visitation Grant Program. This statutory requirement is satisfied through the annual completion – by states – of the “State Child Access Program Survey” which includes:
- State agency contact information;
- Services funded; {{Note: “permitted activities,” above.}}
- Provider agency contact information;
- Number of parents served; {Define “SERVED!” — forced through the programs??}
- Socio-economic and demographic information on families served; and
- Outcome data (i.e., number of noncustodial parents whose parenting time with children increased as a result of services).
DCL-07-15
DATE: May 24, 2007
TO: STATE IV-D DIRECTORS AND STATE ACCESS AND VISITATION PROGRAM COORDINATORS
RE: New publication which assesses selected State Access and Visitation programs client outcomes especially with respect to subsequent payment of child support
Dear Colleague:
I am pleased to provide you with a copy of a new report entitled: “Child Access and Visitation Programs: Participant Outcomes.”
Since 1997, the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) has been responsible for administering “Grants to States for Access and Visitation.” To date, OCSE has awarded $100 million dollars to states ($10 million per year) to “…establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children,” as mandated by Congress.
I cannot speak loudly enough to express how profound a conflict of interest this remains. Parents are recruited through jails, through child support offices (when in arrears) and sometimes flat-out through courtrooms by flyers, to participate in programs that are intended to sway the legal process, and THROUGh these programs. Many women leaving violence, or protective mothers, protest that the safety of their children should be left in the hands of someone who is having business funneled to them through these courts and through government mandate (and how are we to know whether or not actual money? It has happened, from what I understand) to tip the balance in the courtroom. THIS PROCESS makes a farce of the courtroom process.
In order to achieve this end, States are allowed to fund a range of services including (hint, hint, hint…) : mediation, development of parenting plans, education, counseling, visitation enforcement (including supervised visitation and neutral drop off), and the development of alternative custody and visitation guidelines. Between FFY 1997-2005, over 400,000 parents were recipients of AV services.
I’d estimate then, about 50% of them unwillingly, or unwitting that they have a right to refuse. Moreover (personal experience), quite often the mediator’s report is not even received before the hearing! I have twice out of three times received it IN the courtroom, which is hardly the place and sufficient time to reply and consider its ramifications!
This study assesses participant outcomes resulting from the Access and Visitation Program in 9 states for mediation, parent education and supervised visitation services. Mediation was studied in Missouri, Rhode Island and Utah. Parent education was assessed in Arizona, Colorado and New Jersey. Supervised visitation was looked at in California, Hawaii and Pennsylvania. The primary findings for the 970 cases studied are as follows:
Let’s review this report here. Out of, in their own words “54 States (*including the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands)” only 9 (literally, only 1 in 6 states) were studied, and only 970 cases total. That’s approximately how many per state, and now we have math lesson #1 about this department: DEMONSTRATION SAMPLE — hardly any. APPLICATION FROM DEMONSTRATION (or even EVALUATION) SAMPLE — to the rest of the country. This study was in 2007 (10 years after program started).
- Child support payments increased from 53 percent to 93 percent by service in the 12 months following service provision. {{DOES THIS INCLUDE THE SUPPORT ORDERS HAVING BEEN MODIFIED DOWNWARDS, WHICH IS ALMOST INVARIABLY THE RESULT OF SUCH PROCESSES, AND THE PURPOSE OF THEM, TOO}}
- Child support compliance rose by 20 percent to 79 percent for unwed cases; but did not increase for divorce cases.
(I’M A DIVORCE CASE, AND THE REDUCED CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS WAS BASICALLY TREATED AS A JOKE AFTER THIS PROCESS. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU GIVE A PERSON WHO ISN’T IN COMPLIANCE AN INCH, AND THE DOOR THEN OPENS WIDE TO NO COMPLIANCE. THIS IS WHY THROUGHOUT THE SEPARATION, I WAS TRYING TO STABILIZE ADN INSIST ON COMPLIANCE, AND AT EVERY TURN, I WAS DISCOURAGED FROM THIS, AND EXHORTED TO GIVE. FINALLY, I HAD TO “GIVE” MY CHILDREN. WELL, NOT FINALLY, ALSO A LOT MORE, INCLUDING THE SENSE THAT ANY COURT ORDER HAS ANY VALIDITY OR FORCE. THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF JIMMYING THE COURT PROCESS FOR A DESIRED OUTCOME, I BELIEVE.}}
- The level of child contact by the noncustodial parent rose from 32 percent to 45 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision. (HOW ABOUT 13-15 MONTHS?)
- The behavior of the youngest child as reported by the custodial parent improved by 26 percent to 41 percent by service in the 12 months after service provision.
WAS THIS ABOUT WORK OPPORTUNITY OR PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY (REFERRING TO ADULTS!), OR ABOUT GRADING CHILDREN’S BEHAVIOR? LET ME RE-READ THE LEGISLATION. ALSO, I KIND OF WONDER ABOUT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF WHO IS MEASURING KIDS’ BEHAVIORAL PERCENTAGES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT, AND SUPPOSE THE CUSTODIAL PARENT EXAGGERATED? GOOD GRIEF! “MY KID WAS 10% BETTER, THE OCSE SHOULD KNOW….”
- Twenty-five percent of both parents reported an improved relationship in the 12 months after service provision. The rate was the same for all service types.
Another way of stating this is that “75% of parents reported it didn’t make a damn bit of difference as to their relationship, high-conflict, violent, or casually friendly.
- Seventy percent of parents who mediated a visitation/custody agreement reached agreement.
If some of these cases were anything like mine, a good deal of threat was involved in the process. For example, when my kids went missing, I wasn’t about to be allowed in front of a judge unless I went through the gatekeeper, the mediator. I requested another one, but no one available for over month. So what would you do? Let the kids stay MIA or try to get it to court? That’s called extortion! it’s not a real choice!
- Nearly all of the parents who received parent education were satisfied by the education.
(or so they said, supposedly).
- Ninety percent of parents who participated in supervised visitation characterized this service as a safe place to conduct visits.
Applying the findings in this study should help states design, fund and measure better programs. For additional copies of this report, please contact OCSE’s National Reference Center at 202-401-9383 or OCSENationalReferenceCenter@acf.hhs.gov
Sincerely,
Margot Bean
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement
| State/Jurisdiction | Federal Allocation | State Match | Total Funding |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | $142,379 | $15,819.89 | $158,199 |
| Alaska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Arizona | $169,198 | $18,799.78 | $187,998 |
| Arkansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| California | $957,600 | $106,400 | $1,064,000 |
| Colorado | $125,800 | $13,977.78 | $139,778 |
| Connecticut | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Delaware | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| District of Columbia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Florida | $497,059 | $55,228.78 | $552,288 |
| Georgia | $295,222 | $32,802.44 | $328,024 |
| Guam | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Hawaii | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Idaho | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Illinois | $344,357 | $38,261.89 | $382,619 |
| Indiana | $191,496 | $21,277.33 | $212,773 |
| Iowa | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kansas | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Kentucky | $122,440 | $13,604.44 | $136,044 |
| Louisiana | $139,592 | $15,510.22 | $155,102 |
| Maine | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Maryland | $166,481 | $18,497.89 | $184,979 |
| Massachusetts | $161,374 | $17,930.44 | $179,304 |
| Michigan | $292,451 | $32,494.56 | $324,946 |
| Minnesota | $133,277 | $14,808.56 | $148,086 |
| Mississippi | $109,483 | $12,164.78 | $121,648 |
| Missouri | $171,561 | $19,062.33 | $190,623 |
| Montana | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nebraska | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Nevada | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Hampshire | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New Jersey | $217,801 | $24,200 | $242,001 |
| New Mexico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| New York | $549,720 | $61,080 | $610,800 |
| North Carolina | $271,792 | $30,199.11 | $301,991 |
| North Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Ohio | $349,127 | $38,791.89 | $387,919 |
| Oklahoma | $108,016 | $12,001.78 | $120,018 |
| Oregon | $100,213 | $11,134.78 | $111,348 |
| Pennsylvania | $327,030 | $36,336.67 | $363,367 |
| Puerto Rico | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Rhode Island | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| South Carolina | $142,115 | $15,790.56 | $157,906 |
| South Dakota | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Tennessee | $188,867 | $20,985.22 | $209,852 |
| Texas | $687,405 | $76,378.33 | $763,783 |
| Utah | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Vermont | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Virgin Islands | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Virginia | $207,722 | $23,080.22 | $230,802 |
| Washington | $175,056 | $19,450.67 | $194,507 |
| West Virginia | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Wisconsin | $155,366 | $17,262.89 | $172,629 |
| Wyoming | $100,000 | $11,111 | $111,111 |
| Total | $10,000,000 | $1,111,108.34 | $11,111,108 |
|
Number of rows returned: 54
NOW, the THEORY behind “access visitation” includes the concept that doing this will help the deadbeat NCP (Noncustodial parent) to be more warmly inclined, or able, or less discouraged, or have incentive, to pay up. This is why it’s related also to welfare reduction. So, basically, it’s a project about reducing outstanding deficits, and is of course administered by the OCSE. So we should presume that its purpose is somewhat related to the OCSE, which is child support collection. SO, at $10/million/year for (so far about 12) years, is this enough? NO, there is still more unexplored territory when it comes to Child SUpport Demonstration projects. Even after they reported on a whole 970 cases nationwide in 2007. I just looked under a different code (see chart) and here are the new explorers: WELL, the first one below, Center for Policy Research isn’t exactly new, in fact Jessica Pearson is behind a whole lot more in these matters, and in the family law field, than meets the average eye. (See website). She most definitely qualifies as a heavyweight, along with her (and six other’s) “Center for Policy Research” and an apparently? related “Policy-Studies.com which (I have to double-check, but it’s already posted recently) got a whopping $4 million (one year) recently for abstinence education too. Coincidentally, both organizations out of Denver. When you click on the site, it reads (on the URL address frame, at least on my computer): “Health and Human Services Outsourcing and Consulting.”
POINT BEING, if we already have all these other Child Support, Child Welfare, and other special demo projects going on, why all the extra, extra funds for Access Visitation?
http://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Policy-Studies-Inc-Reviews-E22614.htm (Funny review from two employees: “Its not just a job, its only a job!” Pros A stable paycheck and the coworkers are usually pleasant. A great place for people looking for just a job and who don’t want to work too hard. Cons Some of the technical folks seemed hesitant to make changes or use newer technologies. Bureaucracy was rampant and individuals could not make changes or improvements. Communication was completely lacking, and senior management would decide what they though was best rather than listen to the folks who were doing the job. Advice to Senior Management Be more open to the experience of the people in the remote offices. Discuss ideas before making broad policy and business practice changes.
“Proceed with caution” Pros Work with human services agencies, the people at the project level are usually very talented Cons Sr. Management has driven off key staff, few opportunities for advancement, poor communication about important events, high spend on initiatives that are risky Advice to Senior Management Get back to the basics of what made PSI successful.
Search on “Center Policy Research” (modest results, really). |
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | City | State | Award Title | CFDA Program Name | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 50,000 |
| 2008 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 124,829 |
| 2008 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3 | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 99,908 |
| 2007 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 124,820 |
| 2006 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 24,730 |
| 2006 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 198,664 |
| 2005 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | JESSICA PEARSON | $ 100,000 |
| 2004 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | DENVER | CO | EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT | Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects | DEMONSTRATION | NEW | DR JESSICA PEARSON | $ 99,926 |
| 1996 | CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH | SYRACUSE | NY | HOW POOR HEALTH INFLUENCES WORK AND RETIREMENT | Aging Research | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NEW | DWYER, DEBRA S | $ 35,910 |
And here, FY 2000-2009, is a cute little chart showing the top 10 states for receiving these Access/Visitation grants from USASPENDING.GOV. IN 2002, apparently someone was very enthusiastic or reported differently, whereas in 2006, the data (or its reporting) took a nosedive. However, it’s at least a resource for CFDA 93597, “Grants to States (again, to designated agency in each state, and then distributed locally to get the PROGRAM GOAL OF MORE TIME FOR NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS WITH THEIR KIDS.”
SHARE THIS POST on...
My Copy Editing Disclaimer: While I CAN Copy-edit for stylistic consistency, I DON’T herein: Let’s Get Honest, this blog just ain’t about to be copyedited
Excuse #1: PTSD (what’s YOUR excuse?)
re: The PTSD – There’s no Excuse for Abuse!
Like my approach to this Blog, it’s a choice. (see photo to right)
Almost every excuse I’ve heard, mostly from family members, calls it something else, like “helping.” The real struggle affecting the wider public in this arena (Family Court) is naming. Name-calling. It’s a language issue. Language controls SO much. It controls children and money, which are unfortunately closely related here, and my sense of the courts is that the system has become closer to an auction block than a process dispensing justice, or fair decisions based on facts. We are the state where it’s not only profitable to work in and around the courts, it is ALSO profitable to work for nonprofits dedicated, so they claim, to advising and changing the courts.
The amount of help I would’ve needed at specific dates in time, to be TOTALLY and COMPLETELY solvent and free from abuse in short order after leaving it, almost never, once I had my income set up, exceeded a single child support payment, which at this point in time was set at lower than cash-aid for a family of two, which we’d been on briefly and which generated the initial support order tos tart with. Alternately, I could’ve, with only a half more year of non-intervention policy from my family, omitted the child support entirely, and gone on our merry way, with two great children regularly seeing both parents, while living with one.
Instead, someone coached someone how to stop this, and the answer, the salvation, was the family law arena. In the middle of recovery, and almost to safety or to “shore” (financially speaking, and this counts!) I was kicked back into self-defense mode, as a single mother and the nonbattering parent who’d finally worked up courage to file a restraining order.
By the time I got myself up to speed on domestic violence literature, the laws, the rules of court, and the fact that any and all of the above are, in essence and in practice, “moot points,” my income, safety, boundaries, and stability were gone. It took a very short few years to get this household BACK into trauma and poverty, and from there, snatch my kids.
This did not just affect one family, or three generations, and relatives in one family, though it has. It affected the wider community and burdened the social services, as I called crisis lines, again started attending DV support systems. I hemorrhaged jobs and professional connections, and had a traumatic bonding relationship with law enforcement in two counties (and more cities). MORE police reports were generated from my attempts to get kids back on a weekend exchange (after restraining order was removed) and then retaliatory frivolous calls by my ex (for example, if I was supposedly 1 minute late, when I wasn’t even that), than even happened during the years of physical violence and assaults upon me, my property, and animals in the home. Some severe (physical) threats to me were generated from protesting animal abuse. Still gullible, I continued to hope that law enforcement would help enforce laws. Even when they allowed my children to be removed illegally from my custody based on clear perjury and after a judge’s order had directly forbidden this — less than 24 hours earlier — these peace officers failed to enforce when asked to. The same office knew of the former domestic violence restraining order, and in fact, I think this exchange was beginning to get a bit of a reputation there (though I can’t say for sure).
I did not understand HOW necessary it was for me to understand the ENTIRE system in these matters. And it is appropriate to respond according to the truth of a situation, not to our myths about the truth of our situation. IF I had made it through this website: NAFCJ.net — BEFORE my kids were stolen, I might have acted differently.
No one goes through all that without seeking answers. While few hours go into copyediting, MANY have gone into researching what I blog about, and that’s what underlies the confidence, as unpleasant as what I found was. Namely, if I could summarize it, organized crime in high places. Not exactly breaking news, but still we like to think, protectively, it’s not going to affect us, somehow.
Certain professions attract certain personality types. It’s unfortunate but true, and public service is simply not always the prime motivation.
Old myths die fast.
Life and death truly are in the power of the tongue. When any group seeks to pre-empt language, and re-write history, we had best be VERY cautious.
Name-calling is a basic human trait defining social groups, and always has been. However, when a larger conglomerate of social groups is to function somehow, they have to have a “language” to describe the interactions, and some sort of regulation of those to minimize fighting. As one age gives way to another, language is a real clue. The largest clue is where the greatest silence is. In this arena of family law, there has been an intentional, and arising from a single set of sources (date, places, and times have been identified on their own websites) to CHANGE TERMINOLOGIES, and make excuse for abuse. I speak about this, as well as refer to (hopefully not in totally identifying detail; this is always an internal struggle, how much to say) some of the major areas of silence in this venue.
HOW MANY blogs are you going to find which post grants data from BOTH the fatherhood/marriage and the Violence Against Women (i’m going to, today, some more) groups and ask pointed questions about how many lives are those funds saving — and according to whom? I have limited time, limited brain capacity and when focused on content, cannot also focus on polishing content.
The fallout from failing to SEE and ACT on the truth in this venue is sometimes death, poverty, homelessness, and intergenerational transmission of trauma, to those involved, or sometimes those associated with those involved. What we as a society fail to see is where loss to ONE set of people (in these venues) is gain to another — the profit from prolonging the distress.
No one likes to talk about that, but we must, and I DO — and the fact that I do, in the history of who I’ve been personally dealing with, and now, seeing the wider scope of the problem (which isn’t any prettier), there is an element of fear associated with breaking cultural tabus, speaking up. Families with histories of violence or incest have kept it going through silence, as mine did for 10 years while it happened to me in front of God and a lot of other on-lookers.
But I do because of what’s in me that loves and wants to speak truth, not suppress it (I know ALL about that) and because of what’s left in my heart (which is a lot!) regarding my daughters, who have been lied to, lied about, and induced to lie in some of these matters.
Therefore, getting it “up and out” is an act of some courage for me, and when I focus too much on editing, the courage fails. It’s a totally different process and mode. (This “serious” section was added after the more lighthearted stuff below). In my marriage, when I spoke, he sometimes hit – doing so was ALWAYS trauma, sometimes caused serious injury, and always was intended that I should not speak. This is why I believe some abusers target the neck and mouth area. They don’t want us to speak, or breathe. When it comes to economic abuse, there is difficulty with communication and transportation infrastructures — isolate and intimidate is the name of the game. And then, once this is in place, interrogate and degrade.
Why do they go for the neck? (I learned at a conference in 2007 that this is a lethality indicator, in a publication addressed to dentists! I went to a dentist with teeth knocked loose years before, it didn’t raise any eyebrows even, that I could tell! The story I gave them (at that point) was ridiculous. It wasn’t questioned. That was a serious missed opportunity, and followed up on, might have produced a criminal report and a night in jail; it might have changed things. It SHOULD have. But by this time in the marriage, I’d been through the round of reporting, and reaching out, and speaking up. I was beginning to take a stand against abuse IN my marriage, and things were heating up as a direct consequence.
Though I have lost a tooth, income, children, and thousands of dollars (as have others who then attempted to support me but took not action to confront the abuse or violence), not one cent of “Victim Compensation” funding came this way. Not one identifiable “help” other than naming the abuse that was happening, came from one of the best-funded groups in this area. I believe we deserve answers, and I blog about this while I’m still here, still have housing, still have some health left. The women I link to also do this.
Again, as to abuse — What’s your Excuse for (your SILENCE about) Abuse?
I have and will continue to post some unpleasant $$ figures as to the nationwide economic cost of not understanding “the name of the game” in these fields, and attributing pure motives to every one who has a smooth speech. Which, I don’t think I do, but I try to get facts out, and assemble them in reasonable fashion, if not always in grammatically complete sentences.
Excuse #2: I’ll let Wikipedia (so to speak) speak to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_editing
OVERVIEW
The “Five Cs” [1] summarize the copy editor’s job: make the copy (i) clear, (ii) correct, (iii) concise, (iv) comprehensible, and (v) consistent; that is: make it say what it means, and mean what it says. Typically, copy editing involves correcting spelling, punctuation, grammar,mathematics,[2] terminology/jargon and semantics; ensuring that the typescript adheres to the publisher’s house style; and addingheadlines and standardized headers, footers, etc.[2]
The copy editor is expected to ensure that the text flows, that it is sensible, fair, and accurate, and that it will provoke no legal problems for the publisher.[2] Newspaper copy editors are sometimes responsible for selecting which news agency‘s wire copy the newspaper will use and for rewriting it in accordance with house style. Often, the copy editor is the only person, other than the author , to read an entire text before publication. Newspaper managing editors regard copy editors as the newspaper’s last line of accurate defense.
Hence, EXCUSE #2: I’m the author, not “other than the author.”
At least, I’m an “author” in a loose sense of the word.
I assemble, react (in print), cut and paste, and think about it. Aloud. This is NOT “copy editing.” They are entirely different processes, and for a good reason.
A copy editor may abridge a text, by “cutting” and “trimming” it, to reduce its length to fit publishing or broadcasting limits or to improve its meaning.[1]
There is no universal form for the job or job title; it is often written as one word (copyedit)[1] or with a hyphen (copy-edit); the hyphenated form is especially common in the UK. Similarly, the term copy editor may be spelled either as one word, two words, or as a hyphenated compound term. (And if you’re paying attention, I intentionally used all three forms in my title to make this point).
Copy editing is done prior to the work of proofreaders, who handle documents before final publication.[1]
(NOR DO I PROOFREAD, ENOUGH):
Under Wikipedia “Author”:
“According to the studies of James Curran, the system of shared values among editors in Britain has generated a pressure among authors to write to fit the editors’ expectations, removing the focus from the reader-audience and putting a strain on the relationship between authors and editors and on writing as a social act.
I am writing as a social act, and there is a very strained relationship between the author and editor parts; they are not happy yet. However I have made a deliberate decision to go with the first, and relegate the “editor” to a back seat. This may seem backwards, but relates to how I deal with post-traumatic stress issues on some of these topics, and the “fear of speaking” issue. (OR, it may be my way of rebelling against the “perfectionism” tendency). Sometimes it has to come out nonstop, and there isn’t enough time or emotional energy left to go back and revise.
When I do, instead, more reflection and more writing gets in there. Perhaps hearing about the process may help people who haven’t been through certain kinds of trauma understand a bit about some who have.
In my case, i am still mastering “bloggery,” and I am alleviating (by this disclaimer) with the copy editing training I have, and trained, and fairly accurate eye I have when I’m NOT cutting, pasting (or trying to) and trying to figure out which font or margin changes will actually stick.
The “accuracy” and with to avoid public embarrassment thing crawls up my back especially when I, for example as I just noticed today (8-29-09), I caught someone else’s Freudian slip/typo (“simulate conversation” where clearly “sTimulate” conversation was meant. IN these fields, “simulating” conversation, dialogue and openness, mediation, negotiation, and conciliation is blatantly rampant. Never get caught SIMULATING dialogue when you wish to be seen as STIMULATING it!
But further down, regarding a missing foster child case which has now become a homicide INVESTIGATION, in, from my own fingers and brain, in slipped the word “visitation” (topic of today’s post, in part). These word-switches (“hear” for here, or “know” for “no”, etc.) were much more common after the event of the child-stealing than beforehand. I am a crack typist (over 100wpm) and used to be known for a sharp eye for grammar; I have worked in accounting and legal fields also, where accuracy counts. There are definitely different parts of the brain in operation now, to do the same tasks. Sometimes they jump tracks temporarily, I guess. Never used to do that so much.
So, while no author in the general sense, I am in this sense:
Wages
There are no normal wages for authors. The pay for authors is normally based on provisions after standard contracts with companies.
[edit]
> – > – > – >
I have some ideas, but am not interested in fully analyzing why I write, any more than I formerly questioned why I played piano and sang, or why I ate and slept.
There are pros(e) and con (artists) to the habit.
Maybe I’m half hunter by nature, and like to bring home what I caught, like a cat brings home half-alive, half-in-shock mouse. The point isn’t the trophy, but what a great hunter the cat was.
However, this blog is NOT just for the act of blogging or the act of seeking. I have indeed been on a personal hunt to explain WHAT’S UP? with this venue? After i read the literature on “what’s up with the venue” I began looking at the organizations PUBLISHING the literature and pronouncing what’s up with this venue. They are better funded than almost any family court litigant ever will be.
That’s where the real story is. The real story is in what is NOT being talked about it. I talk about it, and I request public action on the information, in the form of taking this information, following up, and being highly motivated to know that this is affecting YOUR life, this particular kind of government waste and lack of accountability as to HOW its funds are being spent.
Regarding the PTSD factor – – these are difficult topics and truths to put out there. They are also, many, personal. Putting together a narrative can be healing, but done wrong, it can also re-traumatize. Hence, I fear that what you see hear is what you GOT. Get it?
One more thing about perfectionism: This also runs in my family line, and I do know (at least so is the family lore) my father watched HIS mother being beat by HIS father; it appears to be what they did back when in many cultures. He was if nothing perfectionist (in his field) and a researcher, creative thinker. I am beginning to understand why, and I happen to know that THIS applies to at least one of my two offspring.
Quote is cited on today’s post. (Note the 1980s dates of the cites)
In my opinion, it would be better, in most cases, for the children of homes where there has been domestic violence not to be in the custody of the abusive parent at all. In many cases it is even advisable that visitation be limited to controlled situations, such as under a therapist’s supervision during a therapy session, unless the batterer has been in batterer’s treatment and demonstrated that he has changed significantly in specific ways.
Caveat. Batterers can often “perform” well for an hour or two, and have been documented doing well in class, but outside class, and sometimes shortly AFTER, murdering. On this basis, I challenge that assertion, it begs the question of demonstrating what, how, for how long, and to whom. Like religious “repentance” it can be very much faked. My personal measure was compliance with court orders: the ability to TAKE an order rather than, when it came to me, the ex-wife, only ISSUING one. What the courts saw as my obstinancy, possibly, I (accurately, I assert) saw as my VERY healthy need for boundaries, and asserting them. One thing family law tends to do (for the uninitiated, if there are still some of these around) is break down personal boundaries, and then judge the person with the broken fences harshly. In a given case, this will be one parent OR the other, not both, and typically it is the female one.
“Merely” observing ones father abuse ones mother is in itself damaging to children. My clinical experience is consistent with the research literature which shows that children who witness their father beat their mother exhibit significantly greater psychological and psychosomatic problems than children from homes without violence (Roy, 1988). Witnessing abuse is more damaging in many ways than actually being abused, and having both happen is very damaging (Goodman and Rosenberg, 1987).
For the past few years — actually several years — I have had to witness from afar things that I knew to be damaging to my daughters, and was unable to do anything about this. I REMEMBER being physically assaulted, traumatized, and a lot more, and I will concur, although I’d surely not want to repeat the experience, this DOES feel horrible. It’s an internal wound hard to get at except by amputating something natural and innate, which is to care how one’s kids are doing, and do something to make sure they are thriving, and most specifically (in my case) headed in a good direction in life, and among people with decent values, and I’m not talking conservative or progressive, I’m talking, respectful of women and respecting the law, and not participating in “dissing” or hurting another parent. Forcing (minors in particular) to do this is part of a gang initiation, it’s like a ritual hazing, to prove membership. I’ve seen the lower middle class version of this, enabled by people who ought to know better, based on the self-assertions. yes, in short, it hurts, adults and children alike, but children moreso in the long run, I feel, because they have more lifespan ahead of them.
Studies show that a high percentage (as high as 55%) of fathers who abuse their wives also abuse their children (Walker and Edwall, 1987). In my experience, if one includes emotional abuses such as being hypercritical, yelling and being cruelly sarcastic, the percentage is much higher.
I was the target of this (as well as blows and choke-holds, throws, kicks, slaps, etc.) during marriage. I NEVER saw physical violence by my father towards my mother (and have in recent years asked, and was said, no it did not happen), and although he was highly critical of me, he was not cruelly sarcastic. I saw it as part of his professional mind (scientific). However, he WAS cruelly sarcastic and critical of my mother, which I believe did affect my sense of integrity as a young woman. I woke up to them arguing. We became a family that didn’t talk about important things, and as the youngest (in such families, everyone has an assigned role), and when siblings left home and before it, I became the “peacekeeper” too often. I disappeared into my own world, happily enough, until I became hungry for something approaching true and relationships/friendships, as I matured. I found these in music and writing, books, etc.
This cruel sarcasm, in the family realm, has been directed at me in my late middle age by this family of origin. I think it is possibly in order to preserve a sense of “family” in that our father is gone, suddenly, and decades ago. I do not think they are as comfortable with their worldviews, and a challenge to them seems a challenge to the core, somehow.
OR, it could just be about money and basic human passions, unrestrained by empathy or concern for the long-range impact. I don’t know, I know it apparently “works” for them and not for me to punish outsiders, namely, those who challenge their authority to usurp authority, which happens to be MY definition of family violence, or abuse, to start with!
I became a teacher professionally, and know that one must KNOW who one is teaching, and that the sarcasm doesn’t motivate for long, the put-down, the cruelty. Does it? Did this work, as a whole and entire person, would you say for, for example, Michael Jackson? He did amazing things. Was it a good life? Well, he didn’t see his kids grow up… He was on medication to survive. . .. Amazing music or no amazing music, and it was.
The damage that children suffer is highly variable, with symptoms ranging from aggressive acting out to extreme shyness and withdrawal, or from total school failure to compulsive school performance. The best way to summarize all the symptoms despite their variety is to say that they resemble what children who suffer other trauma exhibit, and could be seen as a version of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (Walker and Edwall, 1987).
As I reflect on my own childhood, and recall some diary entries I had as to my daughters’ (plural) behavior immediately post-incident, I noticed both aspects. They witnessed some horrible stuff, and when they are of age (and if interested), I will show them the entries, of how these little girls, after an incident would try to “distract” their Dad, by doing some super-feat for their age, or planning something to reconcile us. I am talking, under 5 years old, BOTH of them.
I suspect that my father realized (being without a man in the home) he had to grow up and perform REAL fast, and he sure did. He also drank heavily, tried to handle it later in his work life, a work life that was full of awards and financial rewards too, well-decorated, well-acknowledged. What’s more, he married a number of times (although only to our mother til I was out of the home), and died suddenly shortly after retirement, the circumstances of which I still (quite honestly) have significant questions about.
Both of my daughters are supremely smart and intelligent (I know this), but one was chosen as super-performer, and the other one, after a period (early on) of trying to differentiate herself, even saying as of Kindergarten, “I hate reading” (but became a very competent, and observant reader close to this time), and another time blowing things off, apparently. I tried to accommodate this through the public schools and was soundly punished for NOT having them both in the same format of school, even though I neither respected it (for either girl) nor did it work for them, or our family unit, nor did the idea for it even originate from either Dad or Mom at the time. it was one of those outside “interventions” by “helpers” whose motives are not what they claimed to be. At all.
Then when I finally put them BOTH in the same school, was truly a compromise between my ex’s position (or, his ostensible position, i should say), which might have made someone happy, they were abducted out of it and put, at the time into a strange school system in a new city, each girl in a different school. So “go figure” the rationale behind that.
And so, since this was a post about “copy editing,” about FORM not CONTENT, I will say this content is still relevant. And this is as good an introduction to why I’m blogging here as any:
Equally serious is the long term effect of domestic violence – intergenerational transmission.
I rest my case and my disclaimer.
FYI, the longwinded style, and associative, full-thinking (one hopes) that is natural to me, may be unnatural to others. If you (reader) do not understand how or why this happens, please read up on some writings regarding trauma. The constant interruption of thought is a means of control and setting off balance. I’m completely aware of it. I have had music, which really worked for me, unnaturally deleted from my life along with the children. At a gut level, and through behavioral conditioning (NOT accidental in either marriage or divorce, I assert — unless it was simply generalized narcissism, but based on things I’ve heard and read from my ex, No, it wasn’t. It was intentional to target music. I KNOW that what I got from it threatened this man. Not just the income, but the personal validation and emotional support. It’s hard to dominate someone who is having fun in music! Regularly! (and getting paid for it, and connecting with people through it). For one the existence of those relationships counters the character-smashing that is necessary to “win” in family court and necessary to “win” in abuse, which is in part about winning, anyhow. Period.
So part of what a mind does is healing by speaking, and by connecting thoughts together. I call it “hyper-focus” — although as a musician at the piano, I could most certainly practice and focus for hours (why not?), this is different. It’s like a going “under water” until the thought is complete, and a sense of rising to the surface as it approaches what MY sensibility calls completion. I suppose that’s somewhat meditative. I know that it helped me during the most traumatic months (years) leading up to the abduction, and part of this was having AN audience, not just writing “myself.” Hence, a longwinded (but hopefully informative, and sometimes at least entertaining or interesting)
B L O G. It is my ‘attuned” relationship with myself, and for now, will do. I also wish to leave a bit of a track record (if you read more, you’ll realizing stalking has been an ongoing concern, and I have not reconciled myself either to lifelong economic or emotional abuse by family members, or never seeing a daughter while courts and truth both exist! if not in the same place, at least separately. I call this “hyperfocus,” and while there are drawbacks, in some senses also, it works for me.
So, remind me to hire a copyeditor, once I myself get some income. . . . While the best of art has a SENSE of artlessness about it, THIS stuff is indeed, for the most part “thrown up” (an awkward term, I admit!) on wordpress, not for its art, and I’ll just try to pick up a little artifice along the way, but it makes me very uncomfortable.
Note. I do not know my ex’s mother too well (like our family, by “lore” more than actual face time or communications. Some, but not much since we split, which I do out of respect for her). She had a rough marriage, and one thing I noted in the few letters that got through was that the first person singular was absent. Although narrating what she did, she began with the verb, and omitted the “I.” Maybe she was another “amazing, disappearing, virtually invisible mother” like the noun I blog about sometimes; mothers have become “WOMEN” (There is an office of Violence against WOMEN, but when it comes to MEN, there is a major web section on “FATHERHOOD.” On “marriage” on “children” and on “families” (as to vocabulary). As mothers, we are possibly becoming a vestigial function in society, only kept around (for now) for the biological production of infants, for scapegoats (every religion needs a scapegoat, right?) and to give social status to some man: He is a FATHER, he has a FAMILY, and he is head of the HOUSEHOLD (religious version). If not much else in life.
SPEAKING of “FLOW” (I was, really!), along with hunting and gathering, or should I say (web) surfing, how does this name FLOW off your tongue?
“Csikszentmihalyi“
Mine either, and I found this following a craigslist ad, to which my reaction was, Is there NO area of life which is not a market niche?
And I found, probably not. I hope we have SOME private lives left within the next three decades, but I am skeptical how many of us in the middle ranges of society will be able. Anyhow Wikipedia to the rescue (if for phonetic pronunciation here):
Personal background
He received his B.A. in 1960 and his Ph.D. in 1965, both from the University of Chicago.
He is the father of MIT Media Lab associate professor Christopher Csikszentmihalyi and University of California – Berkeley[4] professor of philosophical and religious traditions ofChina and East Asia, Mark Csikszentmihalyi.
{{His son is one REALLY smart dude too, so perhaps we should listen up!
And, sit at his feet to be taught, too!**}}
[edit]Flow
Mental state in terms of challenge level and skill level. Clickable.[5]
In his seminal work, ‘Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience’, Csíkszentmihályi outlines his theory that people are most happy when they are in a state of flow— a state of concentration or complete absorption with the activity at hand and the situation. The idea of flow is identical to the feeling of being in the zone or in the groove. The flow state is an optimal state of intrinsic motivation, where the person is fully immersed in what he or she is doing. This is a feeling everyone has at times, characterized by a feeling of great absorption, engagement, fulfillment, and skill—and during which temporal concerns (time, food, ego-self, etc.) are typically ignored.[6]
{{This includes during sex, where applicable….}}
In an interview with Wired magazine, Csíkszentmihályi described flow as “being completely involved in an activity for its own sake. The ego falls away. Time flies. Every action, movement, and thought follows inevitably from the previous one, like playing jazz. Your whole being is involved, and you’re using your skills to the utmost.”[7]
To achieve a flow state, a balance must be struck between the challenge of the task and the skill of the performer. If the task is too easy or too difficult, flow cannot occur. Both skill level and challenge level must be matched and high; if skill and challenge are low and matched, then apathy results.[5]
The flow state also implies a kind of focused attention, and indeed, it has been noted that mindfulness meditation, yoga, and martial arts seem to improve a person’s capacity for flow. Among other benefits, all of these activities train and improve attention.
In short, flow could be described as a state where attention, motivation, and the situation meet, resulting in a kind of productive harmony or feedback.
Sorry to inject this (hey, not really — it’s my blog), but to a mother this might be nature (we give birth, remember?), or a musician, but to a scientist, it’s a field of expertise. These are very elementary (and true) observations!
Did I say, teacher?
QUESTION: Am I the only person here that thinks an article on “FLOW” with a Square Graphic with uniform, segmented, labeled dissections of it seems a little, well, Rigid?
Should it be called “Flow, Dissected”?
What can’t the same people that can discuss, with engaging intelligence, the difference between particle and wave theory, not figure out that trying to dissect and label humanity is going to INTERFERE with the same humanity! For one, the thumb is on the scale, and even a child in “supervised visitation” knows that SOMETHING is up, like, a performance. And perform, they are likely to. The only thing that apparently truly FLOWS in such scenarios, is cash, in the form of grants, to analyze, dissect and (another endless stream) report on it. To observe anything in some depth, one needs at LEAST two points of view, and one I recommend is “IMMERSION” (INside) and another “SPECTATOR” (outside). I do this in music. There’s theory, and then “applied” studies. Moreover, there’s some differences between rehearsal and performance, as any musician knows. And the performance IS affected, to a degree, by (a) venue (resonance of the room) and (b) resonacne is sometimes dulled by a full room of bodies. Physically, it changes the resonance for the room. Walls can be hard, and sound waves bounce off it (as I would characterize My interaction with the mediator) or they can be soft, warm, and fuzzily receptive, as too many custody evaluators are with one parent but not the other.
If we can figure this out in music, why cannot a family law system figure it out?
I believe the system was well-designed to do what it is, at this moment in fact doing, and that is interrupt lives, divert cash (FLOW) and create an artificial, and at this point, society-wide source of trauma, which then will generate and justify ever more intrusive monitoring, measuring, calculating and declaring behaviors on the part of the social scientist and utopia-mongers. And I predict that what’s left of individuality in human beings aware of their humanity, and perhaps seeking to be HEARD, erupt in whatever manner it may be. I believe that at some level of policy making, surely (I believe, surely) someone realizes what direction its heading, and is quite OK with that direction, so long as they — and their progeny and cronies — are riding the wave.
In looking at more ancient literature, the analogy of people as water, and final Armageddon, etc., (jihad, etc.) is expected and predicted. I do not believe the Bible calls it honorable, however, but it does predict this. I would say that’s possibly an accurate reading of human nature, given past and future. Ethnic cleansing is not exactly a new concept, but what I’m concerned about is the commmunal cleansing of ETHICS, not ETHNICITIES so much. Although we can see that trend, too.
(I never DO know when to quit, sometimes. . .. . )
AS to Institutions that Specialize in Uncertainty and Flow-Disruptions, I could (but won’t, here) name three signficant institutions in the U.S.A. (home of the largest per-capita incarceration rate in the W-O-R-L-D. This is after the fall of the Berlin wall, too!) who teach authority by interrupting flow. That is the primary characteristic. OK, I’ll tell you one, because I’ve experienced it:
Law Enforcement.
Here’s another:
Public School (bells, periods, whistles, lockdowns, fire drills, etc.) It’s training, folks!!
Basically, any dominator institution will use some of this. The question is, how much?
When people reach a certain level of adulthood, they should have a level of discipline to at least ONE thing (trade, profession, pasion) or another, and be able to transfer discipline in it to discipline in something else. Perhaps we should talk about the “infantilizing of America,” I don’t know. Another topic, hey?
The fact is, biochemistry is related to emotions is related to one’s sense of place in this world. We DO difffer, and resonate to different frequencies. You want total unity and uniformity? Nationwide? There IS a way to get it. . . . at a cost, a human cost, and we are I am afraid headed into either this direction, or a real protest against heading in this direction:
(Found through Google Images search on “GooseStep”, and 3 times I’ve tried to paste the link. However, I’ll still close with notes from the source of this photo, apparently a narrative from a man’s 1969 visit to the Berlin Wall. You will probably find it again:
(Entry was Aug 1 2006)
A 1969 STROLL INTO COMMUNIST EAST BERLIN
October 7, 1969. I had just finished a photo assignment in Austria and visited a friend near Frankfurt. Now I wanted to see what Berlin, isolated well behind the Iron Curtain, was like.
People from all the Communist nations, including China, were doing their thing there. Folk dancing, music, demonstrations of solidarity, and just plain admiring this brave new world of the workers. Several stands in the side streets sold sausages and beer, both of which were pretty good and quite cheap.
As the day wore on I got hungry, and waited in line at the Café Moscau, which featured Russian food. Being alone, I was paired up with what might have been a general in the Russian army, or a doorman, in any case a guy in uniform covered with gold braid and medals. I ordered Beef Stroganoff, which was delicious.
There was a changing-of-the-guard ceremony at the Neue Wache, an old Prussian guardhouse now rich in propaganda value with its eternal flame for the victims of fascism. The soldiers there did a great goosestep.
Let’s all seek a better way, eh?
Anyhow, I ain’t copyediting, I’m thinking aloud, on-line.
Have a nice day. Don’t forget the blogroll.
The difference between my on-line monologues and what I experienced in abuse, and what my kids watched growing up, and what I suspect may or may not have “driven” my ex to expose us to (hours-long manic personal talks, and I DO mean, hours at a time, and afterwards he’d be relieved, and I’d be totally drained and sometimes emotionally dysfunctional, as though his “burden” had been deposited, by direct, face to face injection, into my brain. I would lose all desire to do whatever it was I had just then been doing, typically housework, or getting ready to work, or paperwork. This is NOT what a spouse is for! However, my spouse didn’t write, and apparently this was what I was for, an “ear.” Up to a point it’s OK, beyond that point, it’s using the other person. We were beyond this point shortly after the children were born, when I truly did have other things I needed to do, and they needed from me. We had, hence, a real roller-coaster relationship, the entire household.
Oh yes — the rest of that sentence, at least as to a main verb and object:
. . . . . The difference between an on-line monologue and an (in your face lecture) is that listening is optional.
Now, as to family law venue — there are points at which fighting that battle is not really optional, or will come to any closure before either the energy is totally expended (or funds — my current situation, and still not “resolution” or closure) – – or, it will explode in some manner. Neither is acceptable.
Anyhow, I suggest you exercise the website-exit option if you got this far, and perhaps have your head examined as to why you did!
(Just kidding!)
Unsure how? Look for the closest interactive (e)X, typically lurking in a top right corner, slightly off-the screen, like a spider in a room with high ceilings. (Just kidding).
Click on it and see what happens.
Or don’t. After all, it’s OPTIONal!
(Like so-called “mediation” should be, but that’s another topic)
There are obviously downsides of not having a live audience, with gongs, or tomatoes. I miss singing! . . . . . .
(Not that performances ever ended in that manner! Sometimes people stood afterwards, but it wasn’t too throw tomatoes!)
SHARE THIS POST on...
Only $118,310,126 (last year), in hopes of Healthy Marriages and Responsible Fathers
Set this Press Release to the “SPIN” Cycle:
California Healthy Marriages Coalition Says GM Bankruptcy Could Create More Than Financial Devastation for Families SAN DIEGO, June 11 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The GM Bankruptcy is causing six dealerships around California to be closed. These closures will create more bad news for California's economy by increasing the already high unemployment rate of 11 percent, and adding financial stress to the families involved in these cutbacks. Statistics show that financial strain is one of the leading causes of divorce and that divorce itself places additional strains on the economy and on business. This is a distressing cycle for which California's leading marriage-support organization offers some new reassurance. {{Just "trust" our press release, statistics show. Which, or should we say "whose", is not mentioned..}}{{And HOW did this premiere marriage-support organization (at least according to itself) race to the forefront of all California's marriage support organizations?? Clearly it must be on its own merits. . . . blood, sweat, tears, ingenuity (that's true), and entrepreneurship, standing on the shoulders of giants. Seriously, the Dept. of Health and Human Services IS indeed a giant, funding this group from the top down, and some of the other coalitions under its w - i - d - e umbrella from the bottom up.)
Target Population: Married and Unmarried persons in California, ages 15 and older, of all racial, cultural and economic backgrounds Federal Award Amount: $2,342,080/year Program Name: California Healthy Marriages Coalition Project Period: 9/30/2006 - 9/29/2011 . . .SOURCE California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Yes, alas, ’tis true. . ..
recently, as well as, well, not so recently, it seems clear from the various newspaper headlines that many marriages are not very healthy. Also, the same could be said of divorces. But, for those readers who, as either (U.S.) employees or employERS, actually pay taxes, I would like to reassure you that the U.S. Government is on it, it has a PLAN. You may or may not be in on the plan, but I assure you it has many plan to fix the overall unhealthiness of both marriages, and the lack of safety attendant to divorce from, well, a spouse that doesn’t believe in divorce. It would also like to assure you to trust the experts (its hired ones and delegated ones) To analyze and fix the situation. This IS, after all, what governments exist for right? I seem to foggily remember something about the purpose of governments in the Declaration of Independence, and about the word “consent.” It seems to me that somewhere along the line “We the People” got turned into a version of “You People,” and the posse of experts got called in to fix families. What they actually ended up doing is breaking the legal system, by turning it into a behavioral health marketplace, clearly infringing on the niche of the faith institutions, for example, I heard that recently the Knights of Columbus, on behalf of Catholics everywhere, have launched a(nother) fatherhood initiative, lest we somehow forget who’s the boss, called: http://FathersForGood.org.
Notice anything missing from the logo there?
And now again, this time with
a little more style…
Now for all those little pieces of education that add up to $118, 310, 126 – – for 2008 — enjoy the panorama of organizations that are addressing this problem of, well, unhealthy marriages and irresponsible fathers. (I have omitted “Abstinence Education,” because it would overload this post’s, well, capacity).
This wordpress page can only carry one year’s worth of links at a time. Moreover these are alphabetical by Grant Recipient, nationwide, and not by state (although zip codes are listed). The fun part is, they are “click-able,” meaning, you can click on an institution’s name and see what else it’s been up to, for how long and for how much. Perhaps I might show a few more ways to search, but someone of basic intelligence (and motivated) can learn a lot simply by looking. Another trick you might try is searching its name on “usaspending.gov” and see what kind of cute bar charts and stats show up.
Thus one can get an overview of almost any CFDA number BUT this one, 93.086, on a certain database.
Is this inintentional? If part of required Civic Literacy was understanding the federal grants system, if rather than whine, moan, or complain — or complain to elected representatives –MORE AVERAGE JOES & JANE DOES (the alive ones) started monitoring our home states, state by state and agency by agency, we might stop asking why states are running out of money for domestic violence shelters and general assistance, because the answer would be obvious. Instead, we would ask intelligent, and pointed questions from the point of view, these are public funds, and (if government) you are public servants, and (if nonprofit) you’re tax exempt for a reason — how does this fulfil the reason, and who is evaluating, and by what standard?
And then question the standards if they are unreasonable, inconsistent, or do not exist.
Alternately, we could chug along and say, “isn’t so and so handling this? Because I’m busy, and have my own life to handle.”
Sure they are. That’s why inbetween talking about this, I can’t keep up with the healines, or follow up with the last ones before there are new ones. That’s why protective orders protect, law enforcement enforces (consistently), child support is collected (consistently and without gender bias), and welfare helps people be better. AND, (case in point) marriages are clearly getting healed — either that, or they can’t keep up with the new babies (despite Abstinence Education, which I omitted from this list, but is still going strong).
(OK, that’ll have to be another post — WOW, I just pulled 653 records under one code, 93.010 (community-based A.E.)
(not a searchable code in “usaspending.gov,” at least not readily…)
However, top 5 programs with the keyword “abstinence” in the PROJECT title:
| 93.010: Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | $128,610,003 |
| 98.001: USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas | $11,058,644 |
| 93.279: Drug Abuse and Addiction Research Programs | $9,561,182 |
| 93.995: Adolescent Family Life_Demonstration Projects | $8,064,374 |
| 93.273: Alcohol Research Programs | $6,222,97 |
AND as far as WHO is really interested in why people don’t abstain and trying to get them to:
Top 10 Recipients
| FAMILY HEALTH INTERNATIONAL (FHI) | $3,593,286 |
| SCRIPPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE | $2,551,682 |
| PROGRAM FOR APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY IN HEALTH | $2,233,162 |
| HERITAGE COMMUNITY SERVICES INC | $2,000,000 |
| BROWN UNIVERSITY | $1,672,760 |
| POPULATION COUNCIL INC | $1,613,000 |
| PATH | $1,500,000 |
| NEUROBEHAVIORAL RESEARCH INC | $1,466,239 |
| NEW HOPE CENTER INC | $1,399,907 |
| CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC. | $1,399,300 |
Results 1 to 500 of 653 matches. restricted to “NEW” only, I got 240 new grants:
(AFTER ALL THIS, WILL YOU BE ABLE TO “ABSTAIN” FROM LOOKING FURTHER INTO THESE?)
Here’s a quick partial look:
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Award Title | Budget Year | CFDA Program Name | Award Class | Principal Investigator | ($$)Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | Columbus Hospital | NJ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 2 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | BERNADETTE VISSANI | $- 739,820 |
| 2009 | METRO ATLANTA YOUTH FOR CHRIST, INC | GA | COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CINDY MILLER | $ 300,186 |
| 2009 | Saint Michael`s Medical Center, Inc | NJ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | BERNADETTE VISSANI | $ 677,551 |
| 2008 | A WOMAN`S PLACE MINISTRIES, INC. | FL | ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | MICHAEL LAYTON | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | A WOMENS CONCERN, INC. | MA | HEALTHY FUTURES ABSTINENCE EDUCATION INITIATIVE | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ELIZABETH SNYDER | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE & MARRIAGE EDUCATION PARTNERSHIP | IL | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SCOTT PHELPS | $ 512,500 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONSULTANTS,INC. | KS | COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | LOIS THEIS | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ABSTINENCE TIL MARRIAGE EDUCATION | OH | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CATHERINE E WOOD | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | AIDS RESOURCE CENTER OF WISCONSIN, INC | WI | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SCOTT STOKES | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ALPHA CENTER | SD | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | KIMBERLY MARTINEZ | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | ALTERNATIVE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES | TX | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | SHARI L CARROLL | $ 454,922 |
| 2008 | ARIZONA MEXICO BORDER HEALTH FOUNDATION | AZ | COMMUNITY BASED ABSTINENCE EDUCATION | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ALBERT MORENO | $ 550,000 |
| 2008 | AWARE, INC. | WA | WASHINGTON STATE: COMMUNITY-BASED ABSTINENCE UNTIL MARRIAGE PROJECT | 1 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | JAMES N GRENFELL | $ 499,849 |
| 2008 | About Our Kids, Inc. | MO | STRATEGIES FOR ABSTINENCE AND VIRTUE EDUCATION (SAVE) | 2 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | ALICIA HUMES | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | Abstinence the Better Choice, Inc. | OH | ABSTINENCE THE BETTER CHOICE | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | CHERYL BIDDLE | $ 600,000 |
| 2008 | Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Inc. | AZ | POWER FITNESS ABSTINENCE PROGRAM- TEACHING YOUTH AGES 12 THROUGH 18 THE SOCIAL, PSYCHOLOGI | 3 | Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) | DISCRETIONARY | EVA GODDARD | $ 600,000 |
and $427 mil (see above link “still going strong”) for another code 93.235, plain old “A.E.” Then I searched the word “abstinence” as a keyword in the project title, and got
In these venues, (once under the facuet of grants and publications – alittle easier to do while not being stalked, or in a court case onesself) talking (and publishing) about problems pays more than solving them, in fact, a LOT more. This also provides an incentive to try to keep actual problem-solvers (like those who have observed and been hurt by the system, and been taking names and notes, too) OUT of the talkfests, or decision making process, if they are heard. And, more and more, out of being informed that the decisionmaking process is not where it should be — as to legal matters, in the courts, not the psychologists’ offices.
Solving problems cuts off cash flow. There’s a clear disincentive. Ask someone who’s life, or whose child’s life is at stake (and who has not got a history of perjury in the case file already) and SHE will tell you, safety first, shared parenting second. Child’s right not to suffer abuse or be threatened (let alone the mother’s) or kidnapped supersedes person with history of threatening or abuse’s right to see the child. In re: “healthy marriages,” her /their (if children) right not to be hurt or killed, or traumatized in fear of this happening, or expose her children to being abused, and deal with frequent exchanges with a former batterer (even if the children were not directly battered) supersedes 53 professionals’ need to reconsider this. At what point are professionals to be forced to read these headlines that we read, and sometimes analyze, kind of like sitting through traffic court and watch graphic accident footage after one was caught speeding.
I have been through this. I have been IN a court case, same month, and domestic violence murder going on, same city, and one could not tell from the demeanor on the outside. My case had a history of violence, injury, repeated disregard of laws, and treats to abduct (which in fact had just happened). No matter, we are in la-la-land again. . . . I had a PTSD incident in the courtroom. No matter. . . .
SO, my hope is that the general public will become generally acquainted with how this works, so that if one of THEIR friends is involved (and, of course this presumes that my readers are interested in justice, not perverting it) (which may or may not be wise) – – they can at least see where things went. $$ wise. This year.
Experts are being churned out at an alarming rate. Grants go to this, too. Grants sometimes drive the field of expertise, and very much so in this field of fatherhood and families. I have looked, and can say this. Have you? Could you rebut that assertion with data from the top universities around the country, and colleges? (Not unless several programs disappear fast….)
Do yourself and others a favor — become a LITTLE more expert in this today than you were yesterday.
And show someone else. OK?
One philosophical question I have from time to time is how much of our adult lives (let alone growing up) are spent OUTside any government institutions to start with. I mean, what part of our lives are NOT regulated, measured, examined and evaluated (at our own expense) to drive policiesi (without our informed consent, really) that will further tinker with the dynamics of eat, sleep, breed, marry, divorce, educate (let’s not omit that) and re-educate, regulate, and direct. I have an unfortunate independent streak, and I tend to think there are often better ways to do things. As a woman, I don’t think needlessly repetitive tasks are the natural inheritance of my gender biologically, and although sometimes there’s a comfort in them, there should be other ways to do one thing or another.
Like better, or less wasteful. The benefit is, getting more done. Take for example, deleting religion from public school systems (supposedly) and then trying to re-inject it after criminal behavior, or during the divorce/separation scenarios. Take for example, a system that itself stresses and dismantles families, and then another (equally chaotic and burdensome to the general public) system to put them back together again. Take for example, the talk about “separation of church and state” and then nationally calling upon “faith-based organizations” to, though they are largely tax-exempt, at public expense put them back together again. To WHOM are any of the organizations below accountable, and what demonstration of effectiveness are they showing, or are the “exempt” from that as well as (those that are) from taxes, too?
Anyhow, I give you a single “CFDA” (Category of Federal Domestic Assistance) called “Healthy Marriages Promoting Responsible Fatherhood.” I guess it is assumed that mothers will be healthy without extra coaching and bribing. Or, that if you get a responsible father (i.e., buy one, and this is explained through another grants systems as well, this IS indeed the premise in practice here – – one has to look at the child support system’s role in divorce). . . . or perhaps this acknowledges that for whatever reasons (let’s not mention any OTHER programs this same Of/By/For the people government might have had its hands in), there is a social crisis not just of “fatherlessness” but of “irresponsible fatherhood.”
I can vouch for the one I know — father of my children. He’d rather fight than work any day, which process eventually put me out of work. No matter, the government stepped in, through family court matters, enter mediation, exit civil rights, eventually exit my contact with my offspring (they did spring out of me, physically. I pushed, they sprang. . .. whatever… I was awake for the process and can verify: I had two children a very long time ago). And then out they go, to work their own way through life, lest Dad be humiliated by paying much of his child support arrears, which was partly what the battle was about to start with. I felt that one of us should work, and offered the alternatives of (1) stop messing with me, so I could (since it doesn’t appear you want to) or (2) pay up. Version (1) entailed requesting a restraining order renewal, or 2nd one, or . . . . or . . . . and version (2) required — and I pursued this through the assigned agency – – court-ordered child support should actually be collected before our daughters became adults. However the MAIN conversation was not about what’s good for the children, but who gets to give orders — forever, basically. I categorically disagreed with this philosophy as being anti-Constitutional and anti-civil rights and anti-reasonable. My right to disagree was disagreed with, which makes the situation a GREAT pickings for the family law venue, it LOVES “high-conflict” situations — this draws federal moneys and justifies many professions.
Anyhow, here they are: the helpers, last year (2008):
While not all of these were birthed, or even nurtured, by California Healthy Marriages Coalition (“the coalition of coalitions model.” Sounds kind of like the “war to end all wars,” I don’t know….), they were perhaps started as a gleam in SOMEONE”s eye, having been informed of what’s available from Big Brother, who, on behalf of us all, will make all those ouchies better, soon, soon . . When we “consent” to taxes, it’s good to know what we have consented for them to be distributed to, well, do. For example, ///
CFDA Number = 93086 Fiscal Year = 2008 Recipient: ACTIVE RELATIONSHIPS CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 75205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0037 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AS DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Recipient ZIP Code: 96799
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0054 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 36849
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,899,487.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,899,487.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – AUSTIN CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 78704
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0063 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $261,825.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $261,825.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – CORPUS CHRISTI CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 78415
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0071 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE – HOUSTON CHAPTER Recipient ZIP Code: 77092
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0084 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $236,851.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $236,851.00 | |||||
Recipient: AVANCE, INC. – EL PASO Recipient ZIP Code: 79902
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0100 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages Recipient ZIP Code: 75246
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0072 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $903,425.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $903,425.00 | |||||
Recipient: Archuleta County Department of Human Services Recipient ZIP Code: 81147
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0055 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $200,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0055 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $200,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership Recipient ZIP Code: 85741
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0136 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BARAGA-HOUGHTON-KEWEENAW CHILD DEVELOPMENT BOARD, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 49931
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0018 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 45230
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0100 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0100 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BEST FRIENDS FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 20015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0058 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $500,724.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,724.00 | |||||
Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 49501
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0057 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0098 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $499,980.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,980.00 | |||||
Recipient: BETTER FAMILY LIFE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 63108
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0023 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,097,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,097,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: BILL WILSON CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 95052
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0096 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $243,469.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $243,469.00 | |||||
Recipient: BOAT PEOPLE S.O.S. INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 22041
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0032 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $545,806.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0038 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $795,806.00 | |||||
Recipient: BOONEVILLE MUNICIPAL SEPERATE SCHOOL DISTRICT Recipient ZIP Code: 38829
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0036 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $532,675.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0036 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $532,675.00 | |||||
Recipient: Brighter Beginnings Recipient ZIP Code: 94601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0099 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 90806
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0065 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES Recipient ZIP Code: 67214
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0112 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,368.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,368.00 | |||||
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF ORANGE COUNTY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 92705
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0080 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CECIL COUNTY GOVERNMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 21921
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0018 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 53211
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0013 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,096,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,096,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CENTERFORCE Recipient ZIP Code: 94901
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $481,554.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $481,554.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHARACTER COUNTS IN MAINE Recipient ZIP Code: 04116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0122 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY RESOURCES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 85716
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0059 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD & FAMILY SERVICES OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Recipient ZIP Code: 03101
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0077 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $315,830.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $315,830.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD ABUSE COUNCIL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 33609
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0052 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL Recipient ZIP Code: 49503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0038 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0038 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,016,258.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,016,258.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD DEVLOPMENT RESOURCES, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 23127
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0043 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $249,999.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,999.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILD, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 78751
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0078 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $511,133.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $511,133.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE Recipient ZIP Code: 02903
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0030 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 16830
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0118 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $226,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $226,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC Recipient ZIP Code: 90005
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0076 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-25-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0076 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0088 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 27869
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $245,296.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $245,296.00 | |||||
Recipient: CHW DBA CALIFORNIA HOSPITAL MEDICAL CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 90015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0071 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS Recipient ZIP Code: 60611
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0098 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0098 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 27620
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0059 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 80236
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0085 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 80523
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0028 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $482,687.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0028 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $482,687.00 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ASSN OF COOK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 60604
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0089 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $450,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $450,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 18109
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0033 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $228,603.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $228,603.00 | |||||
Recipient: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES Recipient ZIP Code: 59855
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0007 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $149,940.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $465,494.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $615,434.00 | |||||
Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ Recipient ZIP Code: 97380
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0009 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $149,918.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0009 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $149,918.00 | |||||
Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 99508
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0066 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0066 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $418,832.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $418,832.00 | |||||
Recipient: CORNERSTONE OF HOPE CHURCH Recipient ZIP Code: 46221
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0119 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $350,560.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $350,560.00 | |||||
Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 40204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $259,532.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0015 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,968.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $759,500.00 | |||||
Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER Recipient ZIP Code: 85006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $275,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $275,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CT ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 06106
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0031 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0031 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: CURATORS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI Recipient ZIP Code: 65211
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0130 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,775.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,775.00 | |||||
Recipient: CUYAHOGA COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Recipient ZIP Code: 44113
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0052 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $533,730.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $533,730.00 | |||||
Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition Recipient ZIP Code: 92024
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0104 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $2,400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Child Find of America, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 12561
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0020 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 47714
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0034 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $543,303.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $543,303.00 | |||||
Recipient: Comprehensive Youth Services of Fresno, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 93726
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0053 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0053 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 20032
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0087 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Denver Indian Family Resource Center Recipient ZIP Code: 80226
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0081 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0081 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $198,280.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $198,280.00 | |||||
Recipient: Detroit Workforce Development Department Recipient ZIP Code: 48202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0073 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 27858
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0017 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $525,161.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $525,161.00 | |||||
Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION Recipient ZIP Code: 90022
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0056 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN Recipient ZIP Code: 79930
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0088 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 45405
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0035 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $1,859,692.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,859,692.00 | |||||
Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster Recipient ZIP Code: 18503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0060 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $225,608.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,608.00 | |||||
Recipient: Exchange Club Center for the Prevention of Child Abuse Recipient ZIP Code: 34981
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0025 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $242,822.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $242,822.00 | |||||
Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 74120
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0007 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FAMILY RESOURCES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 33733
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0132 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0132 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 98122
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0032 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST NATIONS COMMUNITY HEALTHSOURCE Recipient ZIP Code: 87108
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0061 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $300,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $300,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST Recipient ZIP Code: 37405
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0031 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,099,953.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,953.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY Recipient ZIP Code: 54520
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0006 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOREST INSTITUTE OF PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGY Recipient ZIP Code: 65807
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0110 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $940,669.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $940,669.00 | |||||
Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE) Recipient ZIP Code: 10011
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0017 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOUNDATION FOR A GREAT MARRIAGE Recipient ZIP Code: 54115
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0108 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0124 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: FOUNTAIN OF LIFE INTERNATIONAL MINISTRIES Recipient ZIP Code: 33027
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0073 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $438,383.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $438,383.00 | |||||
Recipient: FRIENDSHIP WEST BAPTIST CHURCH Recipient ZIP Code: 75232
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0117 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $542,025.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $542,025.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 15143
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0103 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $1,510,098.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,510,098.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County Recipient ZIP Code: 77006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0082 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $477,539.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $477,539.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Service, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 01840
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0087 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $227,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $227,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Family Services of Westchester, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10573
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0036 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,812.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,812.00 | |||||
Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center Recipient ZIP Code: 46208
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0048 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Florida State University Recipient ZIP Code: 32306
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0022 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,009.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,009.00 | |||||
Recipient: Future Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 30344
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0045 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $402,632.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $402,632.00 | |||||
Recipient: GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Recipient ZIP Code: 30303
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0064 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 55104
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0068 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF CENTRAL TEXAS, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 78753
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0051 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-25-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0051 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $240,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $240,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH Recipient ZIP Code: 15202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0063 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 22182
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0006 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $548,932.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $548,932.00 | |||||
Recipient: GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER Recipient ZIP Code: 30515
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0104 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILIES COUNSELING & SUPPORT Recipient ZIP Code: 64119
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY FAMILY INITIATIVES Recipient ZIP Code: 77074
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0081 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $537,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $537,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HEALTHY START, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 15208
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0103 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 95546
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0001 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $146,750.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,750.00 | |||||
Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou Recipient ZIP Code: 20009
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0049 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC Recipient ZIP Code: 82001
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0025 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,952.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,952.00 | |||||
Recipient: IOWA FAMILY POLICY CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 50327
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0126 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Identity, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 20877
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0090 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program Recipient ZIP Code: 92243
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0075 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0075 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $515,615.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $515,615.00 | |||||
Recipient: Indiana Department of Correction Recipient ZIP Code: 46204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0019 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,896.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0101 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $649,896.00 | |||||
Recipient: Indiana Youth Institute Recipient ZIP Code: 46204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0086 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0086 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $999,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 72761
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $544,782.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $544,782.00 | |||||
Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee, Recipient ZIP Code: 34237
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0068 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $494,943.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $494,943.00 | |||||
Recipient: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 25064
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0012 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,514.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,514.00 | |||||
Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 40475
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0125 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $490,680.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $490,680.00 | |||||
Recipient: LATIN AMERICAN YOUTH CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 20007
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0072 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0072 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 04-29-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: LAUGH YOUR WAY AMERICA Recipient ZIP Code: 54481
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0005 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $274,933.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $274,933.00 | |||||
Recipient: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 45206
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0005 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: LIVE THE LIFE MINISTRIES Recipient ZIP Code: 32317
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0077 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $549,985.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,985.00 | |||||
Recipient: LONGVIEW WELNESS CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 75601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0091 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA Recipient ZIP Code: 57105
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0097 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0097 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 45503
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0009 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $540,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $540,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES Recipient ZIP Code: 21201
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0091 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $899,991.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0092 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $441,514.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,341,505.00 | |||||
Recipient: MODEL CITIES – EL PASO Recipient ZIP Code: 79935
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0053 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $499,758.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,758.00 | |||||
Recipient: MOREHOUSE COLLEGE Recipient ZIP Code: 30314
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0066 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $549,147.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,147.00 | |||||
Recipient: Madison Cty Com Health Centers, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 46015
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0039 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $546,983.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $546,983.00 | |||||
Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 60187
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0011 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $2,000,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $2,000,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry Recipient ZIP Code: 92116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0016 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $268,349.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $268,349.00 | |||||
Recipient: Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice Recipient ZIP Code: 55406
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0028 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Montrose County Health and Human Services Recipient ZIP Code: 81401
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0079 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,552.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,552.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE ENHANCEMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 85022
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0040 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE Recipient ZIP Code: 20877
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FB0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $999,534.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $999,534.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS SOCIETY Recipient ZIP Code: 10017
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0090 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0090 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $495,285.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,285.00 | |||||
Recipient: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 20006
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0047 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY REGENTS Recipient ZIP Code: 88003
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0135 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $494,996.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0057 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $218,336.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $713,332.00 | |||||
Recipient: NJ ST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS Recipient ZIP Code: 08625
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0026 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $394,248.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $394,248.00 | |||||
Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 97213
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0079 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,100,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: NW Marriage Institute Recipient ZIP Code: 98682
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0041 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $275,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $275,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: New York Youth At Risk, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10038
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0093 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Northwood-Apppold United Methodist Church Recipient ZIP Code: 21218
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0062 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Nueva Esperanza Recipient ZIP Code: 19140
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0069 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: OAKLAND FAMILY SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 48053
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0070 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $200,170.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $200,170.00 | |||||
Recipient: OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 48056
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $368,555.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $368,555.00 | |||||
Recipient: OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ Recipient ZIP Code: 43215
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0109 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $544,140.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $544,140.00 | |||||
Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES Recipient ZIP Code: 73125
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0030 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0030 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $549,791.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,791.00 | |||||
Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE Recipient ZIP Code: 44087
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0021 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 03-18-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0021 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $459,419.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $459,419.00 | |||||
Recipient: OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIAL CENTER OF AMERICA, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 19122
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0016 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Osborne Association, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 10455
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0050 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $448,856.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0050 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0056 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $698,856.00 | |||||
Recipient: PAIRS FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 33332
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0029 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $990,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $990,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PARENTS PLUS Recipient ZIP Code: 54952
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0113 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $549,629.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0113 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,629.00 | |||||
Recipient: PEACE, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 13202
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0107 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $465,937.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $465,937.00 | |||||
Recipient: PEER ASSISTANCE SERVICES, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 80231
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0020 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $525,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $525,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PERSONAL INVOLVEMENT CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 90003
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0092 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PITTSBURG PRESCHOOL COORDINATION COUNCIL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 94565
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0012 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PREGNANCY SUPPORT CENTER OF STARK COUNTY Recipient ZIP Code: 44708
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0055 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $535,075.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $535,075.00 | |||||
Recipient: PRIVATE INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF WESTMORELAND FAYETTE INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 15601
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0075 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0075 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 32224
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0074 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $454,332.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $454,332.00 | |||||
Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC Recipient ZIP Code: 73116
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0026 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $1,000,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FH0001 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-29-2008 | $3,250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $4,250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient Recipient: PUERTO RICAN FAMILY INSTITUTE, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 10011
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0013 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Parents as Teachers National Center, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 63146
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0080 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Professional Counseling Resources, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 19805
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0046 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE Recipient ZIP Code: 98350
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0002 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0002 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 33157
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0043 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: RED CLIFF TRIBE Recipient ZIP Code: 54814
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0003 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0003 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $146,672.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,672.00 | |||||
Recipient: REGION II COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 49204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0078 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $203,854.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $203,854.00 | |||||
Recipient: REGION XIX EDUCATION SERVICE CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 79925
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0042 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: RIDGE Project, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 43527
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0044 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0044 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $412,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $412,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ROCKDALE HOSPITAL & HEALTH SYSTEM Recipient ZIP Code: 30012
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0014 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $455,510.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $455,510.00 | |||||
Recipient: ROSALIE MANOR Recipient ZIP Code: 53210
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0037 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Read To Me International Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 96815
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0062 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Relationship Research Foundation, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 92612
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0058 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Resource, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 55404
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0022 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Resources for Children`s Health Recipient ZIP Code: 19102
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0040 | 2 | ACF | 2 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0040 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTER Recipient ZIP Code: 87102
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0067 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $549,961.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,961.00 | |||||
Recipient: SAMARITAN COUNSELING CENTERS Recipient ZIP Code: 97212
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0121 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $462,919.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $462,919.00 | |||||
Recipient: SOUTH PUGET INTERTRIBAL PLANNING AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 98584
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0004 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0004 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE Recipient ZIP Code: 70813
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0027 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $249,548.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,548.00 | |||||
Recipient: SOUTHWEST KEY PROGRAMS, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 78704
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0034 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $460,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $460,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: ST MARY COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 70538
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0094 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $230,092.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $230,092.00 | |||||
Recipient: SUNY, STONY BROOK Recipient ZIP Code: 11794
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0131 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0131 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,910.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,910.00 | |||||
Recipient: SUQUAMISH & KLALLAM HEALTH PLAN Recipient ZIP Code: 98346
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0010 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Recipient ZIP Code: 95821
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0015 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0015 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $549,256.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $549,256.00 | |||||
Recipient: Scholarship and Guidance Association Recipient ZIP Code: 60603
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0042 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $483,333.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0137 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $242,770.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $726,103.00 | |||||
Recipient: Shalom Task Force Recipient ZIP Code: 10274
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0106 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $480,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $480,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: Shelby County Division of Corrections Recipient ZIP Code: 38103
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0067 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0067 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0095 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $485,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $985,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: South Coast Business Employment Corporation Recipient ZIP Code: 97420
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0023 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $400,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $400,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: St. Louis Healthy Marriage Coalition Recipient ZIP Code: 63103
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0133 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $1,099,882.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0133 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,882.00 | |||||
Recipient: TANANA CHIEFS CONFERENCE Recipient ZIP Code: 99701
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0005 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $146,016.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0005 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-14-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $146,016.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEEN-AID, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 99207
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0102 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $495,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEXAS ARMS OF LOVE (dba, PEOPLE OF PRINCIPLE) Recipient ZIP Code: 79761
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0102 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $425,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $425,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEXAS HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES COMMISSION Recipient ZIP Code: 78711
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0019 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS Recipient ZIP Code: 78666
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0128 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $497,641.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $497,641.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION Recipient ZIP Code:
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0024 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE FAMILY HEALTH AND EDUCATION INSTITUTE, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 20706
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0084 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $500,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $500,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE HIVE CREATIVE GROUP Recipient ZIP Code: 36303
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0093 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THE VILLAGE FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN, INC` Recipient ZIP Code: 06105
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0045 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: THERAPY HELP, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 80220
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0123 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TLINGIT & HAIDA TRIBES CENTRAL COUNCIL Recipient ZIP Code: 99801
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FN0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $150,000.00 |
| 2008 | 90FN0008 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 09-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $150,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: TRINITY HEALTH-ST JOSEPH MERCY-OAKLAND Recipient ZIP Code: 48341
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0099 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-17-2008 | $545,730.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $545,730.00 | |||||
Recipient: The Family Life Line, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 87124
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0115 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $495,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families Recipient ZIP Code: 29204
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0021 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $499,456.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $499,456.00 | |||||
Recipient: Trinity Church, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 33168
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0060 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $550,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $550,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNITED WAY OF JACKSON COUNTY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 49201
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0138 | 2 | ACF | 0 | 02-11-2008 | $1,099,461.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,099,461.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES Recipient ZIP Code: 10467
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0086 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $495,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $495,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS FOR MEDICAL SCIENCES Recipient ZIP Code: 72205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0041 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 08-26-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0041 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA Recipient ZIP Code: 32826
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0003 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $273,293.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $273,293.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF LOUISVILLE RESEARCH FOUNDATION Recipient ZIP Code: 40292
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0002 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $542,920.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $542,920.00 | |||||
Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL Recipient ZIP Code: 27599
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0094 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FE0094 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $530,482.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,482.00 | |||||
Recipient: UPPER DES MOINES OPPORTUNITY, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 51342
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0082 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $225,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $225,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY Recipient ZIP Code: 84322
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0129 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $417,324.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $417,324.00 | |||||
Recipient: Urban Ventures Leadership Foundation Recipient ZIP Code: 55408
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0033 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: VISITING NURSE ASSOCIATION Recipient ZIP Code: 05401
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0029 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 07-31-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0029 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: VISTA COMMUNITY CLINIC Recipient ZIP Code: 92084
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0024 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: WAIT Training Recipient ZIP Code: 80111
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0051 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-26-2008 | $1,010,330.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $1,010,330.00 | |||||
Recipient: WAYNE METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY Recipient ZIP Code: 48192
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0008 | 2 | ACF | 2 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0008 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: WELD COUNTY RESOURCES DEPARTMENT Recipient ZIP Code: 80632
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0134 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $974,358.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $974,358.00 | |||||
Recipient: WOMEN’S OPPORTUNITY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT, INC. Recipient ZIP Code: 59802
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0054 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $212,399.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0054 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $212,399.00 | |||||
Recipient: WSOS COMMUNITY ACTION COMMISSION, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 43420
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0011 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $249,492.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $249,492.00 | |||||
Recipient: YORK COUNTY COMMUNITY ACTION CORPORATION Recipient ZIP Code: 04073
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0014 | 2 | ACF | 1 | 06-06-2008 | $0.00 |
| 2008 | 90FR0014 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $245,333.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $245,333.00 | |||||
Recipient: YOUTH DEVELOPMENT, INC Recipient ZIP Code: 87105
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0047 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-25-2008 | $900,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $900,000.00 | |||||
Recipient: YWCA OF SAN ANTONIO Recipient ZIP Code: 78205
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0127 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $529,585.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $529,585.00 | |||||
Recipient: YouthLaunch, Inc. Recipient ZIP Code: 78731
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0069 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $243,315.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $243,315.00 | |||||
Recipient: enFAMILIA, Inc Recipient ZIP Code: 33033
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support | Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date | Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FR0039 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-22-2008 | $250,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $250,000.00 | |||||
| Total of all awards: | $118,310,126.00 |
FOR OUR NEXT “CLASS” WE WILL LEARN HOW TO EXAMINE ONE OR TWO OF THESE GRANT RECIPIENTS. ///
SHARE THIS POST on...
Possibly Certifiable Insanity (Stockpiling Mental Health Research Grants, “Discretionary,”nationwide).
In response to wondering how to communicate to one state’s legislator that any new Fatherhood Initiative, either precisely worded or inspiringly vague, though powerfully phrased, is indeed superfluous, I simply researched (again, in this state) two known existing fatherhood programs (at least under one Federal Department) — the one with “fatherhood” in its name, “CFDA 93.086, Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood” and the ones which has the intended effect of a “required outcome” to the legal process, namely “Access Visitation” grants, CFDA 93.597, commonly known as putting more time in the hands of the noncustodial parent (a.k.a. father), through moving the decision-making process outside the courtroom, until it has been screened by mediators, custody evaluators, and parenting planners. (See my Cooks in the Court Kitchen Post). Yes, these grants were making it to Kansas as well as to the rest of the U.S. (including V.I., P.R. & Guam).
Note: in the database “usaspending.gov” and under “Grant search by program” it is impossible to search readily by 93.086, as it’s not on the list of hyperlinks. I tend to feel this was not accidental.
CFDA Number = 93086
State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008
Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 90FE0112 | 3 | ACF | 0 | 09-14-2008 | $530,368.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $530,368.00 | |||||
CFDA Number = 93597
State = KANSAS
Fiscal Year = 2008
Recipient: KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 66612
| FY | Award Number | Budget Year of Support |
Agency | Award Code | Action Issue Date |
Amount This Action |
| 2008 | 0801KSSAVP | 1 | ACF | 1 | 01-30-2008 | $100,000.00 |
| Award Subtotal: | $100,000.00 | |||||
I noticed how MANY types of things are administered directly through the KS ST Office of the Governor, which to me seems a little over-centralized and top-heavy.
While looking, I marveled that both Abstinence Education and Community Based Abstinence-Education grants with Medical research on Male Contraception (guess which funding won out??) (Actually both types got the grants,
so I suppose the winners are, however, those grants benefitted — or will — and the losers are the taxpayers — if they didn’t. For example,
based on several factors, I’d say the Abstinence Education is a bust. Not that I’m anti-Abstinence, hey, but how many decades is this going to be tried? Since there is a Community-Based stipulation, the kind this decorative adjective, is government-based. In fact, come to think of it, what has happened to just generalized DISCRETION in education, period? The concept that “education” won’t happen without a program (particularly a government run one) is just a little “out there” to start with.
I also believe that if there were better things to do in class, or young people had a vision for surviving past 20 (in some communities), or succeeding in life, there just might be a little less screwing around before financial independence. Also what might be helpful if there was a general tendency to point them in the direction of financial independence, throughout the public schools. We are, however, generally speaking (it seems) teaching the vast majority to hope to hold a job, rather than hope to own or run a business. After all, can’t EVERYONE run a business (?) so someone has to be the employees, right?
What better way to ensure a constant supply of willing employees (and a surplus of them, too) by the caste/income/race-sorting system we call public school education?
The local child support agency (the one that “bailed” in my case, coming to the rescue of the father who’d rather take the kids than get a job) is frequently airing its successes and programs on the local cable TV. What they don’t tell us, in the programs aimed at young teens, is how they treat middle-aged parents in the family law venue. OR WHY . . . . . Too bad, that. . . .
Anyhow, in Kansas, a VERY small segment of what appears to be a wonderful research center, really:
| Fiscal Year | OPDIV | Grantee Name | Award Title | Sum of Actions |
| 2003 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 138,291 |
| 2002 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 155,041 |
| 2001 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 182,417 |
| 2000 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $ 177,105 |
| 1999 | NIH | UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS CENTER FOR RESEARCH INC | STEREOTYPES, SHIFTING STANDARDS, AND SOCIAL JUDGEMENT | $160,365 |
(for the sake of margins, the same grant award, but , different fields displaying).
| 2003 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 138,291 |
| 2002 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 155,041 |
| 2001 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 182,417 |
| 2000 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 177,105 |
| 1999 | R01MH048844 | 93242 | DISCRETIONARY | SCIENTIFIC/HEALTH RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) | COMPETING CONTINUATION | MONICA R BIERNAT | $ 160,365 |
(Where is the original, the “NEW” of this particular one, after which there was competing, then non-competing continuation?)
WHAT, you say, might this be? It’s CFDA CODE 93242, Mental Health Research . . . . and just the tip of the iceberg on our lust to KNOW (and to predict, and to manage, and to manipulate, and to label, and to — well, it’s all really for the national HEALTH):
We DO want to know why our neighbors (or others, or certain populations, or peoples, or income levels, or etc.) are mentally ill, and to verify (nay, certify) that they are, right? To help them. Become more sane. Like us (case in point, studying all this may not be a sign of sanity…..).
I could not (today) find the “abstract” for these, but below are some samples of abstracts (with the word “stereotype” in them):
Mental Health, Discretionary must be a large segment:
AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS POST, I WILL LIST CERTAIN TYES OF RECIPIENTS: (ALL is too many):
(I thought you might enjoy that. . . . ) I’m not quite sure how shifting standards comes under Mental Health (which this grant is listed under), but hey, it takes all types. I’d love to see the final report. . . . .
Searching Federal HHS grants on just the word “stereotypes” brings up a mix of social and medical sciences, and some overlap.
ONE thing’s clear, it’s being studied. I wonder if this will reduce the amount of “stereotyping” going on, just as studying domestic
violence has reduced the amount of domestic violence, and promoting responsible fatherhood has produced an abundance of responsible fathers nationwide, diminished the number of, well, ones like Doug Ouellette and such. (Responsible in business, dangerous in marriage…. or at least being asked to separate from it…)
For example:
| R01MH071749
Arizona |
STEREOTYPE THREAT AS A STRESS INDUCED COGNITIVE DEFICIT | NIH | NIMH | $ 588,957 |
| Title | Stereotype Threat as a Stress Induced Cognitive Deficit |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01MH071749 |
| Project Start/End | 01-AUG-2004 / 31-MAY-2008 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Prior work on stereotype threat (see Steele, Spencer, & Aronson, 2002, for a review) suggests that the stress of being targeted by negative stereotypes can cause stigmatized individuals to perform more poorly on complex cognitive tasks when anything is done to remind them of their membership in a negatively stereotyped group.
Although research has established the generalizability of these stereotype threat effects, a precise and integrated model of the processes by which negative stereotypes interfere with performance is still needed. This application draws on existing literatures examining how stress impacts cognitive processing and outlines a theoretical model that integrates cognitive, physiological, and affective processes that mediate stereotype threat effects on test performance by reducing an individual’s working memory capacity. This model proposes that negative stereotypes reduce performance in testing situations because they present the individual with inconsistent views about the self that induce, a) cognitive processing in an attempt to reconcile the inconsistency, b) a physiological stress response involving increased stress hormones and sympathetic activation, and c) attempts to suppress felt anxiety.
Each of these processes is hypothesized to have a negative effect on an individual’s working memory capacity, a cognitive process integral to any complex mental task. The results of three preliminary experiments are reported to provide evidence that working memory capacity is a key mediator of stereotype threat effects on performance. The 11 experiments that are proposed will expand upon these findings to identify the processes by which stereotype threat interferes with working memory capacity and performance. {{RATHER THAN, say, DOING something to alleviate the stereotyping in the situation..? }}
A significant impact of the present research is that in gaining a better understanding of the stress-related processes that are affected by stereotype threat, it becomes more feasible to develop strategies that will enable individuals to cope successfully with social stigma. |
| Thesaurus | academic achievement, cognition disorder, prejudice, psychological stressor, psychophysiology, social perception, stress, university student anxiety, coping, culture, gender difference, hormone biosynthesis, neural information processing, racial /ethnic difference, self concept, short term memory, social psychology, sympathetic nervous system behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, human subject, interview, psychological test |
| PI Name/Title | SCHMADER, TONI M. |
| PI eMail | |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA PO BOX 3308 TUCSON, AZ 857223308 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2007 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | SPIP |
| F31HD058492
North Carolina |
RACE STEREOTYPES AND SELF PERCEPTIONS IN AFRICAN AMERICAN YOUTH | NIH | NICHD | $ 33,879 |
| Title | Race stereotypes and self perceptions in African American youth |
|---|---|
| Award Number | F31HD058492 |
| Project Start/End | 30-SEP-2008 / |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The purpose of the proposed study is (1) to examine the developmental progression of academic race stereotype endorsement in African American youth; (2) to explore, over time, the impact that academic race stereotype endorsement has on the academic self-concept and self-esteem of Black adolescents; (3) to examine whether racial centrality (i.e., the extent to which being Black is central to an individual’s definition of self) moderates the relationship between stereotype endorsement and self-perceptions; (4) to explore the influence of parental racial socialization messages on academic race stereotype endorsement; and (5) to determine the relationships among stereotype endorsement, racial centrality, racial socialization, and decisions about higher education. 135 African American eleventh graders in a rural school district will participate in the project. These students participated in the first wave of the Adolescent Identity Project when they were in middle school. Written parental and student consent will be required for study participation. Consent letters will be distributed to students in their English classes. Once consent has been received, students will be administered self-report questionnaires in small groups (5-10 students) at their schools. Trained research assistants will instruct students on how to complete each measure and will be available to answer questions. Once questionnaires are completed, the research assistant will thank the students and give them a $5 restaurant gift certificate. In addition, during the students’ 12th grade year, they will be mailed a follow-up packet. Students will be questioned about their college plans (whether or not they are planning to attend college and whether it is a Historically Black College or University), SAT scores (if applicable), end of grade scores, and stereotype endorsement. The proposed study will significantly contribute to the body of knowledge on African American adolescents’ achievement-related beliefs and how they develop and change overtime. Understanding achievement-related beliefs will provide a pathway for explaining the factors that contribute to and promote achievement motivation and academic success for African American adolescents. Public Health Relevance: This Public Health Relevance is not available. |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | OKEKE, NDIDI A. |
| PI eMail | okeke@email.unc.edu |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL Office of Sponsored Research CHAPEL HILL, NC 27599 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2008 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
This looks interesting, and like it ought to justify several more fatherhood grants:
| R01DA024029 | PATERNAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE INVOLVEMENT AND SUBSTANCE USE IN CHILDREN & ADOLESCENTS | NIH | NIDA | $ 1,592,006 |
And, WOW, it’s a new one: so new, not even any thesaurus terms for the abstract yet. Started 2008,
Principal Investigator, an Assistant Professor at Columbia, Institution< NY State Psychiatric Institute, and
the Recipient (by the way, these are hyperlinks; you can click away, as can I…. Start with the grant numbers here) is a scary-sounding:
“Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc.”
| Total of all awards: | $ 858,685,338 |
(YES, you read that right: $858,685,338 from 1997-2009)
OR, from another data resources:
(i am beginning to wonder whether this is partly WHY the US is the world’s largest “jailor” — population research?).
This one here seems very relevant, but only about $350K:
| R21HL088620 | MEASURING CULTURAL COMPETENCE AND RACIAL BIAS AMONG PHYSICIANS | NIH | NHLBI | $ 346,500 |
I mean, I’m sure this would affect quality of health care. I know I had a sexist oby/gyn for the 2nd child (but I stood up to him, and there was a younger on on duty also, who accepted that not every woman who gives birth should be automatically anesthetized and cut….)
(Then again, the place this grant goes to, I happen to know, got about $127 Million in grants in single year…..)
Here’s one that interests me, as a musician, obviously. I’m surprised to find $3mil on this, as typically music is the first thing cut from the public school curriculum in tough times (i.e., periodically…..)
| R01NS050436 | INTEGRATIVE STUDY OF VOCAL DEVELOPMENT | NIH | NINDS | $ 3,219,146 |
well, NO, that’s apparently about the male zebra finch. . . . Go figure…..
But $858 million?? over about 12 years? That’s like, HEY — what’s going ON with that foundation??
It’s not just the “mental hygiene” concept, but the “Mental Hygiene, INC.” Sounds sci-fi.
(Added 08-11-09: I did look up some more on who ARE they?; it’s on the web, and free for anyone else who is willing to put in the time to look. And a bit of an eye-opener, too. They have done some good work, helping people after 9/11. But it’s major business, and was set up in 1952 to facilitate research projects. )
| Title | Paternal Criminal Justice Involvement and Substance Use in Children & Adolescents |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01DA024029 |
| Project Start/End | 01-AUG-2008 / 31-MAY-2013 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Of the 6.5 million adults who were under some form of correctional supervision in 2000, 3.6 million were parents,[{AND MOSTLY MEN}} thereby affecting 7.1 million minor children. Nationally, approximately 85% of all prisoners are male. Contrary to stereotypes, many of the fathers have significant connections to their children: prior to arrest 44% of incarcerated fathers lived with their children and 65% of the others continued at least monthly contact while in prison. Note however, that among incarcerated fathers >60% reported using drugs in the month before their offense; 25% reported a history of alcohol dependence; 14% reported mental illness and 70% did not have a high school diploma.\
Yet, despite evidence that parental involvement with the Criminal Justice System (CJS) is related to children’s elevated risk for substance use, psychopathology, and future incarceration, no rigorous studies of a representative sample of such children have been conducted. {{I thought it was FATHERLESSNESS, not FATHER-INCARCERATION that was the main issue, from what we have been hearing nationally, through the courts, HHS, government, and initiatives….}}
A better understanding of the specific impact of paternal incarceration, from a developmental perspective, could be expected to provide insight into ways of tempering or averting many psychosocial adverse outcomes in the youth. (ANOTHER Idea (mine) might be to find ways to keep the fathers if possible from the behaviors that got them incarcerated to start with. .. . . And then that’d be one less generation to be so impacted. What do you think?)
The main objective of this investigation is to understand the impact, over time, of paternal involvement with the CJS on their children’s substance use, psychopathology, and development of risk behaviors leading to involvement with the Juvenile Justice/CJS. This proposal aims to overcome methodological limitations of previous investigations and will provide generalizable findings relevant to developing public policy for improving the lives of affected children, including reducing their risk for substance use and incarceration. Our framework acknowledges that paternal involvement with the CJS occurs in a complex environment, where risk factors cluster, leading to a number of both direct and indirect sequelae. We will recruit a sample of children (ages 10-14) following the arrest of their fathers. The sample will be representative of CJS fathers from a disadvantaged community (the South Bronx, NYC), who have close contact with their child(ren). They will be recruited through collaboration with a publicly assigned legal defense team, the Bronx Defenders. An age- gender matched comparison group of children whose fathers had never been incarcerated will be recruited in the same residential area. The study includes collaboration with agencies whose involvement make this inherently difficult study possible: including the NYC DOE, NYC DOH-MH, NYC ACS, as well as collaborators and advocacy groups, some participating on the Study’s Advisory Board. PUBLIC HEALTH RELEVANCE: From a public health perspective, policy driven decisions regarding youth, especially those at elevated risk for untoward outcomes, must be based on sound scientific data. The goal of the proposed investigation is to advance our knowledge and understanding of the consequences of paternal involvement with the Criminal Justice System on the substance use/abuse/dependence and other psychopathology of their children. Knowledge about the determinants, over time, for negative youth outcomes, as well as protective factors, is critical to advancing targeted interventions in an effort to break the cycle of Criminal Justice involvement of the next generation. Public Health Relevance: This Public Health Relevance is not available. {{I have a “dumb” idea. Take some of the monies spent studying male zebra finches, and the ones on lethality risks for domestic violence femicides, which are being ignored in public policy (courts) anyhow, and put them towards things that would help break the cycle of (1) ILLITERACY and with it (2) POVERTY. Then I suspect — barring continuing racial profiling by arresting officeres, and a few other possible institutional factors (why not study the INSTITUTIONS as much as the people IN them, eh?) there might be lower incarceration rates. And Research Foundation Inc. could go find something else to research…)) {{PUT IT INTO: Expressive arts, creative arts, dance, and so forth. Put it into college scholarships. Put it into supporting the EXIT from the public school systems that undereducate and badly socialize. . . . Let’s Get Honest!!}} |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | HOVEN, CHRISTINA W. ASSISTANT PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | ch42@columbia.edu |
| Institution | NEW YORK STATE PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE NEW YORK, NY 10032 |
| Department | |
| Fiscal Year | 2008 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE |
| IRG | RPIA |
While money will ALWAYS flow to study incarcerated African American males (or females), how about some to help in DOING the studies, not BEING studied? “Nationally, African Americans, Latin Americans, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans are underrepresented in the sciences and social sciences. ”
Maybe this project wasn’t structured right, it only coughed up $81K: but it sounds reasonable to me:
| R25MH070369 | PROMOTING HS MINORITY ADVANCEMENT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES | NIH | NIMH | $ 81,491 |
| Title | Promoting HS Minority Advancement in the Social Sciences |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R25MH070369 |
| Project Start/End | 01-JUL-2004 / 30-JUN-2006 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): The long-term goal of the proposed HS-COR Honors Research Training program is to achieve ethnic parity in admissions to (goal=100%) and success in undergraduate programs (goal = 100%) related to the biomedical sciences or mental health fields. Nationally, African Americans, Latin Americans, Native Americans, and some Asian Americans are underrepresented in the sciences and social sciences.
{{POSSIBLY — just conjecturing here, total hypothesis, but I HAVE been nosing around a lot of these grants for many months now — POSSIBLY because the powers that be would rather STUDY such populations than have them participate in running the studies. JUST an idea…}} The specific aims of the program are to increase underrepresented student success by: (a) identifying 6 students who appear to have the greatest potential, (b) training students in the fundamental assumptions, value of, and pitfalls of research, (c) facilitating students’ specific research skills by their working with a faculty mentor on a specific research project, and (d) providing specific information and support to ensure that students have the qualities required to be successful in an undergraduate program, such as assistance with SAT preparation and the presentation of research in science fairs. Students will attend a summer training program on the research process that is designed to build scientific and critical reasoning skills and a practical seminar series and work one-on-one with their research mentors. Faculty mentors’ research projects reflect a variety of areas including the neuropsychology of Alzheimer’s disease, quality of life of elderly women, effects of stereotype threat on academic achievement of minority students, adolescent wellbeing, and violence prevention. Evaluation of three goals is specified. The goals are: (a) admission to college; (b) success while in college; and (c) professionalism. Each goal is made more specific and specific program components are matched with each goal. |
| Thesaurus | academic achievement, behavioral /social science, ethnic group, secondary school, training, vocational guidance African American, Asian American, Hispanic American, Native American, health science research potential, mental health personnel, university adolescence (12-20), behavioral /social science research tag, human subject |
| PI Name/Title | QUILICI, JILL L. |
| PI eMail | jill.quilici@csun.edu |
| Institution | CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY NORTHRIDGE OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND SPONSORED PROJECTS NORTHRIDGE, CA 913308232 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2005 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZMH1 |
This might upset a few apple carts and probably wouldn’t be duplicated. Better to mentor children of prisoners, than potential social science superstars….
This one got over $1 million, so it must be very important (or, hard to study):
| R01MH066836
Massachusetts |
FACE OVERGENERALIZATION, PREJUDICE, AND STEREOTYPES | NIH | NIMH | $1,403,454 |
Took 4 years.
$
| Award Number | R01MH066836 |
|---|---|
| Project Start/End | 10-SEP-2003 / 30-JUN-2007 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Considerable research demonstrates a strong tendency to use facial appearance when forming first impressions.
(What’s more, common sense says this as well)
Moreover, these impressions show remarkable consensus, yielding significant social consequences. (ibid). The long-range objective of the proposed research is to explain consensual first impressions of faces and to develop methods for ameliorating their negative social consequences. Consensual First Impressions of Faces? Does this relate to (or, lead to…) “consensual sex.”?? The working hypothesis is that the psychological qualities that are accurately revealed by the functionally significant facial qualities that mark babies, unfitness, emotion, or identity are overgeneralized to people whose facial structure resembles that of babies, a particular level of fitness, a particular emotion, or a particular identity. The research has three specific aims. One is to use connectionist modeling to test the facial identity overgeneralization hypothesis that the tendency for responses to strangers to vary with their facial resemblance to known individuals contributes to racial prejudice and stereotyping. The connectionist modeling experiments seek to demonstrate that the physical similarity between two faces can in and of itself account for similar impressions of them quite apart from similarities in the social categories of the faces. The second aim is to test whether generalized mere exposure effects can be used to reduce race and age prejudice and stereotyping, as predicted by the facial identity overgeneralization hypothesis. The mere exposure experiments seek to demonstrate that increasing the familiarity of an out-group facial prototype will decrease negative reactions to out-group members. The third aim is to use functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) to investigate neural activation patterns in response to faces that are predicted from each of the three overgeneralization hypotheses. The fMRI experiments seek to determine whether categories of faces that are differentiated by human judges’ ratings and by the activation they elicit in connectionist modeling experiments also elicit distinct patterns of neural activation, thereby demonstrating a neural substrate for the overgeneralization effects. By focusing on the structured facial information that influences prejudice and stereotypes, the proposed research brings a novel theoretical perspective to the field of social cognition, demonstrating that the intrinsic properties of faces make a significant contribution to social biases that have been largely viewed as social constructions. It also suggests novel interventions for reducing prejudice. |
| Thesaurus | face, impression, prejudice, racial /ethnic difference bias, face expression, handedness, identity, neural information processing, social perception, visual stimulus behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, functional magnetic resonance imaging, human old age (65+), human subject, young adult human (21-34) |
| PI Name/Title | ZEBROWITZ, LESLIE A. PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | zebrowitz@brandeis.edu |
| Institution | BRANDEIS UNIVERSITY 415 SOUTH STREET WALTHAM, MA 024549110 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2006 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
| Total of all awards: | $ 1,403,454 |
Oh, Here’s a $2 million one: Must be longitudinal and very relevant to national health and wellbeing or safety:
| R01HD021332
TEXAS |
ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCE-BASED STEREOTYPES | NIH | NICHD | $ 2,352,235 |
| R01HD021332 | ORIGINS AND SIGNIFICANCE OF APPEARANCE-BASED STEREOTYPES | NIH | NICHD | $ 2,352,235 |
| Title | Origins and Significance of Appearance-Based Stereotypes |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01HD021332 |
| Project Start/End | 01-SEP-1986 / 31-DEC-2007 |
| Abstract | This abstract is not available. |
| Thesaurus | There are no thesaurus terms on file for this project. |
| PI Name/Title | LANGLOIS, JUDITH H. CHARLES AND SARAH SEAY REGENTS’ PROFESSO |
| PI eMail | langlois@psy.utexas.edu |
| Institution | UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AUSTIN PO Box 7726 AUSTIN, TX 78713 |
| Department | PSYCHOLOGY |
| Fiscal Year | 2007 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF CHILD HEALTH AND HUMAN DEVELOPMENT |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
(NOTE: project duration says 1986 – 2007. These records therefore don’t show 1986 – 1997, probably similar amounts/year.
Well, since this project was over with one and a half years ago, perhaps we can write and find out what they learned.
http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/homepage/group/LangloisLAB/
http://www.psy.utexas.edu/psy/crl.html#scope
The Children’s Research Laboratory (CRL) was founded in January 1982 to facilitate training and research on a wide variety of topics relating to infant and child development. We are located in the Seay Psychology building at the corner of Dean Keeton and Speedway on the University of Texas campus.
Approximately 7 faculty members and 20 graduate students currently conduct research at the CRL. While most are affiliated with the Department of Psychology, research assistance also has been provided to faculty from the Linguistics Department, the Department of Human Ecology, and the College of Education. Our current facility includes a waiting room for parents, numerous laboratory suites, offices for faculty and graduate researchers, a student lounge, and a developmental psychology library. Space is also available for visiting faculty and post-doctoral fellows. In addition, the CRL provides invaluable training to approximately 150 undergraduate students per year. Their close work with both graduate students and faculty on specific research projetcts prepares them for graduate work toward advanced degrees or other careers involving children.
Our research has examined a broad range of topics, including studies of infant vision and audition, the early development of cognitive and intellectual ability, the development of language, parent-infant interaction, social stereotypes by young children and adults, and the causes of parental abuse of children. Research projects at the CRL are funded primarily through federal and private foundation funds.
Rebecca Anne Hoss, Judith H. Langlois, Rebecca Bigler, Jacqueline D. Woolley, Robert A. Josephs, Kristin Neff, …
This dissertation is dedicated to all those who have supported and guided me in my quest for a graduate degree in psychology, including my loving husband Chance Lawson, my unconditionally supportive…
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1129416
(Abstract:)
The relation between physical attractiveness and behavior was examined by assessing whether behavioral differences exist between attractive and unattractive children.
{{As determined by . . . . .??}}
64 3- and 5-year-old boys and girls were selected as subjects on the basis of physical attractiveness. Same age and sex, attractive, unattractive, and mixed-attractiveness dyads were formed and were observed in a seminaturalistic play setting. A categorical observation system was used to record affiliative, aggressive, activity-, and object-directed play behaviors. A developmental pattern was found for aggression: no differences based on attractiveness were evident in 3-year-olds, but 5-year-old unattractive children aggressed against peers more often than did attractive children. Unattractive children were generally more active than attractive children. Few differences in affiliative behaviors were found between attractive and unattractive children.
>>>>
Phew!
This is a side-note to a Judith Langlois site, but I don’t think the topic is “incidental” to WHAT is our federal HHS department doing with these grants (and why):
INTRODUCTION
It is useful to distinguish, in a first approximation, between behavioral biology in general, and the more special fields of classical comparative psychology, classical ethology, and the newer fields of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology. Contemporary animal behavior research often tries to combine the methods and insights of the experimental approach of comparative psychology with the field observational approach of ethology. Comparative psychology originated in North America as a branch of experimental psychology; its practitioners were mainly interested in differences between species, especially in intelligence and learning. Classical ethology is a branch of biology that originated in Europe, used observational rather than experimental methods, and was interested first and foremost in the naturally occurring behavior of animals. Although the dichotomy must not be overstressed, animal behaviorists tend to be trained in psychology, work with “bright” animals, and generally are interested in learned behaviors; while contemporary ethologists, sociobiologists, and evolutionary psychologists are likely to concentrate on innate behaviors. While the study of learned behavior is both important and immediately applicable to human psychology, these behaviors do not have an evolutionary basis beyond the neural capacity to learn. (For a more detailed account of the differences between these traditions, see, e.g., Barry Sinervo.)
The research covered in this area introduction encompasses a very large domain. For the sake of convenience, we have divided it in clusters that are listed alphabetically under the conventional labels “animal behavior,” “animal cognition,” “ethology,” “behavioral ecology,” “cognitive ecology,” “neuroethology,” “sociobiology,” and “evolutionary psychology.” It should be borne in mind throughout that these labels reflect little more than the contingencies of the history of behavioral biology, and that in practice, the boundaries between these sub-areas tend to be quite blurred.
The question I pose is whether historians and social scientists have much to gain from models of cultural evolution that treat cultural change as a kind of selection process. Can such models provide a unifying paradigm for the social sciences that plays the same role in the study of human culture that models of biological evolution play in biology as a whole?
As an explanatory theory of human behavior, dynamical ((Kind of dynamic, but not quite, so only “dynamical”??) models of cultural evolution and social learning hold more promise of success than models based on rational choice. Under the right conditions, evolutionary models supply a rationale for Nash equilibrium that rational choice theory is hard pressed to deliver. Furthermore, in cases with multiple symmetrical Nash equilibria, the dynamic models offer a plausible, historically path-dependent model of equilibrium selection. In conditions, such as those of correlated encounters, where the evolutionary dynamic theory is structurally at odds with the rational choice theory, the evolutionary theory provides the best account of human behavior.
— Brian Skyrms
Evolutionary Psychology (EP)
EP was articulated in the wake of human sociobiology’s unsuccessful attempts (most notably, Lumsden/Wilson 1981) to come to grips with gene-culture coevolution. Its goal is to uncover “the psychological mechanisms that underpin human … behavior, and … the selective forces that shaped those mechanisms” (Donald Symons). Its key assumptions are, in Eric Alden Smith’s accurate summary, modularity (human behavior is guided by specialized cognitive mechanisms performing specialized tasks); historicity (natural selection shaped those modules to produce adaptive behavior in the paleolithic EEA or “environment of evolutionary adaptedmess”); adaptive specificity (adaptive outcomes, e.g., mate preference, are very specific); and environmental novelty (modern environments are characterized by an unprecedented degree of novelty). From these assumptions, EP deduces that valid adaptive explanations must refer to genetically evolved psychological mechanisms linked to specific features of the EEA; that “culture,” “learning,” “rational choice,” and “fitness maximization” are insufficiently modular to be explanatorily realistic mechanisms, whether cognitive or behavioral; that contemporary human behavior may often be maladaptive; and that measuring fitness outcomes or correlates of contemporary behavioral patterns is irrelevant.
{{I”m tempted to add, this includes collective institutional behavior in many matters. Either we (so to speak) are trying to study, manage, and predict human behavior, so as to better MANAGE it, (evolutionary bias) OR we (so to speak) are trying to enforce a certain religious paradigm on the entire country, a paradigm in which all animals are equal, but SOME (male) animals are more equal than others. And, anyone, incidentally, who doesn’t agree with the above will be tortured in one (or more) institutions, until they do. How this differs IN THEORY AND PRACTICE with what this SAME United States is sending troops overseas to quell (insurgents, and make the world safe for “democracy,” I’m not sure – – it does have frightening similarities. Except, in many other countries, I could probably only put up ONE blog post saying this. . . . . . if I dared. We DO make fun of our government pretty well, I admit }}
ANYHOW, do you catch the flavor of the lingo?
By the way, calling people “bipolar” is popular these days. Never fear, a “Special Unit of Government” is on it, since about 2002, with a Mental Health Research Discretionary type grants. Apparently designed for this particular recipient only: (this is the only recipient that came up under Mental Health Research Discretionary and “Special Unit of Government.”
| Fiscal Year | Grantee Name | State | Grantee Class | Award Title | Award Action Type | Sum of Actions |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 821,185 |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | INNOVATIONS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 85,881 |
| 2009 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LITHIUM MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH BIPOLAR | NEW | $- 105,248 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 906,904 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | INNOVATIONS IN THE MEASUREMENT OF RACIAL/ETHNIC DISPARITIES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE | NEW | $ 85,844 |
| 2008 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LITHIUM MAGNETIC RESONANCE SPECTROSCOPY OF CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH BIPOLAR | NEW | $ 213,300 |
| 2007 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | A TREATMENT OUTCOME ANALYSIS FOR BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 77,680 |
| 2007 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 951,551 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | A TREATMENT OUTCOME ANALYSIS FOR BEHAVIORAL ADDICTIONS | NEW | $ 80,000 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 985,750 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | SUPPLEMENT FOR EXPANSION | $ 59,555 |
| 2006 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | HMO SELECTION INCENTIVES AND UNDERPROVISION OF MH CARE | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 80,561 |
| 2005 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | ADVANCED CENTER FOR LATINO AND MH SYSTEMS RESEARCH | NEW | $ 921,689 |
| 2005 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | HMO SELECTION INCENTIVES AND UNDERPROVISION OF MH CARE | NEW | $ 82,500 |
| 2004 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 200,000 |
| 2003 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | LATINO RESEARCH PROGRAM PROJECT | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 898,383 |
| 2003 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 280,000 |
| 2002 | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | MA | Special Unit of Government | PSYCHOPATHOLOGY AND CONTROLLING BEHAVIOR IN ADOLESCENTS. | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | $ 280,000 |
Total (quick-check) $6,753,531
WHO, you may say, is the Cambridge Health Alliance, and what are they doing? What’s so special about them?
Psychopathology and controlling behavior in adolescents. . . . . . . Perhaps someone ought to study where they’ve been for the prior teen years, and take a look at which institutions as well as which environments. . . . .
5R01MH62030-020 (Federal Grant ID — you can look it up):
| Title | Psychopathology and Controlling Behavior in Adolescents. |
|---|---|
| Award Number | R01MH062030 |
| Project Start/End | 25-SEP-2001 / 31-AUG-2006 |
| Abstract | DESCRIPTION (provided by applicant): Recent attachment-related studies {{PROBABLY ALSO FEDERALLY FUNDED}} have demonstrated that both childhood behavior problems and adolescent psychopathology are predicted by (1) disorganized infant attachment behavior, behavior that is characterized by conflicting behavioral tendencies and the lack of a coherent relational strategy for dealing with stress (2). However, based on current literature, it is unclear whether a validated measure of disorganized attachment in adolescence exists.(3)
The first aim of the proposed study is to develop and validate a coding protocol for identifying controlling-punitive, controlling-caregiving, and other insecure-disorganized behavior in adolescence. (4) The coding scheme will be based on previous work in the field (5) and will be applied to two attachment-related parent-adolescent interaction assessments. Participants will be 120 adolescents and their mothers from low-income families, (6) 65 of whom who have participated in a longitudinal study at ages 12 and 18 months, 4-5 years, and 7-9 year. (7) The construct validity of the new measure of controlling attachment strategies will be assessed in relation to coding of Unresolved or Cannot Classify attachment strategies as assessed by the Adult Attachment Interview and will also be validated against broader aspects of parent-adolescent interaction assessed in a standard revealed differences conflict resolution task, as coded by the Autonomy and Relatedness Scales. (8) The second aim of the study is to assess whether overall risk in infancy is an important antecedent of disorganized/controlling attachment strategies in adolescence. (9) Mediational models will test whether the onset of behavior problems in the early school years or the mother’s lack of facilitation of automony and relatedness in adolescence adds to and/or mediates any observed relation between early relational risk and adolescent attachment behaviors. (10) The third aim of the study is to assess the degree to which adolescent disorganized/controlling attachment strategies are associated with adolescent psychiatric morbidity. Psychiatric diagnoses will be assessed by the Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnosis (SCID) Axis I, the borderline and antisocial personality disorder sections of the SCID II, the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) , and the Adolescent Dissociative Experiences Scale (ADES). Longitudinal analyses will further assess the degree to which early relational risk and early school age behavior problems are important precursors of adolescent psychopathology. The proposed study will contribute to increased understanding of long-term developmental trajectories that eventuate in psychopathology. In order to implement prevention or treatment programs for reducing adolescent antisocial behavior and psychopathology, it is essential {{FOR WHOM??}} to seek a thorough understanding of the developmental pathways through which such behavior develops over time. |
| Thesaurus | adolescence (12-20), child behavior disorder, child psychology, longitudinal human study, low socioeconomic status, parent offspring interaction, psychopathology age difference, behavior prediction, caregiver, conflict, depression, disease /disorder proneness /risk, gender difference, human morbidity, infant human (0-1 year), maternal behavior, mental disorder diagnosis, psychoanalysis, psychological stressor, psychosocial separation, racial /ethnic difference behavioral /social science research tag, clinical research, human subject, interview, videotape /videodisc |
| PI Name/Title | LYONS-RUTH, KARLEN ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR |
| PI eMail | klruth@hms.harvard.edu |
| Institution | CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE 1493 CAMBRIDGE ST CAMBRIDGE, MA 02139 |
| Department | |
| Fiscal Year | 2004 |
| ICD | NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH |
| IRG | ZRG1 |
COMMENTARY BELOW:
Assistance to Recipient(s) “Cambridge Health Alliance”
(FY 2000-2009)
Summary
| Federal dollars: $25,309,682 Total number of recipients: 1 Total number of transactions: 87
|
| Massachusetts 08 (Michael E. Capuano) | $8,151,249 |
Top 10 Recipients
| CAMBRIDGE HEALTH ALLIANCE | $25,309,682 |
Recipient Type
| Government | $20,271,453 |
| Other | $4,681,488 |
| Nonprofits | $311,588 |
| For Profits | $41,653 |
| Higher Education | $3,500 |
| Individuals | $0 |
Type of projects: Top 5.
| 93.242: Mental Health Research Grants (Doesn’t quite match the total above, eh?, same category) | $11,129,223 |
| 93.145: AIDS Education and Training Centers | $3,953,377 |
| 93.252: Healthy Communities Access Program | $2,476,400 |
| 93.887: Health Care and Other Facilities | $1,633,902 |
| 93.243: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services_Projects of Regional and National Significance | $1,450,000 |
..
SHARE THIS POST on...
Golden State $$ Deficits: What doesn’t trickle down from DV Coalitions (to victims), bubbles up instead to supporting “Father Involvement”
We all know our state (California) is bottomed out.
Supposedly.
“June 19 NYT: Mr. Schwarzenegger, whose manly posturing either charms or repels, . . sent an oblong, melon-size sculpture of bull testicles to Darrell Steinberg, president pro tem of the Democratic-controlled State Senate.
The gift was apparently meant as a barbed joke, symbolizing the Republican governor’s hope that California legislators would display fortitude in deciding how to close a $24 billion budget deficit.
Mr. Schwarzenegger’s press office said the gag was a retort to a lighthearted present that Mr. Steinberg had sent the governor. That gift, a basket of mushrooms, followed Mr. Schwarzenegger’s description of Democratic budget proposals as “hallucinatory.”
I have not been hallucinating and I will display fortitude in reminding us that both government and nonprofits or both of them hand in hand (with foundations), have not opened their books and given an “evidence-based” (versus, walked through our doors-based) account of whether, to what extent, and HOW are they addressing hard social issues (including domestic violence, and the poverty that comes in it train
(NB: poverty does NOT cause abuse; abuse is a CHOICE, and there is no excuse for it. I have been poor in many ways during my years with this person, and I have not stalked, attacked, slapped, pushed, threatened with a weapon, attempted to cut off his relationship with his family (as he has — and has succeeded — with mine, including my own daughters — or any of those.).
Instead, they have run us around the block 15 times promising “help” and selling grandiose intentions until, wisely observing we’re exhausted, no evidence of help is even on the horizon yet and we just PAID someone with our time in expectation, or false hope.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-awareness — we just learned we’re gullible.
THANK THEM! For boot camp in self-sufficiency — we just learned how important free time and a purpose for it are.
And the entire structure of the U.S. economy is that those who, for one reason or another, DO have time to spare will (generally speaking) spend it on either themselves, or some noble cause to inflict on those who do NOT have time to spare. Though I’m pretty well educated, it took me the school of hard knocks knocking on nonprofit (and government agency) doors for simple, basic HELP, to figure out WHY this problem of making excuses for abuse.
For those of you who do refer to scripture (Bible), here’s the relevant parallel. A woman went to the doctors, and having spent all, was still bleeding, and as a result (in her society) considered in a continual state of “uncleanness,” she was an outcast socially.
(Mark 5):
25 And a woman, which had an issue of blood twelve years, 26 and had suffered many things of many physicians, and had spent all that she had, and was nothing bettered, but rather grew worse, 27 having heard the things concerning Jesus, came in the crowd behind, and touched his garment. 28 For she said, If I touch but his garments, I shall be made whole.
~~~~~~~~~~
In addition to (with DV) these people not only bleeding, they are hemorrhaging jobs and relationships, and sometimes HOPE, as well. Whether or not you believe the situation or the miracles, this IS how it feels not to be able to get free from domestic violence (it’s hard, with children involved; it’s near-impossible, once one sets foot in family law arena, which typically doesn’t like to ACKNOWLEDGE that abuse is a choice, domestic violence is dangerous to those kids, but instead holds conference about how to put them back with their abusers — 100%, or at a minimum weekly. And bill the public (or the nonbattering parent) for this. Don’t believe me? read my blog! Access Visitation Grants funding.
What that woman needed was NOT another coalition of doctors discussing blood flow, she needed it STOPPED while she had some strength left, and as the account says, she already had no money left! . . . . . . I have actually been in this situation, literally as well as figuratively, during a highly stressful time in my life (in fact, it was actually that season I was in a full-blown custody suit, as well as possibly that “season” of my life). I needed to take a long, long car-drive and was not going to be able to do so in this condition — or at least I’m sure the driver wouldn’t have approved the multiple stops. You know what? The solution was SIMPLE — an herb costing about $11.00 called “shepherd’s purse.” For a little 2-oz. bottle. I was able to get it, and make the trip. If I’d actually HAD health insurance coverage at the time, I’m sure I’d have been put through an appointment, and on a prescription. Butt I didn’t, so a simpler way had to be found.
I believe if we as a society really WANTED domestic violence to stop as much as we wanted not to change our ways (or institutions — can anyone say “faith institutions” ??) or beliefs that someone else is handling this, when they aren’t, or give up our mythic continual trust in Big Brother to come and rescue us — it would be stopped. I’m SURE of it. How hard is it to really shun an abuser, the way a person reporting it gets shunned and outcast and stripped of her funds, and eventually (and partly because of this) children? – – but not of the abuser’s ongoing access to her.
SERIOUSLY NOW, we are hearing daily on the news how broke we are. Take for example, BUSES have been cut back one day a week, and routes re-routed, and shortened. Things and tempers are tight at times.
Across the nation this week, funding for domestic violence programs is being cut, incoming emails proclaim:
In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger “terminated” the budget for domestic violence programs. Although cuts were anticipated, the elimination of all programs was not. Learn more.
The City Council in Washington, DC voted to cut an already underfunded victim services budget by 10%. Read more.
If your state is facing similar cuts, let us know atpublicpolicy@ncadv.org. We’re here to help!From the “National Coalition on Domestic Violence” website and update:
California News (KFSN) — California’s recently adopted budget has dealt a severe blow to the state’s victims of domestic violence. Governor Schwarzenegger cut 20-point-4 million dollars to 94 shelters and centers statewide. As a result, many centers will have to make drastic cuts to their programs. Some will have to close their shelters altogether.
Executive Director, Rita Smith, attended President Barack Obama’s Town Hall meeting on Fatherhood held on Friday, June 19, 2009. {{IN WHAT CAPACITY? TO ENDORSE THIS, AS IF THE MOVEMENT WAS LACKING ENDORSEMENT? OR TO REPRESENT THE VOICES OF WOMEN WHO COULDN’T BE THERE– BECAUSE THEY’RE DEAD, IN A SHELTER, IN HIDING, OR DESTITUTE FROM THIS EXACT TYPE OF FATHERHOOD PROMOTION FROM “ON HIGH” THAT HAS DILUTED THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN MOVEMENT AND CHANGED ITS CHARACTER ENTIRELY, WHILE KEEPING SIMILAR LABELS ON THE ORGANIZATIONS?)) President Obama discussed the importance of balancing work and family responsibilities, meeting obligations to children and serving as a role model to them, even if one’s own father could not do so. The President also encouraged fathers to break their fathers’ cycles, learn from their mistakes and “rise up where [their] own fathers fell short.” Watch here and read more.
However SOME of us, because we look!, know where some of that money goes. (if not — yet — what’s done with it once it gets there). For example, although social services are going to be cut, judges’ supplemental pay apparent is not going to be. Nor can we sue judges retroactively who took bribes, apparently (Richard Fine is still in jail for confronting THAT, Senate passed a law prohibiting it).
I’m sure our Governor and Legislature will work SOMETHING out that won’t leave them, at least, out in the cold:
Then ONE organization I thought was on the same page (understanding relationship between “family court matters” and “domestic violence” and “feminists v. anti-feminists (a.k.a. “Father’s rights’ promoters) ” and the general funding war, sent out another panicked alert that the Guv (Governor Schwarzenegger, i.e., the social services “terminator”) was cutting funds to domestic violence shelters, and this alert bore the name of some group I’d not run across, although for the past 10 years I sure have been RUNNING (and driving, calling, web-surfing, networking, asking, etc.) for HELP, etc. The name, being “California Partnership to End Domestic Violence.” Then the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” sent out another.
I’d recently turned from tracking HHS funds to finding out what’s up with all these DV Coalitions across the country…
I said, “say, WHO?” and then ran across THIS: I’m not the only person that noticed this ? ? ? ?
Governor Schwarzeneger is right about cutting DV funding
Okay, with all the chaos floating around about how wrong Governor Schwarzenegger is for cutting or vetoing Domestic Violence funding all together I have to say he is right on point. I never thought I would agree, however, I am coming from the victim point of view.
I reached out to get help from dv coalitions, who refused to help me. For what I am about to say isn’t going to sit well with people, but I am sorry, I didn’t get help,
Heather Thompson didn’t get help and was basically battered by her local coalition to stay away and was told if she didn’t they would file a restraining order against her.Yes, that’s right, a restraining order against a victim of domestic violence begging for help.
Maria Phelps, a victim who resides in New York, has been following protocol and filling out forms that are required to receive help and the folks in New York, pull her chain on daily basis. What kind of hoops does one have to jump through to get their needs met from those who claim to help.
Claudia Valenciana, a former Ventura County Sheriffs Deputy was turned away from the Coalition to End FamilyViolence in Oxnard.
Alexis A. Moore was refused help simply because of the profession her abuser was in and she ended up living in her car, is this what the states money is funding? Survivors In Action has started a petition for Domestic Violence Reform, we are calling you out and believe us when we say, this is serious.
Thousands of victims of domestic violence have been refused help. In California alone, there are many, most are afraid to speak up. This what I feel is the threat of Governor Schwarzenegger’s veto, this means the salaries of the big wigs who work at these coalitions are going to be cut. They won’t be able to drive around in their nice cars or buy their fancy clothes to wear to State Capital hearings.
Commentary Cars and clothing don’t bother me. What bothers me, personally, is all the conferencing, policy-making conferences, forgetting that the REAL stakeholders are those whose very lives are most directly at stake, literally. And that among the stakes that these nonprofit participants hold, when those funds come FROM government, the recipients have a duty to actually serve the PUBLIC. Not themselves, their ideas, and their careers. When the nonprofit funding comes from individuals, or foundations, it’s a bit different, BUT, the jobs done SHOULD relate to the title on the funds collected. “Are we done yet?” in some of these issues? And if not, WHY not? (Just to distinguish my point of view from what I’m quoting here).
I understand that Tara Shabbaz of the California Partnership To End Domestic Violence spoke out about what a travesty this would be. I didn’t see anything on their website. Perhaps Tara, your salary is in jeopardy of being cut, are you getting a little worried that you and other executives will be hurting and that you may not be able to pay your rent, make a car payment or a utility payment, well maybe this is a sign that you may have to suffer like the rest of us? I think this is exactly what should happen. While you sit in your cushy office, victims ARE SUFFERING.
WHILE I’m here, there’s a “CFDA” (federal grant program code) called 93.591, and according to this database, the “California Alliance Against Domestic Violence” got funding in 2008 & 2009. Is this a new code? I DNK:
Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions 2009 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0901CASDVC 2009 SDVC 06/11/2009 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 241,086 2008 FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MODESTO CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 0801CASDVC 2008 SDVC 04/18/2008 93591 Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Grant to State Domestic Violence Coalitions SOCIAL SERVICES NEW $ 231,230
AND, ANOTHER SOURCE< RELATED:
Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
Author: Randi Rosen
Domestic violence victims are not getting the help and services they need when reaching out to their local DV coalitions. More and more women are coming forward and expressing their frustrations which needs to be addressed.
Domestic violence coalitions receive federal funding for the victims of domestic violence, so if the victims aren’t getting services they need, where is the money going? This is a personal issue for me. Many years ago, I reached out to the National Coalition to End Domestic Violence in Ventura county. No ever called me back. I shared this with my mother and she couldn’t believe that I was ignored and a victim of domestic violence, she called the coalition herself and received the same response, nothing.
(I presume you called more than once, right? As I see below, obviously. I know how often I called agency after agency– ran up that cell phone bill….NONE of them were prepared to deal with chronic, long-term, family abuse through family court AFTER the restraining order expired, by which time you were supposed to be, I guess just hunky-dory fine…)
In January 2008, Assembly member Fiona Ma introduced AB 1771 Nadga’s Law. Assembly member Ma stated, “California can do more to curb the dangerously high number of domestic violence incidents through prevention.” That meant providing online information about prior convictions and providing potential victims with useful tools to avoid violence or a potentially violent partner, thus reducing the number of domestic violence incidents.
(Here is the blurb on “Nagda’s Law”:
Assemblywoman Ma Announces Groundbreaking Legislation
to Create Online Database of Domestic Violence Offenders
Assemblywoman Fiona Ma (D-San Francisco) and former San Francisco prosecutor Jim Hammer will unveil a landmark bill to create a state-wide database of domestic violence offenders. The legislation, AB 1771-The Domestic Violence Prevention and Right-to Know Act of 2008, would require the Attorney General to develop an online database that would report the name, date of birth, county and date of conviction for individuals convicted of felony domestic violence or multiple counts of misdemeanor domestic violence. The database would keep updated information available for 10 years. It is believed that this would be a first in the nation law and would go into effect on January 1, 2009.
Assemblywoman Ma, who is the Chair of the Assembly Select Committee on Domestic Violence, introduced the bill in response to the case of Nadga Schexnayder and her mother who were shot to death in 1995 by Ronnie Earl Seymour, a former boyfriend of Nadga’s who had a 20-year history of violence against women. Hammer secured a life in prison conviction as the lead prosecutor in the case.
WHEN:
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
10:00 a.m
Alexis A. Moore, President of Survivors in Action who sp0nsored the bill, stated, “This bill will reduce the numbers of domestic violence incidents by providing prior conviction records on line. Equally important, the bill will be a valuable preventative measure to help potential victims and their family members protect themselves from violence.”
The California Partnership to End Domestic Violence (CPEDV), California District Attorney Association and Interface California Family Services opposed the bill claiming an infringement on the perpetrator’s privacy. Interface is an organization that is contracted with the court system to provide batterers with anger management classes.
The bill was introduced to protect victims and potential victims of violence and these organizations are worried about the privacy of the perpetrators and their personal information. There is something really wrong with how domestic violence legislation is voted on, especially the very coalitions who claim to protect the victim. The laws that are in place today, are not working and they need to be changed, no longer are the victims willing to be the status quo.
Now, the coalitions want to spend a great deal of money to change Domestic Violence Awareness month which is October and shared with Breast Cancer Awareness, to another month. The intent is to separate the two different causes so Domestic Violence gets all the attention. What for? Why spend all that money on advertising and printing, when it should be used to help the victims. Domestic Violence is still in the closet as far as being taken seriously with Law Enforcement and the Judicial System. Look at how many women are being murdered as result of DV**. These coalitions need to be held accountable for their programs and services. When a victim of DV reaches out for help, those services have to be provided to them. If victims are turned away, then the coalitions should prepare to show where the money is being spent.
About the Author:
I founded Women’s Legal Resource in 2006 to help women who face the brutal challenges of the legal system. After going through my own experience in the Family Law Court without the financial resources to obtain proper counsel, I was faced having to represent myself. I attended Los Angeles Valley college in the paralegal studies program which helped in legal research and document preparation. All though I faced many legal hurdles, I felt the need to help other women, especially those who are Domestic Violence victims in document preparation and as a advocate.
The present laws as they are written is flawed and not honoring the safety of victims of violence in the United States. The manner in which police officials and the courts enforce protection orders, custody orders, child visitation and confidentiality escalates violence which leads to murder. Women’s Legal Resource is a nonpartisan organization to support the effort and petition congress for the revision of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault laws. Women and children are being murdered at the hand of their abuser’s, accountability; intervention and prevention are the crucial elements for change.
Article Source: ArticlesBase.com – Domestic Violence Coalitions need to be held accountable
I realize (really I do!) this chart will not display well (any more than the others throughout my blog):
However, the CFDA code “93.592” under this http://www.taggs.hhs.gov website, is labeled officially:
“Family Violence Prevention and Services/Grants for Battered Women’s Shelters: Discretionary”
This is a single California Entity (high-profile) that knows about this funding, obviously. I do not know whether they work also with
battered women’s shelters, or more on the “discretionary” part. I do also know that this group seems to have undergone a recent (to me) “sea-change” in the focus of its work. It has recently become intensely interested in “Fathers” work. I guess this is to help more with the prevention aspect.
| Year | Program Office | Grantee Name | City | Award Number | Award Title | Award Code | Action Issue Date | CFDA Number | Award Class | Award Activity Type | Award Action Type | Principal Investigator | Sum of Actions |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 07/28/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2008 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/27/2008 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 145,000 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 08/13/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,178,812 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 01/26/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 32,940 |
| 2007 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 1 | 09/20/2007 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | DEBBIE LEE | $ 182,375 |
| 2006 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0377 | SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE | 0 | 09/19/2006 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | DEBBIE LEE | $ 1,145,872 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/29/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2005 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/14/2005 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 115,000 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/14/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,125,689 |
| 2004 | FYSB | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 1 | 09/27/2004 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 90,000 |
| 2003 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 08/07/2003 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,133,236 |
| 2002 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/04/2002 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 1,113,796 |
| 2001 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0246 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/13/2001 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 958,542 |
| 2000 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/10/2000 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 804,542 |
| 1999 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 08/19/1999 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 698,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 678,710 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0153 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES | 0 | 09/30/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | ESTA SOLER | $ 50,000 |
| 1998 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0157 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION SERVICES | 0 | 09/19/1998 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NEW | LRNI MARIN | $ 50,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0012 | P.A. FV-03-93 – DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: HEALTH CARE & ACCESS: SIRC | 2 | 07/11/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | OTHER REVISION | JANET NUDELMAN | $- 9,549 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 0 | 07/17/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION | ESTA SOLER | $ 600,000 |
| 1997 | OCS | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND | SAN FRANCISCO | 90EV0105 | FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER | 1 | 06/13/1997 | 93592 | DISCRETIONARY | SOCIAL SERVICES | ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) | ESTA SOLER | $ 37,604 |
Summary report on these 3 categories:
93.591
93.592
93.671
(All, basically “Family Violence Prevention” funding, and ALL have the word ”
Let’s Get Honest COMMENTARY: – which became a discovery — which became the remainder of this post —
RE: “Interface California Family Services opposed the bill ”
I thought I’d look to see WHO would oppose a bill letting people in our very mobile society know who has had a conviction record on-line (for those, like me, who aren’t expert at running down to the court, or cannot afford background checks…). While I don’t know about this bill, I was curious about “Interface California Family Services.” What I found there stopped me in my tracks.
So, I’ll detail what happened to those “DV Coalition $$” in an ensuing post….. I know y’all (even Plano Texas) probably don’t get through posts more than 4,000 words, and that data is too important to leave at the bottom of a post …..I DO have some rarely published (I think) observations……
After I started studying these DV coalitions (the ones that didn’t help me once I set foot in family court — it wasn’t their “venue”) are actually doing. Not in detail, but in the broad sweep of the market (niche) — I mean, it’s clean, it’s antiseptic, for the most part, and it’s colorfully logo’d internet-based, replicatable ideas that have LITTLE to do with the legal infrastructure of this nation, INDIVIDUAL LEGAL RIGHTS, but only “units,” of which a man MUST be a part, or it ain’t a family.
I’ m beginning to see the name of the organizational game>>>>>> that basically leaves actual suffering victims OUT of it, including kids, moms, and road kill…. and policies that do nothing to make a dent in those statistics. But are a GREAT market niche. Maybe we should just skip welfare, child support, and all that, and teach women leaving abuse how to start a nonprofit, and some internet skills, catch the surf of federal funding foundations (figure out first what the foundations actuallly really want — and here’s a headups. MOST of them are old money and DON’T want women to leave a marriage just because he’s a batterer. They also want no kids out of wedlock, hopefully, because people in trauma don’t make good employees. Just hang in there and take it a few more years……If you can’t, you’re on your own, because these days, it’s not about individual rights, or legal rights, it’s about “FAMILIES.” )
OK, so below here is my guided exploration to where your $$ went and what social policy is, apparently, these days. This may explain why the headlines haven’t changed much in a decade. People still throwing up their hands, “why??” did he suddenly “go off” and “off” his family, a police officer, a bystander or too, and/or his kids?
(I get more and more sarcastic as I go, so you might want to quit before the end of the post. )
These days, almost any organization that says “family” “healthy” “children” (“parenting”) basically is NOT sticking up for violence against women. It’s just a little linguistic thing. So I just looked . . . . I’m not saying they aren’t doing great things. But, I do know what help I just couldn’t seem to access, though having gotten it on time MIGHT have meant (1) solvency (for which safety was a component) and (2) neither my daughters, nor I, nor the several organizations I was working for at the time, nor the closer friends I leaned on (reeling from this event) might have had to experience an overnight, traumatic custody switch in the context of increasing child support arrearages, escalations outside of court and increasing denial INSIDE it, that domestic violence ever happened to start with, OR, that this was indeed the real thing.
On this site, we find, under “PROGRAMS (i.e., what they do, right?) ” . . . .
- Child Abuse Prevention
- Youth Services
- Domestic Violence
- Mental Health Services
- Strategies Family Support Program
OK . . ..
Batterer’s Intervention Program
Court Recommended
A 52-session program to help individuals change their violent behavior patterns.
The program provides the knowledge and tools to make new choices.
I’m not impressed . . . ..
HEY! — there’s no EXCUSE for abuse. It constitutes choices. Suppose that guy doesn’t WANT to make new choices, but fakes it well?
(This has been documented in later DV murders). WHY is this still going on, and at whose expense? Who is documenting behavior change and later safety of the partners?
(AND information showing the difference between violence/nonviolence, warning signs, and encouraging us to make a safety plan. Been there, done that. . . . . . . ). And the wheel of violence (old as the hills, and from Duluth). And what DV is, and so forth. How much funding is going towards maintaining THAT page? Let’s move on to another category of “Interface California Family Services.” What are they serving up?
AHA, now we are learning something . . . .
Strengthening ORGANIZATIONS to Support Families and Communities. (Probably training..–what kind of training?..)
Strategies is funded by the
State of California, Department of Social Services, Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the S.H. Cowell Foundation
A comprehensive training and technical assistance project for Family Resource Centers ???) and more.
Strategies provides practical and highly interactive training, as well as organizational needs assessments and individualized technical assistance to professionals in the field of family support.
I GET IT: “Technical assistance and Training” is a great way to access federal funds. It’s not so messy as dealing directly with victims, (and their PTSD, fears, and/or injuries) perpetrators (and their attitude), or PPIT (“poor people in trouble.”) It’s easily replicatable, and a lot of information-based (websitek printouts, powerpoints, seminars, etc.) I GET IT !!! The key word is, they are going to help the PROFESSIONALS.
Also, what is this vague, wide field of “FAMILY SUPPORT” (I somehow don’t think it’s the $$ counterpoint to “child support,” meaning funding that goes to children (supposedly)…)? What is meant by “families” and what kind of support? Pro bono legal to get (or defend from) a restraining order? Child support enforcement? Helping that dude get a job?
Strategies’ capacity building activities focus on using a strengths-based perspective, promoting evidence-based practice,** sustainability planning and developing effective public/private partnerships.
**flag — that “evidence-based” terms is often a fatherhood indicator.
This is the history. In 1994, some “prominent thinkers” (Per National Fatherhood Initiative) decided there is a crisis of father-absence throughout the nation. Helpfully, one of the NFI guys also had this post, or got it, in the Health and Human Services department, THE largest US Dept. He was the Secretary, or HEAD of it. He had some pull.
IN 1995, “coincidentally” a Democrat President endorsed this supposedly Republican conservative viewpoint, in a famous, short, memo (link on my blogroll) endorsing this point of view and telling all HIS departments and agencies to quickly “hop to” (into line with the above-mentioned prominent thinkers. No, I do NOT have their names, it’s not on the website, but we are told to take it on faith, this is THE major social ill around. Well, as to moving the huge wheels of state to point in a different direction, there ought to be SOME evidence to base it on. RIGHT? I mean, we have SOME progressives and radicals around the country (meaning, women that sometimes make a hard choice between staying, and being hit, and leaving and being criticized for being single; as well as men and women BOTH that simply didn’t do the marriage thing.
Note: I CANNOT criticize these people, because I DID the marriage thing, and it almost killed me, literally, and apart from some fantastic children (that I can’t see any more, thanks to programs like these spawned, and what they did to the process of divorce), I really am not in a place to look down on some who didn’t opt in the wedding band “thang”. . . . . In THEORY, yes. I think it’s better to figure out a serious commitment before pregnancy, than, say pick up the Son of the Porn King in a bar, as a women did recently, and ended up dead on her daughter’s 1st birthday. There are definitely some kinks also in marriage to be worked out in practice, and many of which this overentitled “fatherhood” (really, male supremacy) theology put in there to start with. It kind of meant, for me, I had to leave the “human” parts at the door (or they’d be kicked out), and when in the home, pretty much just only do things that looked REALLY “wifely.”
LIke scrubbing laundering, listening, giving birth and nursing (unless he wanted sex, or to engage in a lecture of some sort), oh yes, bringing home the bacon, but also handing it over once I did (Because after all who’s the head? It’s divinely, genetically ordained), smile when people were over, and shut up when they weren’t (well, I could talk, just not talk back to abuse…), and not complaining when the (US, incidentally) mail was opened, to make sure I wasn’t engaging in any NON-wifely, NON-womanly activities without permission — like
singing, playing the piano, and spending money I’d earned without clearance from the head. Or even saving it (possibly for an exit).
Eventually I did get a PO Box (after 3 warnings to stop this), there was a good deal of resistance (which was of course punished), but then he just assumed I was squirreling away money (when I wasn’t) and withheld contributing to the household even more. At this time it had been my assigned job to pay rent, and utilities, and my own way (and the kids’, too).
That I did this while in full possession of two college degrees, a professional background, and, I thought, my senses, is something of a real marvel, in retrospect. What I DIDn’T have from nearly the beginning was consistent access to: (1) Finances, or even a bank account, and (2) transportation. So I kinda sorta try not to blame myself for this. I also didn’t have ANYONE confronting this joker in front of me and saying “STOP” to back up my (frequent) STOPs! And I DID tell (not cover up), but was not fully informed on WHO to tell (Or, they just didn’t respond). Now, to hear women in 2006, 10 years later, say the same things, is very sad to me.
Well, back to the “evidence-based” phrase. Grants are grants, and they go to universities and researchers, and when it comes to the social sciences, well, it’s a little unclear whether the chicken (policy) came before the egg (studies, institutes, etc.) or vice versa. I guess I should’ve used the word “sperm” instead because after all this is regarding fatherhood, but then I couldn’t really in public complete the analogy. ANYHOW, in 1998 and 1999 the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives kind of went along the same “fatherhood rules, father-absence is a social plague” line of thinking and voted in some resolutions, just in case Clinton’s revamping all departments and programs to accommodate fathers better didn’t really work. This is the short version; in short, major universities got in on the grants also, and so everyone is stroking everyone’s policy/procedures/evidence back. The federal grant #, should you care to check, is 93.086, “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood and Healthy Marriages”, which is only part of the mountain, and which if you’ve been paying attention here, is clearly, well, a going concern in California.
Now about those “evidence-based practices.” in a little nonprofit with the word “family” in it….
So, let’s see how this: 
(NOTE: at bottom of page:
New for agencies and practitioners: Supporting Father Involvement.
For information visit the Supporting Father Involvement website.Strategies is funded by the State of California, Department of Social Services,
Office of Child Abuse Prevention and the Stuart Foundation. (what happened to the “S.H. Cowell Foundation,” above? How many foundations are in on this thing??)© 2009
Let’s see how it develops the theme of “Strategies to Support Families & Communities”:
Increasingly, the social service sector is being challenged to provide evidence that their work is making a real difference for the people and communities they serve.
That’s for damn sure.! IN part, because the same domestic violence fatalities, child-kidnappings, and difficulties with “access/visitation” still happen. People are still poor, of course, and women are still jailed when they try to protect a kid that the courts won’t protect, but Dads are NOT jailed for harrassing our asses through family court allegations, hearsay or frivolous in nature, rather than, (say), working, and moving on in life. And for denying past, present, and risk of future abuse and extreme psychological difficulties for kids. . . . That’s not ALL Dads, I am talking about abusive ones, who are having a heyday in the family courts, and through this managing to trash attempts to get free from the relationship, share visitaiton, but NOT being part of a tyrannical dynamic. . . .. This was my issue, I know. I don’t see that it particularly phased ANY of the court-related OR the nonprofit-related organizations I was dealing with in the past several years.
You know what I recommend? ASK US!! READ THE NEWSPAPERS !!! TALK TO LITIGANTS!
No, that’s too messy. Can’t be data-justified; no reports can really be sold from anecdotal evidence, and in short, we’d just rather not. Here’s a BETTER idea (and use of short-in-stock social services funding….):
A powerful and user-friendly evaluation tool to help programs answer these questions is the Family Development Matrix.
That’s the better idea — a BUSINESS NICHE. There you go. THAT will help families experiencing stress from repeated interferences with work and relationships coming out of these situations . . . .
In a unique partnership the Strategies and the Institute for Community Collaborative Studies at California State University Monterey Bay provide training and technical assistance to organizations interested in learning how to use the Family Development Matrix in their programs.
The Strategies web page lists all upcoming trainings, includes a virtual tour of a Family Resource Center, provides links to relevant resources, and hosts a library of sample policies and procedures.
Community Training
Strategies draws from the broad range of expertise of Interface’s staff and consultants to provide community trainings in the areas of family support, child abuse prevention, cultural competency, domestic violence, mentoring programs, mental health issues and non-profit management.Upon request, Strategies also provides meeting facilitation, strategic planning assistance, and individualized coaching services.
My idea of a “Family Resource Center,” before I was in the social science sphere of family court, was my FAMILY. And a little privacy within it too: Home, meals, schedules, activities, associates, children and their friends and their firend’s parents, work, school, transportation, shopping, playing, time outside when possible, facing challenges together. AND seeing their Dad regularly on the weekend (my particular idea didn’t include the stalking and trauma part, but without that, I think you could definitely call it a “resource center,” our home. It had musical instruments, books, food, clothes, bedding, pictures on the wall, play gear, usually some pets, and sunlight. It had sleep walk, jump, talk, eat, drink, inside and outside, plan, and play. It was VERY resourceful and inspiring to combine these activities in the best way for the most richly rewarding use of our limited RESOURCES to get education, work, relationships and growth to happen.
The only problem for too many people — we weren’t in a properly approved PROGRAM, on the government radar, or asking permission from Dad to breathe or not breathe, come or go, sleep or not sleep as the case may be. Now THAT was a resource issue.
My idea of a resourceful family lifestyle did NOT include being analyzed every moment from waking up to going back to sleep too late and worried about the next exterior “analysis” of what we were doing from a persons or institutions who didn’t care if we were threatened or not, prospering or not, and safe or not.
Well, if can’t beat’em, might just as well join ’em. Here are some of those trainings:
Sho ’nuff, here’s one for “Fatherhood.” We want us all to be on the same page about THAT doctrine now, eh?
“Announcing: Journal of Marriage and the Family Article Published August 1, 2009Press Release:
NEW STUDY MEASURES BENEFITS OF MORE INVOLVED FATHERS
Children face greater risk when agencies focus only on moms, overlook dadsFamily service agencies are missing huge opportunities to help children by focusing only on mothers and ignoring fathers, according to a groundbreaking study by some of the nation’s top family and child development researchers..”
We ARE??? Where’s “motherhood.gov” or “hhs.motherhood.gov” — ever looked?
OH YEAH, it’s GROUNDBREAKING AND NEW — As new as the 1995 letter from President Clinton, as new as the 1994 National Fatherhood Initiative, and many other “Social Research Demonstration Projects.” It’s as “new” as “fatherhood.gov” and “hhs.fatherhood.gov.” To promote schlock like this:
A growing body of research has concluded that fathers are important to their child’s development, and yet the vast majority of programs that serve families with young children, especially low-income families, tend to focus almost exclusively on mothers.
It’s “growing” because it pays to study this field! Get a logo, write something, set up a website, and start marketing — you got a federal grant coming your way SOON! Get on the bandwagon, there’s room for plenty-a-more!
(Basically the page exactly mirrors Obama’s “Families” page propaganda in every point).
Perhaps this is why the women above couldn’t get help from the Coalitions they sought help from??? Social Services funding — and this IS funded by social services –a re going to father propaganda, spread by basic internet marketing practices through government agencies and other community organizations. We’re in the internet age, after all…..
the logo has two adults, right — nurturing a (single) child:
HEY — in this photo (a trick question) – –
s
WHERE’S MOM? DID HE GIVE BIRTH TO THOSE BABIES?
“As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these to benefit us all!”
and . . . .
The Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) intervention is entering its 5th year of implementation. From its inception, SFI has been a collaborative effort in funding and implementation representing a strong private-public partnership. The project is funded primarily by the CA Department of Social Services (DSS), Office of Child Abuse Prevention (OCAP). Its partners have included the University of CA at Berkeley, Yale University, and Smith College School for Social Work. The state social services provided the impetus for SFI through its need and vision, funding, and administrative oversight. The college and universities have provided faculty leadership for design, implementation, and research.
The project has been implemented in a robust and supportive way {{OH!! That sounds so ‘masculine ‘ it sends shivers down my spine. WHERE IS HE??}}{{Unless they were talking about a coffee flavor — robust and supportive}}{{Oh, dang, it was just a “project.” But at least it was implemented robustly and supportively…}} by five able
{{oh mi God, able-bodied too? Where IS this?}}
{{Translation??: Spiffy websites with downloadable information, telephone numbers and a few trainers, and occasionally we’ll rent a hotel room, pull in some speakers (like us) and promote more fatherhood doctrine, and keep “mum” about the fact that domestic violence can suddenly turn lethal, batterers are NOT good role models, the cruelty of kidnapping to punish an ex-partner, the deaf ear the family courts turn when child sexual abuse is actually reported, and the fact that the custody evaluators (et al) are making a killing, financially, while the women adn children aren’t. And sometimes are killed, or Dad does himself in too. I bet these conferences don’t talk about THAT hard truth……??}}}
in Contra Costa, San Luis Obispo, Santa Cruz, Tulare (Lindsay), and Yuba counties.
{{Well perhaps this explains a few court cases I’m familiar with throughout the state….}}
Strategies, the technical Assistance arm of OCAP, is helping to disseminate the program to organizations throughout CA.
{{Why don’t they, instead, disseminate the laws against these crimes, and things such as the flow of a lawsuit in the criminal, vs. civil, vs. family court? Why don’t they disseminate how to financially plan to leave an inheritance to your grandchildren by starting businesses, running them, or investing? Why not try something like, with that MARRIAGE CERTIFICATE/LICENSE, a copy of the laws against DV? Why don’t they disseminate to faith institutions that, fatherhood dominance or no fatherhood dominance, they are still mandated reporters, and next time they WILL be reported on if they fail to follow through? And give them some helpful books on the topic. And mention that economic abuse and verbal abuse is STILl abuse . . . . . . Why don’t they disseminate some thing that would help in REALITY, not in THEORY?}}
Additional funding for dissemination and public policy initiatives, as well as cost-benefit evaluation, has come from the Stuart Foundation and a grant is under consideration at the CAL Endowment.
“Given the widespread significance of the indications of SFI program success in terms of father-engagement and family well-being for California’s families and the agencies that serve them,. . .
1. Don’t break your back patting yourself on the back. The message is clear: you wouldn’t be looking for MORE funding were not the program so widely signficantly indicating that it’s engaging fathers, which is, (FYI), our definition of “family well being” and our version of child abuse prevention (it is funded in part by that office of child abuse prevention still, right, or advertised on a site that is….)
2. Suppose they don’t WANT a particular Dad engaged, because he’s dangerous and abusing a child? Does that still qualify as ‘family”? Would you lose some funding? SUPPOSE, in a situation like that you went ahead and engaged the Dad anyhow (the ones that the “access visitation funding to the states — all millions of it” didn’t already haul further into their lives, including sometimes out from a jail cell, or unemployment intentional to punishing an ex by not paying child support), and the situation “went south.” Would you re-evaluate the SFI program success a little DIFFERENTLY?
SFI is actively disseminating the rationale and results of the study. {{We got it already, OK. It’s straight out of Whitehouse.gov/issues/families page — the one with the word “mother” barely in there, remember?}}
We are open to and seeking support for expanded public-private partnerships to publicize the compelling results of these evidence-based best practices to increase awareness of service providers, practitioners, and policy makers with the goal of
fostering substantive organizational change within public and private organizations to think of fathers as caretakers of California’s and the world’s children.
WOW, so much for custodial mothers. I guess we’re out the door then?
and Wow, that “target market” is not even just CALIFORNIA’s children, but the World’s. That even tops the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition’s” target audience of everyone — literally, married, or unmarried, parent or not — 15 years or older in the entire state. (Guess that includes me….) Not content, “Strategies for Families” is going for the world’s children.
And it’s only our broke state of California helping FUND the organization…..
Does anyone in these programs (or the brunt of them) actually READ this shlock? First of all, it appears as though the prime EVIDENCE is if a warm-bodied father (whether or not robust and supportive, let alone ABLE to fulfil his responsibilities — and did we talk about INTERESTED in doing so?).
Second, it appears that the noble esoteric business GOAL is to “foster substantive organizational change . . . (blah blah blah) TO THINK OF FATHERS AS CARETAKERS.
In short, to change the way organizations “think.”
First of all, this organizational change within public and private organizations has ALREADY taken place. TRUST me, I stood in front of a mediator three times, at least, in the past 10 years, and the “fatherhood thing,” well, he “got” it.
There are few places a single mother can hold her head up, when it comes to agencies. There are few policy making places I’ve seen in the past several years — I DID find one in Australia several posts ago — that accept the concept of a single mother living with her children and NOT in frequent contact with Dad as even acceptable, let alone legitimate. I live in a “blue” (Democrat / progressive for internationals) state, and the moment I went single, I had government folk down my pants almost, and saying, essentially, put back on a skirt and take orders from us, or we take your kids. This began with a certain male in my family (not himself a father, perhaps he had regrets in that matter and was looking for someone new to dominate, as his wife, well, they’d been married a long time and living together a few decades….I’m not sure how submissive she was either, in private life. OR, they needed a reason to live — which FYI, kids really make a difference in, folks. LIving for someone else in relationship with you. Women need this too, at times….)
Now this person had absolutely no legal standing, no jurisdiction (and no legitimate reason) to start bossing me around, or my kids. I wouldn’t have mind, except he was herding us back in a direction I’d already adequately explored, and knew where it went — back towards poverty and dumbed-down education, with more stress and less success. We are not exactly in the top performing public education system in the nation — in fact Arne Duncan came out here several months ago and started scolding California like it was a bad little boy. And I took my kids OUT after this man had forced us in, and in a covert, dishonest, and pressured way when I didn’t have a valid choice not to obey.
At THAT point (or very shortly thereafter), I went to my government structures to put down a righteous foot, legally. But all I can figure out is, they’d already seen my girls, and they were (by and large) pulling the API (grade point averages) up, plus if I could be made to actually need SOCIAL SERVICES again, then at least something could be gotten out of this domestic violence survivor actually making it almost to the shore of solvency and safety — WITHOUT THEIR GUIDANCE AND SUPPORT!
And this is where the anti-feminism thing, through the courts, really kicked in.
AND I am really off base here. I hope the post was informative. The next one contains the data I had in THIS one, til I saw this fatherhood shlock again, hiding in a federally supported program purporting to stop child abuse and reduce domestic violence. ACTUALLY it doesn’t claim anything of the sort, just has drop-down menus with those titles on them. However, the real “thrust” of the overall website and “family resource centers” is obviously leading one to “Support Fathers Involvement.” The other pages barely have sublinks and downloadable information — just a phone number for a batterer’s program, not a lot more. And a few flyers about some upcoming trainings.
(Ah well. . . .. )
“Supporting Father Involvement (SFI) is a family focused, evidenced-based intervention aimed at effectively engaging fathers as a key participant in family support and strengthening. It is also a method of fostering organizational development and growth for agencies and professionals serving at-risk families.
SUCH DOUBLE-TALK: INTERVENTION IN WHAT / / / in the way these organizations, often protecting children (and one way to protect children is to support the parent they’re with, emotionally or financially, i.e., that bond. When it comes to VIOLENCE< the bond with the NONbattering parent is the one that, if supported, will help and allow that child to heal. This is NOT, currently, public policy in the United States. But in case some “old-school” folk are still around, this workshop is here to “intervene.”
Notice the word “fostering,” a loaded word in the social science field. Good choice . . .. . ANd they’re talking about agencies and professionals as if they were living, animate beings, growing and developing (like kids, right?). While this has an element of truth in it, why isn’t the focus on the actually living animate beings IN those families? ANd their immediate safety and welfare, and then setting them free from program after program??
SFI offers multiple levels of participation in building effective strategies and methods to recruit, engage, and support the involvement of fathers in the lives of their families and the services provided, which includes access to web based materials, other resources, and networking. Agencies can assess their current Father Friendliness {{gag!!!}} and measure growth and improvement over time, using the SFI Organizational Self Assessment.
NOTE: there are so many millions $$ of funding going to from the Feds to the States ALREADY, which I have blogged about and which you can look up under 93.597 CFDA on the TAGGS database (going back to 1995), or if you want cool graphic summaries with lots of breakdowns and bar charts, you can get 2000-2009 on usaspending.gov under “grants.” These are the “Access visitation” grants ALREADY corrupting due process in the family law, so that results have required out come of more noncustodial “parent” (father) time by mandatory mediation, etc. MOREOVER, CFDA 93.086 {“Promoting Responsible Fatherhood. . “}has been up and running STRONG and FULL THROTTLE through the same department since about 1995, as I have blogged and you can search. Yet the materials always make it sound as if this was some radical NEW idea.
OR some grassroots, bottom UP movement, when it was nothing of the sort — not when a President, without legislation, issues a memo like that which revamps a federal agency.
DECEPTIVELY (very), “USASPENDING.GOV” does NOT have a searchable subcategory 93.086 along with all the others, but you CAN and WILL find plenty of funding by searching on other fields as to this. For example, one time I searched on “Noncustodial Fathers” and found millions of $$, and one of the 10 largest recipients across the entire country was, surprisingly, “Family Violence Prevention Center” in SF. The light bulb went off in my brain as to why the word “mother” was disappearing from this major nonprofit’s publications, agenda, and website.
For a noncustodial mother who’s had now almost 20 years of her prime work life, adult life, badly interrupted (you can call THAT an “intervention”) by domestic violence, first living with it, and then trying to leave it, after several years of which, setting proper limits and boundaries and doing what I would call incredibly heroic efforts to rebuild things AND send a clear message, AND when it was ignored, seek outside help for enforcement, AND when that really didn’t come through just about learning law, the courts, a whole field of study (domestic violence) and amazing number of related communities — WHILE also taking care of my kids, and trying to keep DAD off my front step, library steps, friends telephones, MY telephone, and other related areas — I cannot tell you how discouraging it is to see the direction of public policy and initiatives in these matters. It’s as though the entire structure just lost its mind and forgot the Constitution and what this country was ‘about,” which was independence from oppression and colonization.
GOVERNMENT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THIS COUNTRY TO PROTECT INDIVIDUAL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, AND NOT TO RESHAPE HUMANITY. ALL PRESIDENTS, SWORN IN, are SWORN TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THIS CONSTITUTION, AND FULFIL THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT (IN REVERSE ORDER). THE OFFICE OF PRESIDENT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO REPLACE THE CONSTITUTION OR THE LAWS OF THE COUNTRY, THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANTS SYSTEM, MANDATES, AND BASICALLY BRIBING THE OTHER BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT TO INVOLVE FATHERS AT ALL COSTS. OR FOR THAT MATTER TO HAVE AN EDUCATIONAL STRUCTURE THAT IS SUCH A FAILURE, WE’VE FORGOTTEN THESE THINGS.
Look at this: remembering that this “Strategies” is part of “interface California Family Services” and is state-funded. And our state’s BROKE, supposedly:
Strategies embraces an approach that acknowledges that no child, family, or organization stands alone
WHAT THE HECK DOES “EMBRACES AN APPROACH” HAVE TO DO WITH ANYTHING?
So much for the Declaration of Independence
Rather, they {{THE SUBJECT OF THE PRECEDING SENTENCE IS SINGULAR, NOT PLURAL}} must navigate complex systems in order to thrive.
Personally, I have tried to keep my life fairly simple and its processes too. But my thinking is a lot more complex than the tripe I’m reading on this website. Bureaucratese that simply loosens up $$ to get more professionals together to push propaganda that doesn’t, it appears, help them THINK better, and how can one operate better without thinking straight? It’d be better to haul out some classic literature and assign it. A man working with Viet Nam vets with severe PTSD did just that — he used the Odyssey! (apparently it helped too — last name “Shay.” You can look it up). I’m sure some personal relationships were involved in the process — not pdfs and websites and one-day or three-day trainings designed to infiltrate (sorry, “intervene” in how an organization operates….
Strategies’ initiatives provide an opportunity for organizations to participate in comprehensive, in-depth, evidence-based projects that address complex systems change. Each initiative involves multiple sites that work together over time to achieve common outcomes designed to strengthen children, families, and communities.
This Day Will Include:
- Introduction and Orientation to SFI (WHICH WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT BECAUSE . . . . . ?)
- Interactive Tutorial of SFI Web Based Resources
- A Discussion of Barriers and Bridges to Involving Fathers
(just tell them to go to family court, or head down ot the local child support office, where they will be recruited into a program).
- Resources Available Right Now To Strengthen Efforts to Serve Families
(guess you have to “be there” to understand. But of course serving families, well, that’s a great goal. I deduce it mostly means, putting Dad back in.
- A Luncheon Discussion Focusing on Next Steps of SFI Participation and Implementation
Basically, sounds like a cult. . . . . .
(OK, I get the picture — that’s enough. ALL THIS on just one little company, “InterfaceCalifornia Family Services”
We encourage you to integrate the resources of this site into your work with
families and your community.As a community of Supporting Father Involvement organizations we will be
relying on each other to submit and share our recipes for father friendliness
practice, resources, and networking. If you have ideas, please submit these
to benefit us all!
OK, I’ve had enough for now.
But what you see here is going to be in nearly every service organization, and branch of government. This will help explain that kind of “glazed look” you get in certain quarters when speaking of things like laws, rights, and enforcement.
No woman, or man (although men, if fathers, are being “recruited” remember? to be more “engaged” in their families. . . and getting help making this happen through the courts, help women do NOT get in retaining custody of their kids IF a local man wants them…..) could possibly go throughout the internet and figure out this was going on to such an extent.
the only reason I took time to was after running the gauntlet of expecting a court order — ANY court order — to be taken seriously in court — EVER, when it favored my rights, and not his whims.
forget it.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Other Cooks in the Court Kitchens — California
After reading some more today, and processing information I’ve had, I wish to post this link:
TITLE OF REPORT:
CALIFORNIA’S ACCESS TO VISITATION GRANT
PROGRAM FOR ENHANCING RESPONSIBILITY AND
OPPORTUNITY** FOR NONRESIDENTIAL PARENTS
2001-2003
WHO THIS REPORT WAS ADDRESSED TO:
THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE
WHO SUBMITTED THIS REPORT ON THE ABOVE TOPICS TO THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE:
(The) Judicial Council of California
Administrative Office of the Courts
Center for Families, Children & the Courts
This report has been prepared and submitted to the California Legislature
pursuant to Assembly Bill 673.
Copyright © 2003 by Judicial Council of California/Administrative Office of the
Courts. All rights reserved.
This report is also available on the California Courts Web site:
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/resources/grants/a2v.htm
I HAVE A QUESTION:
HOW COME DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
OR CHILD SUPPORT LITIGANTS ARE NOT DIRECTED TO THIS SITE
or INFORMED OF THIS PROGRAM
SO THEY KNOW WHY THEY ARE BEING
FORCED THROUGH MEDIATION PROCESS?
(FYI: “mandatory mediation” is the one of many way to achieve the grant-mandated “required outcomes”attached to this particular program funding. The “required outcome” is more hours, more time, more “accesss” going to the noncustodial parent. While “parent” is said, “father” is basically meant. Any legal process (with “due process”) that has a “required outcome” is by definition going to be, in some fashion, “rigged.”)
(It’s a rhetorical question.)
most of us are not checking up on the California Legislature while in an abusive relationship. . . . .
MANY of us cannot afford attorneys, and have come to this place through nonprofits. . . . . not police. . . .
Most of us are not rolling in extra time to do this research.
DURING THE YEARS IN QUESTION, I was dealing with transition from domestic violence.
It would’ve been helpful to know these processes and intents!
Brief Quote (I am running out of time to post today. . . . . )
Over the past five years, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has awarded
a total of $50 million in block grants to states to promote access and visitation programs
to increase noncustodial parents’ involvement in their children’s lives. The federal
allocation to each state is based on the number of single-parent households. California
has the largest number of single heads of households (1,127,062) in the United States.3
California receives the maximum amount of possible federal funds (approximately
$1 million per year), representing 10 percent of the national funding. Federal regulations
earmark grant funds for such activities as mediation (both voluntary and mandatory),
counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including
monitoring, supervision, and neutral drop-off and pickup), and development of guidelines
for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.4
Assembly Bill 673 expressed the Legislature’s intent that funding for the state of
California be further limited to the following three types of programs:
q Supervised visitation and exchange services;
q Education about protecting children during family disruption; and
q Group counseling services for parents and children
NOW, FRIENDS, FOES, AND VISITORS: HERE’S YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
READ THIS DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS LIKE IT (FROM OTHER YEARS, FROM YOUR STATES — I’M SURE THERE’S SOMETHING SIMILAR). “RESPONSIBLE CITIZENHOOD.”
And take a GOOD look at the “Fathers Rights” languages it’s laced with, and references to publications in footnotes on these matters.
This is social sciences through the courts. . . .
. . .
A recent study by Amato and Booth (1997), who
looked at several trends in family life and their effects on children, found divorce of all
factors considered, to have the most negative effect on the well-being of children.7
The trends of separation, divorce, and unmarried parents, have potentially adverse effects
on the financial, social, emotional, and academic well-being of America’s children.
Noncustodial parents, generally fathers, struggle to maintain healthy and meaningful
relationships with their children. A recent report by Arendell (1995) illustrates the
gradual disengagement of noncustodial parents. Contact with separated dads is often
minimal, with 30 percent of divorced fathers seeing their children less than once a year
and only 25 percent having weekly contact.8
Or, on page 6, Footnote 17:
K. Sylvester and K. Reich, Making Fathers Count, Assessing the Progress of Responsible Fatherhood
Efforts, (Social Action Network, 2002), p. 2.
In a nation where 23 million children do not live with their biological
fathers and 20 million live in single-parent homes (most of them lacking fathers)
AMONG REASONS, POSSIBLY, WHY, MIGHT BE”
(intake forms to screen and assess for safety risks; separate
orientations and interviews with parents; written child abduction procedures; policies to
respond to allegations or suspicions of abuse, intimidation, or inappropriate behavior;
copies of protective orders, protocols for declining unsafe or high-risk cases).
(POST TO BE CONTINUED)….
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout.” Maybe–MAYBE, Forget the Restraining Orders, Remember 2nd Amendment? Or, toss a coin…
Part II of II on “Responsible Citizenhood” is in labor.
The waters have broken, and there is a flood of information and synthesis of concepts gushing forth on many topics, and my brain is dialating. They will have to be posted in stages.
Translation: I am being a Responsible Citizen (see prior posts) and exploring who is my Congress, the Constitution, who is funding whom, and finding all kinds of juicy information on whose idea was it to reinstitute a national religion called Fatherhood, funded by all of us. I have also located a few new (to me at least) search tools How many thoughts have been provoked!
But, this (relatively) recent news alert reminded me, that Part of Responsible Citizenhood might entail learning how to handle a gun, and being willing to use it during a home invasion. Even a home invasion by an estranged husband:
Wife fought off Pa. man killed in shootout
by Michael Rubinkam
Let’s look at this headline again. This woman fought him off, and neither she, nor any of her offspring got killed. If you look up the articles and read the details, she made a mistake, which, if you read below and see how WIGGLY Pa considers the “PFAs” when it comes to what they mean, is almost understandable. But once the situation became clear, she took QUICK action to protect her children, get free, and call for help.
This is not, folks, how it often plays out. Who knows whether, God, fortune, or luck played a role, but we DO know this woman didn’t stop to debate, and she also didn’t panic and go dysfunctional. May I propose that this woman listening to her INSTINCTS and acting on them may have prevented a higher body count. LESSON ONE: Don’t jerk around with someone who has just crossed a boundary. Don’t second guess instinct. And (next time) don’t compromise one INCH on an existing protective or restraining order — it sends a mixed message, and could lead to this.
May I propose something else? I suggest that lawmakers and courts consider that women are people too, and smarten up to having us believe the fiction and play the slot games with any intimate partner who has been battering us in the home, or threatening to, etc. May I suggest that instead of — or in addition to — DISarming him, they somehow ARM her, and if she’s not trained how to do so, get her some professional responsible training. It could be mace, it could be pepper spray, but constitutionally, it could be a gun, too, at least in the home.
Given the options, she has hope, luck, prayer, and walking around the neighborhood with her instincts on alert, her antennae up, and then trying to also rebuild a life. “LIFE, LIBERTY, and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.” Now what was that first one again?
Detriment: May give a whole new picture of “motherhood” to “fatherhood” people who don’t believe women should be allowed to separate, do not have equal rights, and VAWA should go back to where it came from.
In this above statement, I omitted the comma between “fatherhood” people and who don’t believe. This is generous on my part, because I am conceding that there could be people all excited about and promoting fatherhood who DON’T believe these things. In fact, I don’t really believe this. I think that what the “fatherhood” movement is about is that the genetic / gender / biological composition of a family and household (one man, one woman, both married) is more important than the character or behavior of such families. I am not the only person who believes this. Some data is here (hover cursor for my comment. Note: This dates to 2002, almost 7 years ago. .http://www.canow.org/fam_report.pdf.
Now, when I married, I picked someone of the opposite gender, rather than someone of the same gender and, when it came to wanting children, either adoption or a sperm donor. This is probably because of how I like my sex, and the other versions didn’t concern me.
However, when I realized that my opposite-gender person’s main concern was my gender and household function ONLY, and not me as a person — and began physically punishing me for showing up as a person like him, and expecting to pursue some personal goals, not only the laundry/cleaning/nursing/f____ing role (in addition to supporting him in his business, and — if I wanted necessities — also working myself in and/or outside the home for pay) — I made a determination that behavior was the determinant, not gender, or a two-parent status. The MAIN reason I did this was because we had children, and it was a damn lousy role model they were being exposed to. The children were of my gender, and they were being taught how this one was somehow inferior and equipped with fewer rights, if any, and no boundaries or ability to say NO without taking retaliation for it. THAT’s a lousy role model, and he got himself evicted, not after several warnings.
I suppose you would like me to get to the story here, how THIS woman saved her life, her children’s life, but alas, not the pursuing policeman’s life, or her husband’s (although I lay that one as his responsibility — no one forced him to threaten his wife with a gun or kidnap his child, or place himself above a clear law he knew was in place upon him).
YATESVILLE, Pa. (AP) — Hobbled by a broken ankle, the estranged wife of a man killed in a shootout with Pennsylvania state troopers managed to fight him off as he threatened her with a gun before he kidnapped their 9-year-old son, the woman’s friend said.
The order of events is a little jumbled in the paragraph. The AP wanted it out fast, I guess, and so we get this:
- A. Her ankle was broken
- B. She was estranged from her husband
- C. He was killed by PA state troopers in a shootout (i.e., he was shooting back).
- D. 1. She fought him off 2. while he threatened her with a gun.
- E. He kidnapped their 9 year old son.
Having been through a FEW of the events above (not including the shootout), let me put it, I suspect, chrono.
- B. Cause of broken ankle — don’t know and probably not relevant.
- D.2 He threatened her with a gun
- D. 1 THIS MOM FOUGHT BACK.
- E. THEN (having been fought off), he grabs their son and dashes off (probably in a car).
- C. State troopers, apparently, caught up with him, and I’ll gol-dang bet he shot first. Predictably, they shot back.
- Thank God the state troopers had some firearms training, so HE got killed, not his wife and not the son he kidnapped, this time.
First of all, let’s deal with the grammar dishonesty (gender bias?) with B. “She was estranged from her husband” which has an element of the truth, and distorts the actual context. This is such common press practice in domestic violence homicide (or incident) reporting:
LEGALLY, it appears he’d acted first, and she had responded with a “protection from abuse” order. Unless the news disagrees with the judge that is THE most relevant factor in the case, apart from this incident. It most certainly is prime factual, legal and emotional dynamic CONTEXT of the incident. “She was estranged” could’ve been, she got tired of his dirty socks around home, she wanted to pursue another affair, or he did; he refused to work OR was an alcoholic, she was bored, he was using drugs or alcohol, or they had other “irreconciliable differences.” “She was estranged” already must minimized the truth. If a protective order was in place, and these reporters are not aware enough yet that this produces LOTS of hot news leads in the form of crime reporting, they need to review the job descriptions — or their editors do. (To tell the truth, I didn’t notice this the first time through the story myself, although I have always thought it an odd phrase).
B. THEY were estranged. or, better,
B. “In _____ (date) (or how recent), she obtained a PFA (say it: “protection from abuse“) order (in what court, or county), forcing him to leave the family home.
It is so typical of abusers, abuser enablers, and for that matter, the bulk of the family law system, to IGNORE THE ACTIONS and TALK ABOUT WHO “WAS” WHAT RATHER THAN WHO “DID” WHAT. IT”S PSYCHOLOGY NOT EVIDENCE. THIS IS NO ACCIDENT!
From the 2002 California Family Court Report (link above): (under “Loss of Due Process”)
A. Lack of procedural and evidentiary due process,since the Family Code was
separated from the Code of Civil Procedure and the Evidence Code in
1992.
Alas (and the emphasis of other articles on this event) — – Mad Dad was not in a compromise mood, and shot at responding officers. Terribly, he got a cop, too. Again — and these officers WERE brave, and they DID stop a kidnapping in process.
That’s about a recipe for suicide by cop. Whether or not he had thought THIS far ahead, one thing is clear: He’d pre-meditated far enough ahead to bring a gun and point it at his wife.
I experienced a decade of being exceedingly afraid of my husband in the home, being traumatized, and eventually being sure enough (because he talked about it often enough, fantasizing about this, and telling me, so, or otherwise bringing it up casually in conversation: “I’ll just have to kill you.” At this time, both our children were under 8 years old.) This has caused economic devastation upon me, my daughters, and people associated with both him, and us. It has wasted taxpayer funds year after year (in family law, where our case shouldn’t have been at the time) and taken almost 20 years of the prime working years of my life and trashed them repeatedly, under threats, stalkings, intimidations, sudden appearances at my home, and in general, one hell of a mess. He is still only working part-time, if that, doesn’t pay taxes (I don’t because I don’t earn enough), he is not financially independent yet and, because of this and unfortunately, neither am I. Our state is broke (supposedly) which is headline news, and is getting people very short-tempered in general.
I wonder, and I DO reflect — SUPPOSE I HAD FOUGHT BACK, AND NOT ONLY THAT, THREATENED BACK: IF YOU EVER DO THIS AGAIN, YOU’LL BE MISSING A BODY PART. OR DEAD! And then dropped everything until I had learned self defense.
Or, I had told been less committed to my marriage vows, and dumped his ass out on the street — in other words, brought it to a head earlier. WHY did I not do that? (a number of reasons: #1. VAWA and awareness of DV laws was not commonplace. #2. I’d never had a similar experience where I had to set a boundary with a violent man before, and wasn’t acquainted personally with such situations. #3. self-defense and handling a gun is not a typical part of the public school education, and not exactly promoted, as in, exercising 2nd Amendment rights, in general. We are not hunting our food, but buying it, for the most part (or growing it). I was not raised in urban areas, where awareness of guns and gun violence was commonplace, but in more rural; people shot deer, or sometimes squirrels, not people! I also wasn’t raised on TV.
School rewards taking orders and obeying rules, at least theoretically.
And that’s not “feminine” behavior.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
WHAT IF MEN UNDERSTOOD – – – REALLY UNDERSTOOD – – – THAT EVEN WITHIN A RELATIONSHIP, A SMACK WILL BE SMACKED, BACK, HARDER, BECAUSE IT’S SO OUT OF ORDER? WHAT IF WOMEN WEREN’T SO DESPERATE TO SURVIVE ECONOMICALLY, OR FOR SEXUAL ATTENTION, OR TO HAVE A MAN ON THE ARM, THAT NONE OF THEM COMPROMISED?
WOULD THERE STILL BE FAMILIES AS WE KNOW THEM NOW?
Maybe the fatherhood guys are “right.” Maybe (from that perspective) if men are not needed to provide for and protect women,and defend them from other suitors, stalkers, or rapists, or to help them, particularly when they are more vulnerable, pregnant and raising young kids, the differences between the sexes (as to functions in life) would so blur, that, well, the drive to achieve and provide would diminish, the wheels of the economy would crumble (and a lot of faith institutions also), and life just wouldn’t have that same glow, or afterglow.
Without the primal urge, there would be no skyscrapers (9/11?) or cathedrals, and no empires, multi-national or otherwise. Maybe. life just wouldn’t have that zest and drama. Newspapers would need to find other ways to sell the products, if there weren’t crises to report.
Well, that’s a larger topic. But it seems a natural question: If the nuclear family ain’t what protects, and provides for its young, the only alternative is for equality of income. NOW, Papa Obama and the majority of Head Start, Zero to Five, Administration for Families and Children, (sorry sir to pick on you, this wasn’t your idea to start with) might be out of work. ONLY if the ONLY way to produce income is a “job” that MUST be done outside the home, ONLY then is it essential to have the other functions of raising a family: care, daytime feeding, and education — to be done by someone else, institutionally.
However the people so vigorously promoting this solution ONLY (and highly suspicious of, say, the homeschooling option which is a lot more fluid, lets mothers network and find each other’s long suits, collaborate locally to find the best teachers (including some of each other, as well as hired professionals), and fire the lousy ones — now THAT’S a plus) and actually have a better understanding of who their children are, and possibly better relationships with them, not rigidly defined ones) — these people — and I coudl show you, or you could look for yourself — are THEMSELVES either inheriting wealth, or have sufficient assets to go fund ggovernment policy, publicize and drive various programs through and teach THEIR young how to own businesses and produce passive cash flow, themselves.
Then who would work in the businesses they own? There has to be a steady population — and the majority of the population — that does NOT know how to live independently from the government, or the “employee” situation — or life would, well, it just wouldn’t work right. Who would work the factories, produce the many, many terrific products we enjoy in this country, the material prosperity, the varities of fast foods (and agencies pronouncing that fast foods are bad for you), and all that?
(Along with the domestic violence kidnappings, suicides by cop, traumatized kids, and sometimes dead people, that go along with when this doesn’t work out so well…..).
Well, that dialogue is what I get for thinking. It’s Monday night quarterbacking, I guess, “what-if” scenarios. I cannot turn back the clock in my own case. The fact is, if I hadn’t been who I was, probably the genetic and particular DNA of my two wonderful daughters (who are probably not reading this, yet), and with whom I am NOT spending any more time, would not have been born. I have already determined (and she’s spoken with me recently) that woman number two was targeted for a certain gullibility and in a certain venue, for use to get the kids away from me. He’s out on the loose again, troubling me, because I’ve been contacted, and her, because of what that indicates.
HOWEVER, the rest of this post, below, shows how the local Women’s Resource Agency describes why women should keep coming, keep asking for “PFA” orders and keep playing the odds, because, it’s after all, only about ONE out of THREE cases that violates these orders, and “NOT ALL” do “WHAT HE DID.”
Well, in school, 66% is not a passing grade. Last I heard, 70% was. We are talking 66% success rate when the other 33% (add your decimal points later) might get killed and result in this. We’re not talking about graduating from high school, but living out a normal lifespan, and not in terror, trauma, or having to before a child is ten, witness a homicide. Or two. Or being kidnapped. About officers NOT having to make that sacrifice, and THEIR children lose a Daddy also. How is THAT “promoting responsible fatherhood.”
I think that the time of restraining orders may have passed, and that we probably need to focus on both attitudes, cultural values and self-defense techniques (including weapons if necessary) that make it ABSOLUTELY clear that any such violation of a personal boundary in the form of a HIT will be met with equal, and to make a point, slightly greater responding force to emphasize the unacceptability of it.
I think local communities will have to figure out processes, not “states” they wish to achieve. And this requires being realistic about restraining order and a valid understanding of what abuse IS.
I have one: ABUSE is violating personal boundaries (and, most time, state criminal laws) in order to establish a “giving orders” situation between what should be intimate partners. As such, it qualifies as “two-year-old” behavior and should result in the adult who has regressed to it, and thinks that 2009 is, in fact, closer to 1920 (when women finally got the vote) should be treated like the two-year-old mentality of, the world should conform to you when you don’t like it, without your submitting to some process of negotiation, compromise, or humility. I would like to add that, as I recall this, I always wondered why our daughters didn’t go through the famous “Terrible Twos” {is this an Americdan term only? I don’t know…} rebellious stages. I remember this at the time also. It could be that we weren’t dumping them off in daycare, where they needed more attention, oir it just possibly could’ve been that we had a much larger Terrible Two in the home, in the form of their father, and they knew this.
Only when it’s UNacceptable throughout society to beat women, and terrorize anyone, will this stop. The only acceptable reasons for doing anything like this in defense of life’s essentials — and these do not include maintaining a status quo in which the abuser’s world is perfect, and his ego cannot handle rejection, the need to apologize, or occasional value conflicts. The heart of any really good intimate relationship would do real well to closely resemble what’s written in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights, which most of us (and our legislators) have apparently forgotten.
I happen to be a Christian, and my faith tells me about when this will, and will not happen. I have had to often re-evaluate the duality (us/them) and domination (Christ came once and was humbled/crucified voluntarily, but will return in authority as king and by force put down all rebellion, bringing in world peace), and I assure you, in the many, MANY years I have been around and working (through music) in several faith institutions, the music is terrific, but within white (in particular, but not only) Protestantism, nondenominational especially, equality of women is “anathema” and these places are producing wife-beaters and wife-killers. They do not communally or prominently acknowledge the laws of the land in their hearts, and many (those who do not ordain women, or and hate even the concept of them in leadership, let alone of gays, or lesbians) , despite sometimes sheltering a battered woman, or helping her (i’ve been helped a few times recently), they will NOT stop sheltering the doctines and attitudes that produce more batterred women, and more overentitled men. this is behind the “fatherhood” movement, and it produces a form of social schizophrenia, in which we have a public school system where “God” is not allowed, or prayer, yet public policy where “faith-based” advice and policies are promoted. Well, which is it, folks?
That’s all the psycho- social-analysis for this post. What’s below (written earlier) relates more directly to this particular domestic violence double-homicide, kidnapping, assault, and tragedy which began with “she was estranged,” and a look at the neighborhood response.
What probably kept that woman and her children alive was her willingness to fight back. What put her at risk was compromising the existing restraining order (including drop off at curb), and (possibly) her not having the means or intent to, at ALL times since it was issued, NEVER compromise it AT ALL. ONE means might be for her husband to have understand that she understood her 2nd Amendment right to self-defense, and having it in the home, AND her willingness and intent to act on it, if even 3 yards of a restraining order was violated. This sends a clear message, and would put that man back in a place to reconsider whether he wants to test the limits, or can talk or plan, or manipulate his way out of obeying that order.
The courts need to do more to communicate this necessity to women who have just separated. They need to understand that NOW, it’s OK to take a personally aggressive stance and back it up with a willingness to act if boundaries are violated. That IS, after all, WHY the “United States of America” is no longer a British colony, or any other colony (so far), and we might do well to keep communicating this principle to our young, boy and girl alike. Not to belabor the point, but our schools absolutely do NOT, do this at this point, and I say, intentionally so. You can’t “manage” people so well who understand their self-worth.
However Susan Autenreith may have been raised, at the crucial time, she found something within herself to say No, and stand up to this. Having made a mistake, she didn’t condemn herself or try to talk out of the situation. Gun meant FIGHT BACK, YELL DIRECTIONS TO HE KIDS, & CALL FOR HELP.
How Logical Is This?
~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
About that MOM?
Let’s go chrono, OK?
Not all (female) readers have been through the process of, say,
(1) childbirth,
(2) being assaulted, threatened, intimidated, battered, and in short abused, or other situations which tell you “Danger! Danger!,”
(3) filing and getting a PFA (domestic violence restraining, or etc.) order with kickout, indicating “Danger! Danger!” to all and “STAY AWAY!” to Dad, (and, you can’t buy guns, either, or own them), and then
(4) IMMEDIATELY after these at least actions (applying for a temporary, filing with judge, getting it signed, serving the husband (which then in effect throws him out of the house in some manner), going to court for a hearing to have it made permanent, having it made “permanent” (i.e., facing the ex in that court hearing), and meanwhile attempting to explain this to one’s children in terms they can understand why he can’t live here anymore, then — with a restraining order in effect — typically the NEXT stop is the mediator who will then proceed to act as though there wasn’t really, any serious domestic violence (other than, meetings may be separate) and say, “OK, so long as it’s peaceful communications around the children” and then design some visitation plan any other divorcing couple might have, even the most amicable divorces. Which appears to have happened in this place.
In 1992, Jack Straton, Ph.D. (NOMAS: National Org. of Men Against Sexism) recommended a cooling off period.
So far, no one has figured this out, evidently.
(5) Agreeing, after this, to a custody/visitation exchange plan which basically has a split personality:
Hey, he was so dangerous, you had to get a judge to tell him to stay away, and order no weapons in the home, BUT . . . .. BUT . . . . . it’s OK to give this same, by now pretty distraught or indignant/upset man access to the fruit of his loins, regularly . . . . After all, what about a child’s right to bond with both parents?
This, I say, gives the man, the woman, and the children a mixed message. I have also learned (the hard way) since, the courts ALSO are getting contradictory messages (and funding) about these matters. IS domestic violence a crime, or not a crime?
And so we get cases like the Autenreiths, where Dad didn’t LIKE having that protective order in place, and made this clear with a 9mm. His girlfriend helped him get a gun. Again, his girlfriend.
WHICH BRINGS UP THIS POINT: Telling a man to not own weapons, and get rid of any he does own, doesn’t prevent him — in the least — from grabbing one from a friend who has one (or in this case, a girlfriend buying one for him. I believe this is called a straw purchase, and laws exist to address this, but still, it points out that generally there is a way around the law for those who intend to find one).
(How long were they separated? How hard is it for a man with a plan to get around a piece of paper?)
in order to STOP the cycle of abuse which, without intervention, generally does one thing — escalate, until someone is killed, or more than one,
WHAT ARE THE ODDS? HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THAT MAN? HOW WILL HE RESPOND TO THE PFA?
=======
HERE IS THE RESPONSE REGARDING “PFA’S” TO THIS PARTICULAR ASSAULT, BATTERY, CHILD-KIDNAPPING, THREATS, CAR CHASE AND DOUBLE-HOMICIDE. I HAVE EMPHASIZED ANY AREAS THAT SHOW UNCERTAINTY, LOOPHOLES FOR DANGER:
WOMEN’S RESOURCES OF MONROE COUNTY (PA): PFA’s WORK IN MOST CASES
By Andrew Scott
Pocono Record June 12, 2009
A protection-from-abuse order [“”PFA”] may be just a piece of paper unable to stop the likes of Daniel Autenrieth, the Northampton County man who threatened his wife at gunpoint, kidnapped their son and led police on a high-speed chase that ended in a fatal shootout in Tobyhanna.
{To review: PFA, then:
- DEAD PEOPLE — 2, OFFICER, MAN
- WOUNDED — 1, OFFICER
- VERY TRAUMATIZED — 9 YEAR OLD SON, MOM, OTHER KIDS}}
The fact remains that most people with PFAs filed against them comply with those court orders and don’t do what Autenrieth did. So although PFAs aren’t absolutely guaranteed to stop someone who’s unbalanced or really intent on doing harm, people who are being physically abused or feel threatened with physical harm in relationships still should apply for PFAs.
{{Perhaps they should also buy a Lotto ticket?}}
That was the message at a Thursday press conference at Women’s Resources of Monroe County in Delaware Water Gap. Women’s Resources is part of the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence, which provides a network of advocacy, legal, counseling, medical and other support services for domestic violence victims.
. . .
In Pennsylvania, PFA violators can face up to six months in county jail and fines of up to $1,000, depending on the severity of the violation, said Wendy Bentzoni, a detective with the Monroe County District Attorney’s Office.
If a woman requests a PFA against her husband and he consents to the order’s terms
- Being evicted from the home he/she shares with the plaintiff/victim and having no contact with that person.
- Being evicted, but being allowed to have contact.
- Being allowed to stay in the home as long as there is no physical abuse or threat of physical abuse.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
In Pennsylvania, a PFA can be in effect for any length of time up to three years, depending on what a judge rules or what the parties involved consent to in each individual case. If the defendant doesn’t violate the PFA, the order simply expires when its time is up.
Of the 450 PFAs granted in Monroe County last year, more than 125 were violated by defendants, Bentzoni said.
{{OK, Let’s look at that. Suppose it was 150. 150 violated out of 450 is 1 out of 3. That means for every 2 that WERE kept (as far as they know — by whether or not a violation was reported or not) 1 was not. How do you like them odds? Your PFA has a 33.33% of being violated (in which case, see above for potential risk/fallout).
In some cases, getting a PFA filed against an abuser can worsen the victim’s situation because the abuser sees it as the victim trying to take power away from the abuser{{WHICH IT IS INCIDENTALLY}}, she said. Desperate to retain that power over the victim, the abuser might become even more dangerous.
“Against someone with no fear of the law or jail, a PFA might not be the best action to take,” Kessler said. “In that case, we explore other options with the victim. The goal is to get the victim out of a vulnerable position.”
If the abuser is the sole breadwinner for the victim and their children, fear of losing the abuser’s financial support also might deter the victim from applying for a PFA, Kessler said.
Well, I know in my case it sure delayed getting one. Often economic abuse can precede physical.
Economic abuse can precedes and enables the physical AND IS PRE-MEDITATED. If the targeted person can’t afford to get away, or see how they could conceivably do so, they will take their chances staying, possibly. What a great choice — homelessness or increasing domestic abuse.
So, it seems to me if we want a less violent world, the most sensible thing would be focus on teaching children and young people how to become economically independent. In a wonderful contradiction of intent, we DON’T! The entire public schools system in the U.S.A., for the most part, consists of teaching children how to be submissive and take orders, leave the thinking up to the experts, who will grade them, and prepare them for this: College, and Jobs. Not, College and BUSINESSES. Or College, and understanding the economic principles that would help them become business owners, investors, cash-stream producers, foundation producers, and independent thinkers. How hypocritical.
And that includes independent thinking about how to survive financially should they choose to have children, or should they not choose to have children, but set up housekeeping (and sleeping) with a partner that might become sick, injured, or — face it – incarcerated. They should not have to go nurse off Dad, or Mom, or Big Brother the Welfare State, in this case. The goal should NOT be lifetime jobs, but lifetime progression towards financial independence. They cannot do this if they aren’t studying people who have accomplished this, and the basic principles of wealth.
We should also teach them not to let any partner or potential partner disarm them economically — whether it be job, or bank account, or credit, or access to transportation etc. That any such action is aggression, and dangerous to their welfare, creating an artificial co-dependence. They should know this going into relationships.
Now right there, we have a SERIOUS problems. Many world religions don’t accept this, and are not likely to.
Well, maybe they should, in the US, then lose their tax-exempt status. Believe me, I’ve thought of it. Because if they are contributing to the climate of “It’s OK to dominate a woman by any means (or weapon) that comes to hand, because it makes you more of a man,” then they should have to fork over the taxes that society might need to take care of the resulting mess.
And I’ll tell you another “secret” (not a real secret) — one I’ve been thinking about more recently. The majority of these institutions are in a co-dependent and domination relationship within their own ranks. If they didn’t dominate and under-educate them on their own sacred scripts (men and women alike), in the US, at least, many people would not be so dependent on spiritual, social, and emotional nourishment on the weekends and maybe ONE weekday. But that is another post, and probably, blog.
We ought to teach, besides, reading math writing, sport and the arts (to put it roughly) the PROCESSES and VALUES OF:
Self-sufficiency, Self-defense, and self-discipline, to the point of in-depth excellence and mastery in one primary area. With that I believe will come sufficient self-esteem not to enter into too many co-dependent relationships.
I recommend reading John Taylor Gatto’s short book called Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling, in which he says, plainly, that the seven lessons he, as a teacher (and at the time NY State Teacher of the Year” actually is teaching is not “relevance” and “interrelationship” of subjects, but the exact opposite. Specifically, in order from the chapter: “The Seven Lesson Schoolteacher,” they are:
- CONFUSION
- CLASS POSITION
- INDIFFERENCE
- EMOTIONAL DEPENDENCY
- INTELLECTUAL DEPENDENCY
- PROVISIONAL SELF-ESTEEM
- ONE CAN’T HIDE.
The next chapter is called the “psychopathic school” after which he details his efforts of getting a little girl who read beautifully out of a class of bad readers. The girl (reading aloud beautifully) tells him how the administration had explained to her mother that she was, in reality, a “bad reader who had fantasies of being a better reader than she was.” Then, the author relates how the principal tried the same thing on him: how was he, a substitute to know whether or not this child could read.
MY EXPERIENCE: This actually is at the heart of the educational AND the family law system of “experts.” My “sin” was homeschooling the children, and having fantasies (as do many single mothers leaving abuse) that we could make a sound decision on behalf of our sons and daughter, after we’d made just about the soundest one around — LEAVING the situation!
Consider this:
Our form of compulsory schooling was an invention of the State of Massachusetts around 1850. It was resisted — with guns — by about 80% of the Massachusetts population, the last outpost being Barnstable on Cape Cod not surrendering its children until the area was seized by militia and children marched to school under guard. (p. 25,
There is more, but as I review those 7 lessons above, I can’t help thinking about the uncommon similarities between abuse — even it’s definitions — and the family law system, as well as the concept of using another abusive system to handle abuse by one person towards another in the presence of children.
Is ALL conflict bad? No, conflict involving true self-defense, or boundary violations.
Is marriage, or an “intimate partner relationship,” a person as property contract? A relationship as property contract? I believe the law calls it a FIDUCIARY relationship. As such, no one has a right to commit what in other context would be a crime, to protect loss of contact with this former sexual partner, parent of one’s children, children, or the breakdown of a relationship.
WHEN IT GETS TO THE POINT OF PFAs and RESTRAINING ORDERS, the enforcement should be thorough, immediate, clear, and strong. The dialogue above illustrates why, in practice, it ain’t. SO the conflicts go on, and escalate.
I have taught lots of children (and adults) in lots of venues and classrooms, and non-class situations. There are always rules ,and in-progress negotiation about common standards, there is always a dynamic flexibility within the group, there is the matter of consensus and critical mass.
The superb choir that got me going into music was about 40 in number, and we stood in mixed quartets, holding our own parts, produced records, soloists, and in general moved mountains and kicked butt musically. It was powerful stuff. We rehearsed almost daily and worked to pay for some of our own needs (including uniforms, painting the room, and going to conferences). We associated after school (and sometimes before) and in other venues than school; we ate, played, and attended concerts together.
Since then, I have sung in (and sometimes directed) choirs numbering from approximately 12 up to over 100. The ideal size (and one of the best choirs I was in) was about 18, or very maximum 20, if they were professionals and unified. I have had a little choir of only 11 do amazing things, because it was small enough to be responsive.
I have always thought it odd that the top ensembles are generally smaller than a typical public school classroom, and many of them not much larger than a large family, with a cousin or two. It brings out the best when there is a unified goal that is reasonable (but still stretching limits) to the people involved. The best choirs also were VOLUNTARY, not compulsory. They chose challenging music (to keep the participants growing) but always taking into account that the audience might not feel so esoteric in general. They mixed and matched, but they HAD to set a fairly high standard technically and musically – or in portrayal.
How does this relate to the Wife who Fought Back?
The system they were ensared in was too large, and is ruling and prognosticating by “the odds.” MOST people (translation: men) do not violate the PFAs, after all, just over 125 out of 450 did in this particular area. Therefore, the women should keep on coming, because what else could they do? It MIGHT not result in this, after all, NOT ALL men do what Mr. Autenreith did.
And we have this growing crisis of “fatherlessness”? That’s a fatherless family, and it just made a peace officer’s kids fatherless, too. I wonder what kind of father the nine-year old will make, should he become one.
I think the doctrine is becoming a little self-defeating, if not downright dangerous. I mean, this is all about the children, right? It’s all because children in single-parent families are at risk.
Well, yeah, with some vigilantes running around the place . . . . . However, if she’d been armed and determined…
I think we (Responsible Citizens) need to take a serious look at the Seven-Lesson Schoolteacher and ask, is this what we are willing to be taught, as adults, by our elected officials? I mean, the same values ARE shared, it is the “Hidden Currriculum” overall, I’d say. And it’s downright un-American, including “parenting classes.” The government already had a shot at the majority of the children in this country, through the public school system. If it were my kids, and the teachers failed, I’d go find me a new teacher and system.
OH, I FORGOT TO MENTION — I DID. AND MY CHILDREN WERE STOLEN ON AN OVERNIGHT VISITATION (UNSUPERVISED) PRECISELY BECAUSE I DID. AND PUT BACK IN THE SYSTEM, BECAUSE THEIR MAMA HAD ALREADY FIGURED OUT THAT THE 7 LESSONS WERE BOGUS.
This is a system that brooks no competitors. It allows some, but scoops up any stragglers, and family law is a great place to find them, and weaken them for the snatch.
SHARE THIS POST on...
How bad Is it? ~ Skirting the Truth at Cairo, Telling it in America, Turned Down at Brown, Left to Tell after Rwanda
I was told to shorten my titles. This was the original:
In Cairo, Obama Delicately Skirts the Issue of Islamic Violence Towards Women, but Chesler (Honor Killings), LetsGetHonest (DV and Christianity), Ayaan Hirsi Ali (Infidel), Nonie Darwish (They Call Me Infidel), Immaculee Ilibagiza (Left to Tell, 91 days in a Rwandan bathroom) shoot from the hip on the dangers of ANY pride/shame/hate-based culture
Note: Of the above “notables” obviously President Obama’s OFFICE outranks the rest of us, but I’ve put 4 famous female voices (& mine) to 2 male to underscore, well, who and what the others have downplayed
[Have been told to shorten the posts, too, not just the titles. Working on it!]
This post, July 2 (2 days before “Independence Day” USA) had been on hold. Unlike several women featured here, I added my voice to theirs, telling it like it is, then self-censored out of fear: I felt MY contribution was too radical, too out-spoken, and too indignant.
Well . . . .
BUT, I have noticed the headlines since July 2nd — a litany of murder/suicides, family annihilations, and slaps on the wrist for men punching, stalking, kidnapping or threatening to kill women, after which they then kill. I had my children stolen for daring to report abuse, violations of court orders, and for refusing to “submit” to arbitrary orders on how to dumb down my smart daughters. I know what “shunning” is. I know what “enabling abuse” is.
I have never experienced fundamentalist Islamic violence against women, but the sense of the Christian version of it over here is starting to feel like a sort of ritual purging process. It is starting to ffeel like “No Exit” unless there is a miraculous parting of the Red Tape, a CLOUD covering my behind and a FIRE leading the way. We already tried the “appeal to reason” paradigm, or the “appeal to law” ONE, ALSO. We also did the “it’s not in your best interest” reason, but some people will pay a lot of money for the privilege of refusing to stop abusing. Like they say, truth is on the auction block, and was sold cheap, Lies fetched a higher price.
I pay attention, and have SEEN Protestant so-called Christian Caucasian men drilling young men how to dominate women twice their age in the name of their god, and been subjected to this as well. Recently. Yeech — Retch! What kind of “sanctuary” is that??
However, now that a suburban California back yard finally released ,29-year-old Jaycee Dugard and her 11 year old and 15 year old girls fathered by the man who kidnapped HER when she was only 11, I felt this post is quite appropriate:
This case is shocking for its combination of statistics (18 years! Missed opportunities! “We never knew!” “But they looked like a nice couple!” “I spoke with Jaycee on the phone, she was courteous and professional” (She was not only a sex slave, but also supported this man’s business while living in shack-like conditions in a back yard with her kids). A WOMAN called the police reporting that people were living in the back yard. Like my calls and reports to police that another man, their father, was going to kidnap MY daughters, her voice was not heard.
Are we willing to listen and change behavior YET? The behavior “we” need to change is to get smart and act on hunches. While people who take the scriptures too literally are castigated and censored, disdained in public media, how about some of us in the U.S. start taking the 3 charters of freedom: Declaration of Independence, Constitution, and Bill of Rights literally for a change? Starting by knowing their INtents based on their CONtents! And then recognizing that humanity is a DNA thing, not a color thing or a gender thing! And the usage of “all men are created equal” in the first was NOT “men vs. women” and did not say, although it was so practiced, “all Caucasian landowning males.” It meant ALL EQUAL and not to be colonized, or, like Miss Dugard (sr.) was, pimped.
I am United States citizen by birth, and was never beaten, or degraded because of my gender before I married. Nor was I forced into marriage. But women of faith or no faith nowadays who attempt to leave, risk being stripped of children, or killed, for the act of — leaving their marriage and asserting legal rights they already have.
While our current President has described the angst and sense of loss he felt not having his father in his life growing up, the rest of us describe some of what it’s like to be a target of violence and punishment for the crime of having been born without a Y chromosome, for some, a life sentence punishable by death.
President Obama, pre-election, helping out Senator Bayh in Indiana, with some more Mother-Omission:
2006 – EVER TRYING TO RAM THROUGH ANOTHER BILL, FINE-TUNING & REDEFINING FATHERHOOD AND HEALTHY MARRIAGE
As one of my fellow-bloggers commented in Indiana Mothers for Custodial Justice: Evan Bayh is not his Father’s Son,
Senator Evan Bayh’s (fatherhood-promoted) own father Senator BIRCH Bayh, was in favor of equal rights for women: so much for a chip off the old block, and passing down values from father to son, politically.
According to this post (Verifiable Here) both Senator Evan and then-Senator Obama co-sponsored YET ANOTHER “Healthy marriage and Responsible Fatherhood” bill, which was defeated in 2006.
Like this Senator, and another well-known FR attorney from the Chicago Area, both the Senators also remembered all the Hoopla around Father’s Day, Fatherhood, Father Celebration, and etc., etc. (can we say “patriarchal?”) in June PR (June is Father’s Day month, FYI), but forgot the same on Mother’s Day, in May. Actually, in 2009 and (I found) 2008, PR around now-President and then-Senator Obama eclipsed this acknowledgement of where they came from, literally (they had mothers, right?), as the word “Mother” has become, as I blogged elsewhere, virtually invisible linguistically in connection with “families” on the whitehouse.gov site. The preferred term, for those of you not in the know, is “Parent” when it comes to the divorce situation, and “Women” when it comes to who’s having violence (including murder) perpetrated against them by, often enough by the father of mutual children.
~ ~ ~ ~
It is difficult to control a population aware of their “unalienable rights,” not intimidated by verbal derogatory talk, or economically dependent upon abusers or captive to them by the threat of death as they leave. Now one factor that often gives a mother courage and motivation to LEAVE abuse is precisely her motherhood, so no wonder it would be threatening to any:
Fear/Shame/Pride-based culture or religion.
The mother/daughter/son bond, culturally needs to be degraded and broken (stepmothers will do) if we are to have a truly sheepish culture that will do what they are told without protest. Family Court venue is GREAT for this, and I happen to believe was designed for the purpose, despite all the hoopla from under-funded (??), under-recognized (????????) fathers, especially those who like to minimize their own violence towards their own women, often prompting separation, which even that bill (above) recognizes is a primary cause of separation!
@@@
The link “parsing Obama” caught my attention, and led to an article from “Real Clear Politics” on the Cairo Speech.
I have just written on “Women” vs. “Mother” and the weak (# occurrences) presence of both when it comes to Family Issues being discussed under the current US Administration’s “White House” page. Not only were the words barely absent, but their usage (which I didn’t analyze and post — but noticed) was also weak. In looking for the word “mothers” I would have to assume that after the age requiring home nurse visitations, we don’t exist. For example, the President’s own mother was transformed into the word “parent” in a sentence highlighting absence of a father. To people who haven’t been through systemic prejudice against their “mothering” it may not register, but when examined, it’s blatant PR omission. It undermines the credibility of the whole page. (granted, the month was the month of Father’s Day, however, if someone has a record of this page during May and wishes to countradict my post, please feel free to comment).
SIMILARLY, when it comes to speaking in this nation, Egypt, the mention of Islamic violence (not bias, but violence) toward women, the omission is just as loud.
So, I just slapped up the article, with someone else’s commentary on it, for your consumption. Then I searched out and pasted up interviews, articles or book reviews from several women who do NOT Delicately skirt the issue of violence towards women, and hate talk in general. Two of these women came to America, and one of them, since coming, has converted from Islam to Christianity.
A third woman from Rwanda didn’t convert, but was already Christian. Her story isn’t about gender violence, but it was another “can’t put down” book of survival in the face of hate, and refusal to hate back. The individual verbal abuse or hate talk that often DOES escalate to physical domestic violence got me (in marriage, after marriage) sensititve to moods and fluctuations in language that might indicate an “event” about to erupt also precedes genocides or attempted genocides. The speech sometimes works the speaker or groups of speakers up, or justifies the abuse. Whether the Holocaust or Rwanda, hate talk is a danger sign. Just as PTSD from domestic violence does indeed have similarities with PTSD from actual war.
So, this had me also noticing books and commentaries on the languages preceding genocides or attempted genocides; Rwanda had caught my attention earlier from the book on which the movie “Hotel Rwanda” was based. This book details times when pastors protected, and times when pastors betrayed, those that were being hunted down. So I include the “Left To Tell” book because it seems relevant.
And I added my two bits. And a few links indicating that this fatherhood stuff is turning to vigilante behavior, unfortunately. And pointed out, again, what our Declaration of Independence was about….
On my blogroll to the right, is a little Youtube showing just how low my President bowed, casually, quickly, to the leader of a Muslim country, in the company of Queen Elizabeth and a G20 meeting. This disturbs me, and was of some serious debate in a blogtalkradio dialogue (as I recall the source, anyhow) moderated by Dr. Phyllis Chesler and Marcia Pappas of NYS NOW. Is he the leader of the free world, or at least part of it? Then what’s that obeisance about? Would he kneel to the Pope to be politically correct, kiss the ring and insult all those boys and girls abused by priests, and the concept upon which this nation was founded, Bill of Rights Number I?
I myself am VERY disturbed at how domestic violence killings are starting to take on a vigilante nature, as if in retaliation to a woman leaving a family, or exposing a sin, how DARE she? As a mature woman and mother who has been dumped by the roadside by a combination of my own family and my ex-batterer, apparently for — again, exposing family something or other — I am thinking about:
- How
- Why
- Who ARE these people?
- What IS this world?
How many OTHER myths have I believed about life, my country, my family, the legal system, etc.? I will tell you one I have let go of: “The American Dream.” I have switched this my dream from anything material, and am changing it to a character issue, a personal one with myself.
I am calling upon the combination of my God (NOT the one that is a respecter of persons, or genders, or legalistically profiling and whimsical in judgment, that I have seen in certain places), and my courage, and putting my intellect a good bit lower, respectively, than it used to be. Plus, from within, my emotions of concern and compassion for others, and whatever picture I can imagine. Indignation about injustice only goes so far, and as the injustice basically never stops, another motivation must be found.
I think part of the trouble around here is that people pretend to be neutral and detached (a high value) when they aren’t anything of the sort. They can incite to violence, ride roughshod over families, due process, and civil rights, as easily as any other nation or culture, but claim this is based on “evidence-based practices.” In one place on this post, I included a Rwandan woman — the issue was not on men versus women, but the same principles: hate talk towards a certain group of people (Tutsis) and how quickly it ignited.
We have become an incredibly morally bankrupt place (as well as fiscally — and they are related), while drowning in certain materials and products. However, the solution to this is not to be found in the institutions, but rather in the people who are aware that these institutions are not going to replace human basic functions of: produce, protect, educate, alleviate, CREate (when it comes to arts, ideas, concepts, etc.), that which we have procreated. If you’re new to this blog, you’ll notice that when I have a strong emotional reaction to a certain thing (or idea), I pile on labels, like sauce on a hamburger, or whipped cream on a milkshake, or, . . . . or. . . .
I was referring to the churches, some of which I left voluntarily, and one of which I got thrown out of last month for being female, having understanding of a Biblical passage, and speaking up (even with permission). How dare I think I knew something!
See:
“Family Values” Pundits not so upstanding themselves.
This is a new site to me: REAL CLEAR POLITICS. This dates to June 2009
I simply posted the whole article. Any italics are my emphasis, some (not all) of the other style changes are mine, too:
Did Obama Say Enough About Women’s Rights?
Posted by Cathy Young | Email This | Permalink | Email Author
As I said in my previous post, I had a largely positive reaction to Obama’s Cairo speech. However, I agree with David Frum’s criticsm of Obama’s comments about women’s rights — which should have been a key part of an “outreach to Muslims” speech. In contrast to Obama’s strong affirmation of the principles of democracy, his discussion of women’s issues and Islam was too general, too weak, and afflicted with excessive even-handedness.
{{with which “even handedness, as I have beLABORED in previous posts, the Whitehouse.gov agenda on families is not even remotely afflicted. It flat out ignores the fact, practically, that mothers exist. Period.}}
Here is the passage in its entirety: (OBAMA):
“The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights
“I know there is debate about this issue. {{“debate”?!?}} I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.
Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam.
{{EXCUUUUUSE me? Is this or is this not a dodge, or an understatement? Was there a political or safety reason for this understatement at this particular conference?
http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/211/are-honor-killings-simply-domestic-violence
I have posted an excerpt below. And photos. OK, now you may continue reading President Obama’s speech…}}}}
“In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.
Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.”
Frum takes issue, in particular, with Obama’s remarks about the head-covering issue: he points out that not only “some in the West,” but many women in the Muslim world regard the hijab as a symbol of female submission (not to God but to man), and that many women who “choose” to cover themselves (sometimes not only their hair but their face) do so because of coercion and intimidation either by family members or by radical Islamic militias. I do believe Obama was right to affirm a woman’s right to choose hijab; quite a few Muslim feminists regard it as a legitimate and positive form of religious expression, no different from the Jewish yarmulke, and quite a few moderately traditional Muslims are alienated by the categorical rejection of the hijab as oppressive. However, it would have been fitting to balance his statement with an assertion of a woman’s right to choose not to cover their hair — a right that, in some countries, they are denied not only by informal pressure and harassment, but by law and official policy.
As for the rest of this passage, it was nice of Obama to assert the importance of educational opportunities for girls and women, but that’s about as uncontroversial as it gets: who, except for the Taliban, disagrees? In all too many Muslim countries, the main problems facing women are far more severe: forced marriage, vastly unequal treatment when it comes to divorce and child custody, and socially sanctioned violence. How can one talk about women’s rights in the Muslim world and not mention honor killings? Or the horrific recent public flogging by a Taliban militia in Pakistan of a 17-year-old girl whose apparent offense was to have stepped outside her house without a male relative escorting her? Or cases in which Islamic courts have sentenced rape victims to death for fornication or adultery when the rape could not be proved under a stringent standard requiring two male witnesses? (While we’re at it, how about the fact that in Islamic courts, the word of a female witness is officially given half the weight of a man’s?) What about female genital mutilation? Against the backdrop of these genuine horrors, literacy programs and micro-financing for young women’s employment look like a rather feeble response. How about first ensuring that the girl who participates in a literacy program doesn’t get brutalized for showing a strand of hair in public?
In this context, Obama’s comment that “the struggle for women’s equality” is also a problem in America is also, to say the least, unhelpful. Yes, there are still gender disparities in the U.S., though I think many of them are due to, as Obama put it, women not making the same choices as men. But to mention what sexism still remains in American society in the same breath as the violent misogyny and patriarchal oppression still pervasive in much of the Muslim world today is a truly misguided attempts at even-handedness. It’s a bit like saying that of course it’s a bad thing that of course it’s a bad thing that Joe locks his wife in the closet, beats her senseless, forbids her to talk to any other man and monitors every penny she spends, but hey, Bill spends only half the time his wife does on housework and child care and treats his own career as more important than his wife’s, so if he voices disapproval of Joe he’d better mention his own failings too.
Yes, of course it’s not only in Muslim countries that women face severe oppression. (The issue of women being elected to lead in deeply patriarchal cultures is a separate, and fascinating, one, but I don’t think it’s a good measure of the overall status of women in society.) And I know there is a vigorous debate about whether Islam is inherently more female-unfriendly than other major religions and whether an Islamic feminsm is possible. Nonetheless, the fact remains that in recent decades we have seen a rollback of women’s rights in many societies — sometimes a drastic rollback — due to the influence of Islamic extremism. Obama’s failure to mention this fact was extremely disappointing. Talk about a missed opportunity. In my previous post, I said that Obama’s comments on women’s rights deserved no more than a B-. Analyzing them now, I’m lowering the grade to a gentleman’s C.
I give it an “F.” See below:
PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE: I PASTE ENOUGH TO ENCOURAGE YOU TO GET OVER THERE AND READ IT!
Dr. Phyllis Chesler:
Are Honor Killings Simply Domestic Violence? (title is URL)
by Phyllis Chesler
Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2009
Families that kill for honor will threaten girls and women if they refuse to cover their hair, their faces, or their bodies or act as their family’s domestic servant; wear makeup or Western clothing; choose friends from another religion; date; seek to obtain an advanced education; refuse an arranged marriage; seek a divorce from a violent husband; marry against their parents’ wishes; or behave in ways that are considered too independent, which might mean anything from driving a car to spending time or living away from home or family. Fundamentalists of many religions may expect their women to meet some but not all of these expectations. But when women refuse to do so, Jews, Christians, and Buddhists are far more likely to shun rather than murder them. Muslims, however, do kill for honor, as do, to a lesser extent, Hindus and Sikhs.
{{Everything underlined here, was an issue in my Western, non-Muslim marriage. I snuck education. I was stalked, through my own family and individually for leaving to the point that I have had major fear to finalize this divorce, and have not; I experienced retaliation consistently of engaging in activities outside the home, specifically anything that related to my former profession. This retaliation could come in the form of interfering with me getting out the door, or sabotage — allowing me to start, but making it hard to complete, a simple season’s engagement; complaining about or withholding funding for something as elementary as a simple black skirt and shirt to perform in; display of weapons immediately after returning from a rehearsal, leaving the car with insufficient gas to get back from one, and other night-mare-inducing behavior. This extended also to times my daughters were engaged in music as well; UNBELIEVABLE. I have watched my piano be physically attacked, buried under virtual trash, and then I was mocked for not practicing it enough, which I barely could find time to do in a day. I left home once, with an infant, in another state, for a week. I was given extra tasks to complete before leaving, and I came back to a house that was dangerously trashed –NO dishes had been done, broken glass on the floor (and we had a baby), and a special plant/bush I’d given him had not been watered, and was dead. Food in pots was moldy; I was stunned. In subsequent (to marriage) public times, in court, he repeatedly talked about the condition of the house, as if I didn’t also work, or was solely responsible. I had an unbelievable time getting access to a car, which was resented.
Finally, when I was able to leave the family home for two weeks, for a music camp, with daughters, when I returned, I’d been thrown out of the bedroom, a lock installed, and in short, this was when I determined to leave. These TYPES of activities continued, to this day, post-separation. Every decision I made that entailed putting daughters in a music class, or lessons, was permitted reluctantly, but eventually stopped. Then public declarations were made that I was isolating and depriving them. I attended a VERY liberal Midwestern college, and as a young person, was not restricted or berated for anything regarding my gender. The place I met this man was not illiberal — it ordained women, we preached in teams, and sometimes lived together.
During this marriage, I began to doubt that I was indeed in America. I had never heard of any experience like this, or known anyone who had experienced a situation like this violence, and abuse. Speaking of it to the variety of people I did, indeed, come in front of year after year, few of them had words to describe this thing that was happening to me. To this day, my “liberal” relatives will not use the word “domestic violence” or “abuse” in front of me, practically, and appear to be furious that I have actually spoken in these terms and insisted that this is indeed what happened. The denial has taken it beyond the legal terms — there has been, within my family — a literal denial that any of the laws to protect people from domestic violence exist, apply, or have anything to do with our case, or my many difficulties. Experientially, it needs a name. Now, gradually, through blogging, networking, reading, talking — and I have not been through ANYthing like the women below here — I have come to understand that this is a serious moral / emotional / social crisis our country is in. There are powerful political factors that HAVE to say the words “domestic violence” with their mouths, because the cat is out of the bag, and the horse is out of the barn. BUT, they are diluting, reframing, derailing the conversation and attempting, in many and disturbing ways, to turn back the clock on this matter of women saying NO! You can NOT do this! and saying it through the courts.
Every woman has to determine how she is going to respond to this shunning, when women in our world survive, and are emotionally supported primarily through their connections with others. that is the value that is respected (often) with American women. We are in our communities, we have children OR, we have careers, or juggle both. For women of my age (middle, OK?) to have both lost children AND career, and contact with their family, but not be a radical feminist, is indeed interesting. We can come into the church perhaps as ministers, acolytes (so to speak), or servants supporting its infrastructure. I, for one, no longer care to support the infrastructure of anything so dysfunctional. I consider myself to be courageous and independent (in certain ways), but there comes a burnout level. I have PTSD, and when exposed to more “women, get thee behind me, Satan” talk in certain denominations (many of them), I simply have to speak up, then leave. I will not hang out there. At least I have a few options.
To survive abuse, sometimes, one has to become two people: a public one and a private one. This includes sometimes with one’s spouse. At some level, my soul was not going to show itself any more, for another verbal beating for mere existence. Instead, I took the verbal tirades for being, supposedly, apathetic, wimpy, not caring and passive. Well, being anything else got me physically assaulted, or some other form of escalation, sometimes involving property destruction, or attack on pets. Children were in the home. I just couldn’t keep that up, and guess what: No one was backing me up. No one was confronting this man, really. At the end of the day, I had to come home to sleep. He began accumulating guns, and large knives. I don’t use these, or know how to, and it wasn’t too long (although more than a year) after this that I realized — we had to separate. I cannot tell you the level of shame and embarrassment I had, with or without children, having to hide my mail, ask strangers for rides, or a few $$ to put in the ggas tank (if I had a car). One night, I got stranded late at night in a downtown urban area after my night job. I took a ride with what might have been a drug dealer to get to a gas station. My ex came and got me, but with the news that someone had run over the cat that day, my favorite one (I always found this suspicious timing). The concern for my personal safety was at zero level. I kept journals. My journals were targeted, and I had to remove them from the home for safekeeping. He went after, and befriended the people keeping them, I got them back.
NOW: Now, I cannot live that dual personality way, and will not. When I go into a church and am expected to adopt a certain demeanor — I won’t. It’s like violence to the soul. I am one person: I will tell someone (in my family) if I am upset with them, and why.
The Court System:
The Family Court system in this country has become a charade. It rewards short-term performance in front of evaluators, mediators, judges, and other people. No one really looks behind the scenes — there is no interest, time or resources to fully check facts. For the most part. This system rewards the batterer “snake” personality: Charming, manipulative, dissembling. Or, alternately, wounded and looking helpless. I have seen a (female) judge leap to aid my ex, to the extent of testifying for him, as if he could not speak. I have watched him interrupt an attorney and derail the direct question, and get away with this. When I go to court, I am primarily PTSD, although I try pretty hard. All such a person needs to do is get through the next appearance with some person in authority, get their way, and afterwards, do whatever they want.
There are too many similarities between the hypocrisies and coverups of fundamentalist religion, and what I see in these courts. It is going to take women, feminist women, to address it. The other factor is, in this court, children are involved. We are not always 100% on board with the radical feminist regimes. I cannot tell you how many women in my situation, leaving batterers, losing their kids to stand by helplessly as their kids are showing symptoms of abuse, including child sexual abuse, are themselves religious. Many of them, their husbands or partners specifically targeted them in these circles — because the environment is male-domination-friendly.
When I say in my posts, that churches are NOT havens for women leaving violence, or necessarily shelters for them, I am absolutely in earnest. i hope, in my way, to be able to speak to this and do something about the shameful failure to support — or even SPEAK about — the laws against violence towards women, and children — in these venues. They are in their own ether, with their own agenda, and their own intents. I do not believe this is the genuine religion of, in my case, the man Jesus Christ as I read about him in scripture. I read nothing about his abusive or dismissive treatment of women; in fact it is the opposite. I think what we have now is a charade of that. For the most part. I don’t think most people have the guts to do what he did, but some do.
(WOW — where did THAT come from? Well, I’ll post. I may erase some of it another day…..)
Amina Said (L), 18, and her sister Sarah, 17, were shot dead by their father Yaser at their home in Irving, Texas, in January 2008. Said was upset by his daughters’ “Western ways” and was assisted in the killing by his wife, the girls’ mother. The victims of honor killings are largely teenage daughters or young women. Unlike ordinary domestic violence, honor killings often involve multiple family members as perpetrators.
Let’s Get Honest comments:
In “ordinary domestic violence” family members could be either hostages, victims, OR enablers. The truth is, it takes enablers for a PATTERN of domestic violence to thrive and grow. There is denial, there is incompetence, there is scapegoating, there is helpless ignorance in what to do. Many people in my culture have very strong emotions, but in certain classes and circles, this is not “socially acceptable.” So they suppress them behind circuitous speech, evasive answers, or simply no answers. When I got, out, I had some strong emotions (anger) as I began to stop hating myself (which was safer) and be angry. My anger was noticed – his violence, and the danger this represented — was not. I only recently simply decided to forgive, and do this entirely detached from any reason to, other than a decision, and a desire to be free from anger, and reactionary mode, which is typically either anger, or depression, when the insults, aggressions, etc. continue. That’s how I am choosing to handle it at this point.
I am posting quite a bit here about Islamic violence towards women. However, I am doing so with an understanding that forms of Protestantism (mainstream and nonmainstream) Christianity can still kill, destroy, and maim — physically and emotionally. I am here to warn out country not to ignore this hate talk from governmental circles towards women. In the lingo of domestic violence, denying it is a form of it (a.k.a. crazymaking). Below, is a passage from “Infidel” about “baari.” If I am able, I will find the passage from a Focus on the Family publication that sounds uncomfortably similar. And I will say, the “shunning” and patronizing (social, psychological) takes a different form, but still exists, when a Christian woman throws out an abusive husband and then shows up in church unapologetic.
And expecting to be treated with respect. Or worse, looking for an opportunity to actually speak or teach the Bible (this was why I got thrown out of the last place, and I was entirely too submissive in that as well). I finally came to the conclusion that it was safer outside those buildings.
Another alarming trend, vigilante-style behavior — AND TALK — around the issues of the family courts. Continuing on the topic of Honor Killings, which was “skirted” nicely in the Cairo speech, above….
The United Nations Population Fund estimates that 5,000 women are killed each year for dishonoring their families. This may be an underestimate. Aamir Latif, a correspondent for the Islamist website Islam Online who writes frequently on the issue, reported that in 2007 in the Punjab province of Pakistan alone, there were 1,261 honor murders. The Aurat Foundation, a Pakistani nongovernmental organization focusing on women’s empowerment, found that the rate of honor killings was on track to be in the hundreds in 2008.
There are very few studies of honor killing, however, as the motivation for such killings is cleansing alleged dishonor and the families do not wish to bring further attention to their shame, so do not cooperate with researchers. Often, they deny honor crimes completely and say the victim simply went missing or committed suicide. Nevertheless, honor crimes are increasingly visible in the media. Police, politicians, and feminist activists in Europe and in some Muslim countries are beginning to treat them as a serious social problem…
(SO WHY ISN”T OUR PRESIDENT?)
PLEASE ALSO, READ THESE TWO BOOKS. OK, THREE. I DID. I COULDN’T PUT THEM DOWN, IN FACT. AND I FELT I WAS READING ABOUT MY OWN FAMILY. I LIVE IN THE WEST. I LIVE IN THE USA. I DIDN’T EXPERIENCE, PHYSICALLY, AT ALL THE SAME AS THESE WOMEN. WHY DID IT FEEL FAMILIAR?
I FEEL AS THOUGH OUR FAMILY HAS BECOME LIKE A POLYGAMOUS CULT, AND WE ARE A SMALL, NUCLEAR, PROFESSIONALLY INVOLVED FAMILY, ABOUT 3RD GENERATION IN THE COUNTRY. NO ONE HAS BEEN JAILED. WHY DID THE BEHAVIOR SOUND SO FAMILIAR, AND WHAT’S GOING ON? I BELIEVE THAT IT IS THE EMOTIONAL, SPIRITUAL CONTENT OF THE BEHAVIOR WHICH IS THE SAME, FROM CULTURE TO CULTURE, EXPRESSED DIFFERENTLY. HATE IS STILL HATE.
This book, and woman, are so well-known, I don’t think there is too much to be added. However, if not, READ.
WIKIPEDIA: (evidently not fully current)
Ayaan Hirsi Ali (
pronunciation (help·info); Somali: Ayaan Xirsi Cali; born Ayaan Hirsi Magan 13 November 1969 in Somalia)[1]is a Dutch feminist, writer, and politician. She is the estranged daughter of the Somali scholar, politician, and revolutionary opposition leader Hirsi Magan Isse. She is a prominent critic of Islam, and her screenplay for Theo Van Gogh‘s movieSubmission led to death threats. Since van Gogh’s assassination by a Muslim extremist in 2004, she has lived in seclusion under the protection of Dutch authorities.
When she was eight, her family left Somalia for Saudi Arabia, then Ethiopia, and eventually settled in Kenya. She sought and obtained political asylum in the Netherlands in 1992, under circumstances that later became the center of a political controversy. In 2003 she was elected a member of the House of Representatives (the lower house of the Dutch parliament), representing the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD). A political crisis surrounding the potential stripping of her Dutch citizenship led to her resignation from the parliament, and led indirectly to the fall of the second Balkenende cabinet.
She is currently a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, working from an unknown location in the Netherlands.[2][3] In 2005, she was named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world.[4] She has also received several awards for her work, including Norway’s Human Rights Service’s Bellwether of the Year Award, the Danish Freedom Prize, the Swedish Democracy Prize, and the Moral Courage Award for commitment to conflict resolution, ethics, and world citizenship.[5]
HERE IS A LINK TO A 2007 Interview (NY Mag Review of Books). “The Infidel Speaks,” by Boris Kachka, Feb. 4, 2007
SHE SAYS SOME EXTRAORDINARILY RELEVANT THINGS.
I THINK IT EXTRAORDINARLY REMARKABLE THAT MY PRESIDENT DIDN’T MENTION MUCH ABOUT THE TREATMENT OF WOMEN, OR ANY OF THESE EXTRAORDINARY ONES, WHEN VISITING A MUSLIM COUNTRY. NOTE (AS TO “CAIRO SPEECH”), NONIE DARWISH, BELOW, FLED EGYPT FOR THE USA, AND CONVERTED TO CHRISTIANITY. HER YOUTUBE AND A PARTIAL INTERVIEW IS BELOW (SO LABELED: THIS IS THE SOMALIAN SWEDISH AMERICAN WOMAN HERE:
To her admirers, Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a maverick, bravely defying the Netherlands’ political correctness to address Europe’s growing cultural rifts. To detractors, she’s a charismatic bomb-thrower with as little regard for her adopted nation’s safety as for her own. Both sides would have to admit that the former Somali-Dutch politician is a master of self-reinvention. After a rough childhood (circumcision, daily beatings) in Kenya, Ethiopia, and Saudi Arabia, she escaped to Holland from a forced marriage, eventually joined the Dutch Parliament as a Muslim criticizing her own culture, and made a provocative film with Theo van Gogh that got him killed and sent her into hiding.
This is why I think that, just perhaps, President Obama might have been a little remiss to simply not address this issue in a Muslim nation. Nonie Darwish’s father was killed in jihad, and she left Egypt for the US. Now here is an American leader back in Egypt, speaking on this topic, and nothing substantial?
When a rival threatened to revoke her citizenship, the resulting furor toppled the governing coalition. But Ali just moved on, resigning and moving to Washington, D.C., where she now works for the American Enterprise Institute. It’s all retold in her eloquent new memoir, Infidel. Stopping by Soho House recently, she spoke with New York about life and politics in her latest adopted land.
You’ve been here for six months. How do you like the U.S.?
That is the question they all ask! I love it. The most comforting thing is the anonymity. I’m not allowed to talk about security—to tell you who in this room is security and who is not—but the pressure cooker of Holland is over. I am now just one individual in the melting pot.
You’re at a conservative think tank—perhaps an odd place for a harsh critic of religion in political life.
I consider myself nonpartisan, but I’m a liberal—not in the American sense, because Americans seem to refer to communists as liberals. What we see in Europe, because of the welfare state, is government pretending to provide all sorts of services they shouldn’t be providing.
Let’s Get Honest comment: My point EXACTLY, in many of these posts!
But what do you make of Christian conservatives in your ranks?
No one in the American Enterprise imposes their beliefs. We clash, and I think that’s what the West is all about.
But you’re with them on the whole “clash of civilizations” thing?
When I was in Holland, the idea was, all cultures are equal and all are to be preserved. My idea was, no, all humans are equal but not all cultures are equal. In the culture of my parents, we never seemed to be able to succeed in such basic issues as getting food, interacting and living in peace with each other, or adapting to our environment, and the West, they’ve succeeded in all those. I’d been taught Western culture’s only bad. Maybe that’s good for your self-esteem, but it wasn’t taking us anywhere.
This woman comes from WHERE? And she understands the Declaration of Independence (principles) better than we do? It’s not the CULTURE, it’s the HUMANS:
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENTS. NOT DISHING OUT HAPPINESS AND HEALTH, BUT SECURING THOSE RIGHTS!
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
LOCALLY SPEAKING, SOME WOMEN NEED TO DISBAND THEIR FAMILY UNIT, TO SECURE THEIR SAFETY. WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES TO UNDERMINE THAT DECISION BY GOVERNMENTAL DECREE, AS HAS BEEN DONE IN THE FATHERHOOD RESOLUTIONS, GRANTS, INITIATIVES, AND TASK FORCES ?? ???
THE MAIN QUESTION IN THESE MATTERS IS WHETHER OR NOT WOMEN ARE INCLUDED IN THE INCLUSIVE NOUN “MEN” NOW, WOMEN HAD TO FIGHT FOR THIS, BUT IN 1920, AFTER SLAVES, WE MANAGED TO GET THE RIGHT TO VOTE. THIS WOMAN CAME FROM A RELIGION, THE NAME OF WHICH MEANT, “SUBMIT.” THE NAME OF THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, PER DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE FROM GREAT BRITAIN, ABOVE, IS IN ESSENCE, PERMIT.
NOW AS TO FAITH-BASED INITIATIVES, I’D LIKE TO CITE THE PRIMARY CHRISTIAN VERSE USED TO JUSTIFY WIFE-BEATING:
You’ve dismissed accusations that you’re lashing out because of childhood traumas. So why write a memoir graphically detailing the abuse you and your siblings suffered?
It became important to say, “Okay, you guys keep accusing me of using my past. Let me tell you my story, and my story shows that I do not blame the death of my sister on Islam. I do not blame female genital mutilation on Islam.” My whole awakening was triggered by the eleventh of September, and it did not affect only me, it affected a lot of people.
Do you regret certain things you said about Muhammad—like that he was a pervert and a tyrant?
I don’t regret that. I’m still convinced that for Muslims to integrate fully into modern society, we cannot avoid discussing the prophet. We didn’t only deal with communism militarily, but we said it is a bad idea. The works of Karl Marx were discussed.
Maybe academia would have been a better—and less dangerous—venue.
Politics is not a good thing for me. But I wanted to bring out the issue of Muslim treatment of women in Holland, and I could only accomplish that in Parliament. If I had been a professor, it would just have disappeared in a cabinet.
“the Territory that is now Somalia was divided between the British and the Italians, who occupied the country as colonizers, splitting it in two. In 1960 the colonizers left, leaving behind a brand-new, independent state. A unified Somalia was born.”
“If in the process of baari you feel grief, humiliation, and everlasting exploitation you hide it. If you long for love and comfort you pray in silence to Allah to make your husband more bearable
AND:
“They call me infidel”. Ex-Muslim Christian Nonie Speaks out
This was of interest to me because the author had experienced a regime change within her home country, and then come to America and experienced a change of religion. So she spoke of the qualitative differences.
(11/20/2006)
Egyptian-born Nonie Darwish is “too controversial” to speak at Brown University, where her invitation to speak was just taken back. The title of her new book about says it all Now They Call Me Infidel: Why I Renounced Jihad for America, Israel, and the War on Terror . Good luck with that one. Here, where we’ve been attacked by jihadists, we don’t like to hear about the enemy we face.
(THIS IS AN INTERVIEW. EXCERPTS, HERE:)
LOPEZ: Are the majority of Muslim women oppressed? What can be done for them?
DARWISH: The majority of Muslim women are oppressed and that is due to Islamic sharia law which severely discriminates against women. Even the most educated and powerful Muslim women are faced with a legal system that is very discriminatory against women. Muslim women start the marital relationship from a weaker position. The Muslim marriage contract itself is unfair to women because Muslim men can add three more wives if he wishes. That changes the dynamic of husband/wife relationship even if a Muslim man does not exercise this right. Polygamy has a devastating impact on families. There are chronic social ills and tragedies stemming from this single right.
The court system is designed to oppress women, without a doubt.
{{Commentary: I read her book. She talks about how polygamy (one man, many women) pollutes relationships not just between the man and the woman, but also between women: backbiting, whispering, intrigue. I remembered my own case, which has many women involved in protecting a single man, vigorously defending his behavior, which was criminal, as though it were honorable, and I were the criminal for speaking up. I could not put this book down, asking WHY? does this sound like my family? I think these are spiritual issues, and that while the West does NOT endorse polygamy, within the court systems, at least, many of these dynamics are at play — first wives, second wives, etc. They are used against each other, undermining ALL women. }}
LOPEZ: How prevalent is “honor killing”?
DARWISH: According to Islamic law sex outside marriage is prohibited and the penalty for that is often death. The woman is always to blame because she is regarded as the source of the seduction. Muslim men’s honor is dependent on their women’s sexual purity. It does not matter how honorable the character of the Muslim man; but if his female relatives commit any sexual taboos, Muslim society will dishonor him. Arab culture is based on pride and shame** and a Muslim man cannot survive with this kind of shame unless he kills the source of that shame which is the female relative who have had sex outside of marriage. It is not known how common this crime of honor killing happens since it is often goes unreported and the police often looks the other way, but I believe it is common in certain parts of the Muslim world if the girl is discovered to be no longer a virgin or pregnant. That is why most girls in the Middle East remain virgins till marriage and there are very few births out of wedlock in the Middle East.
{{**I am concerned about the culture of “manhood” in the west being based on the same things. It is not a good basis. I also believe that, despite the level of indoctrination being nothing of the like, this same BASIS of education in the U.S. exists — and that is not a good basis for human behavior. Rather, how much better, to respect accomplishment in a variety of life situations. But school is NOT a variety of life situations, it is ONE of life’s many situations. To teach people to be puffed up, or feel inferior, based on their grade performances (although it is good to study and learn, and be able to have those skills), is simply wrong. How much better to be, rather engaged in the process of learning, and let that be the intrinsic reward. We will have better people.
I believe (opening up a bit here) that what happeend to me in music was, I was allowed to be more expressive, and less analytical, also less about, producing a grade. I didn’t value grades — already had them. They did nothing for me socially and weren’t hard enough to earn. They di dnot increase my sense of self-worth at all, as an adolescent. I learned to be ashamed about things that had no basis in shame, including my (good) grades, and so forth. The act of going to and from a classroom is not exactly a major accomplishment in life. The ability to help others learn to do something, or to engage as a human being; to build something, to design something, to perform something. But to fill in the correct multiple choice answers on a test sheet according to data you were fed in a textbook? That’s nothing; it’s for the convenience of the school comparing you to everyone else. . . . .. I remember failing on purpose, just to see what it felt like. I still graduated at the top of my (public high school class). The skills needed in college were entirely different. Thank God, there were pianos and there was singing, which led to different types of social interactions.
I believe that what I noticed about this book was when she spoke about the intense hatred, rivalry and bitter suspicious, ongoing, between women in particular. I have been dealing with this for the many years since I left my ex-husband, after the difficulties while dealing personally with him in the home. It really is wearing to the soul, and saddening. I am still seeking and believing for some of these family issues to resolve, but I feel sad when I see that, for the sake of eradicating my world view and values, my children were, literally, uprooted from contact with me, as if I might contaminate them somehow, with self-confidence, and the courage to be different. The courage to expect a woman to have equal legal rights to a man, in America, our country. So far, “NO DEAL”!!}}}}
LOPEZ: What’s it like to be a journalist in Egypt? Worse than life under the Patriot Act?
DARWISH: I was a journalist in Egypt in the early seventies when I worked at the Middle East News Agency in Cairo, Egypt. I was an editor, translator, and censor. As a censor I decided what was to be allowed for publication and what was not allowed. Egyptian media outlets at the time were controlled more or less by the government. Journalists were not really journalists in the Western sense of looking to expose government corruption and internal problems; they were more concerned in blaming the outside world. Military information was totally off limits in reporting. I once said to a fellow journalist that I met a Jew in one of my trips and that that was the first time I met a Jew. The colleague warned me that Arab journalists who communicate with Jews in foreign countries come back to Egypt in a box. Very few Arab journalists were even aware of the true role of media in a society. As to Western life under the Patriot Act, I think it the opposite Arab government controlled Media. In the West it has often become Media controlled government where freedom of the Press (having too much of a good thing) often comes before other important things in Western society, such as for example national security. Sometimes Western media has no tolerance for any restrictions and that can help America’s enemies.
LOPEZ: What made you leave Egypt?
DARWISH: I always regarded America as the land of hope, equality, and opportunity and that was my motivation. I also wanted to leave the Middle East with its problems, its jihad, its pride, anger, and anti-Semitism and above all the constant state of war with Israel.
I CAUTION, the United States of America, I CAUTION them to monitor the “us/them” mentality in every area of life. I CAUTIOn them to keep a lit on this vigilante return to Fatherhood, and the farming out of any conscience, guidance, and education of their young to anyone such as those in those in the Executive Branch of Government, who are presently engaged in establishing, on one hand a national religion (through a variety of means) and on the other hand, a totalitarian system in which choice is the heresy. Opting out of government involvement in the basic processes of life is a heresy.
There are aspects in which the fatherhood movement — as practiced, reminds me of the KKK. It is the same type of hate speech.
I am going to talk about another, very uncomfortable genocide I have read in some detail about (it just came up, and I continued reading, OK? It’s what I DO!) Rwanda. This is of interest to me because some churches protected, and some betrayed. Here is a personal, amazing story I ran across. Again, it is told by a woman:
“LEFT TO TELL“
In 1994, Rwandan native Ilibagiza was 22 years old and home from college to spend Easter with her devout Catholic family when the death of Rwanda’s Hutu president sparked a three-month slaughter of nearly one million ethnic Tutsis. She survived by hiding in a Hutu pastor’s tiny bathroom with seven other starving women for 91 cramped, terrifying days. This searing firsthand account of Ilibagiza’s experience cuts two ways: her description of the evil that was perpetrated, including the brutal murders of her family members, is soul-numbingly devastating, yet the story of her unquenchable faith and connection to God throughout the ordeal uplifts and inspires. This book is a precious addition to the literature that tries to make sense of humankind’s seemingly bottomless depravity and counterbalancing hope in an all-powerful, loving God.”
-Publisher’s Weekly, Starred Review, March 2006
We all ask ourselves what we would do if faced with the kind of terror and loss that Immaculée Ilibagiza faced during the genocide in her country. Would we allow fear and desperation to fill us with hatred or despair? And should we survive, would our spirit be poisoned, or would we be able to rise from the ashes still encouraged to fulfill our purpose in life, still able to give and receive love? In the tradition of Viktor Frankl and Anne Frank, Immaculée is living proof that human beings can not only withstand evil, but can also find courage in crisis, and faith in the most hopeless of situations. She gives us the strength to find wisdom and grace during our own challenging times.”
-Elizabeth Lesser, co-founder of the Omega Institute, and author of Broken Open: How Difficult Times Can Help Us Grow
“Left to Tell is for anyone who is weary of the predictable “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” trance most of the world suffers from. Immaculée Ilibagiza breaks that spell by bravely quelling the storm within, and contacting a force so powerful that it allows her to calm the storm “without,” and more important, to forgive the “unforgivable.” Her story is an inspiration to anyone who is at odds with a brother, a nation, or themselves.”
-Judith Garten, teacher and counselor of The 50/50Work© and a child of the WWII Holocaust
(As far as I got on this post July 2, 2009
SHARE THIS POST on...
“Where’s Mom?” Or, “Virtually Invisible in Public Policy Agenda” — The Amazing, Disappearing Word, “Mother”!
If Momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy.
I revisited WhiteHouse.Gov/Issues/Families (again) to check my memory or whether the Change we are to hold in our national imagination, did not include — almost at all — the concept of MOTHER in association with the word FAMILY.
I was right, and will demonstrate this for you today:
Despite public proclamations that we are suffering from “father-absence,” in fact, our country’s going to hell fast unless we declare war on fatherlessness (source of society’s ills), I am here to tell you, to the contrary, public policy actually is suffering — and has been for some years now — from “MOTHER-ABSENCE.”
I mean, I went looking and the word is just about Not There! Below (skip down to the color-coded section if you are short on time) I am going to take you by the hand (so to speak) and show you this, from “whitehouse.gov.” If time and fate allow, on another day, I will show you the almost identical phenomenon on the “Family Violence Prevention Fund” website. Possibly this relates to the respectable, and long-established nonprofit having taken its funding from certain government departments (like HHS), or perhaps it relates to its Board of Directors (I did look); it seems to be a sea-change. We’ve gone so Ga-ga over Dada that it has become necessary, supposedly, to eradicate the mere mention of “Mama” from the vocabulary.
I have picked up a similar trend, possibly, in even the National Organization for Women, which I declare HAS helped me considerably in family law matters (no, I am not a member), but which appears in some respects to have dropped the ball. It seems that no one can really picture a world with the word “mother” in it, but instead daycare is in order — only. LGBT rights and Pro-Choice candidates (that means, choice to abort) are the word of the day. The fantastic background, for example, that I see on the California NOW Family Law Page, seems to have languished since about 2005. More on that later. Yet feminism, motherhood, and choice to stay home with one’s own, ARE women’s issues. That topic, I have not fully looked at yet — I am too upset by the current topic.
Women are allowed to exist, just not for the most part, “mothers.” I don’t think this is accidental.
How are we supposed to fulfill our maternal obligations in any personally responsible manner if someone one at the Top Doesn’t Remind us of it (and promise to Reward us for it, too, you know, the carrot and stick routine of behavioral modification? That is, FYI, what our government is doing these days to Fathers. It’s stroking their — egos — verbally, talking them, it hopes, into an upright, erect, and functional position within their families.
Which, apparently, do not include mothers. I mean, can YOU Find it on these pages?
I went looking again, and if you can tolerate my bad taste, off-color sarcasm (which makes me — and I’m a Momma with a bad hair day in progress — a little happier). If you can’t change it, mock it. But I mean, how come this type of talk is being taken seriously? Is our public education system, nationally speaking, worse off than I even imagined? I mean– is it that no one is LOOKING? Or is it that this is now normal talk?
You can either scroll right down past the opening (long) dialogue (again, which makes me feel a little better for having said it) to the portion where I start color-coding a page of the white house web page (I think this is called profiling, but I don’t think it’s illegal) to illustrate just how many times the word “mother” appears on a full blown description of “Families.” and the Obama Administration’s agenda for us.
I know someone who runs a blog called “Mothers of Lost Children.” (wordpress.com in case you were curious). However, this pages talks plenty about “children,” but seems to have lost a grip on the fact that before you get a single child, ANY child, somehow, somewhere, sthere has to be a delivery. And she can be cutt open, conscious or unconscious, she can push it out, with or without help, but THE second that baby comes, alive, out of her womb, SHE becomes technically speaking, a MOTHER. So IO just feel that as a good proportion of the population, and as mother of ALL of the US population, wherever we presently are, the word MOTHER should be statistically a little better represented than it currently is. Below.
Of course the reason I myself am actually LOOKING at these sites, is that I want answers for why my mothering wasn’t good enough for this court system; behaviorally, I committed no crime, obeyed the law, and shared my kids with Dad. I also worked, taught, and educated those girls. I speculate (below, top rant — not summary rant) on what the cardinal sin was. You may not be interested, but I bet the color coded guide to the Family page might be relevant to these discussions. Perhaps — this will show why I got all hot and bothered when a group from Australia surfaced, talking about the issues of domestic violence and poverty, and could actually SAY the word “mothers” in a non-negative sense. (NCSMC).
Well, wordpress takes about 4 minutes to save these days, so here it goes:
I complained about this last April, also
I know I have been picking on “President Obama” in this blog.
Well, He’s not my Daddy, and he’s not the Nation’s Daddy, He’s not the Father of all the Head Start Children, and He’s not my Webster’s Dictionary or Roget’s Thesaurus. Neither He, nor the Executive Branch of the United States, nor all 3 branches together, not one entity is my Messiah either.
You can’t tell this by reading what the White House has been saying, or taking a good look at some of the HHS budget. We are in Designer-Family mode (designer-nation mode?) Have we ALL forgotten the words, republic? Legislature? etc.? Just because some people have fancier, faster, and more interlaced internet connections (i’ve had to FIGHT even to keep mine on, post-divorce), that shouldn’t eradicate our form of government (of, by for the people, right?) How many people, specifically?
I’m a domestic violence survivor, and a vocal/choral person. My BUSINESS has been paying attention to words, for performance, and for survival. They are indicators, they are signposts, and they can incite people to different activities, including sometimes wars, or genocides. And I have studied some of these, and just as there ARE parallels between PTSD after domestic violence and PTSD after war, there are also parallels between the talk PRECEDING such things as the Holocaust and Rwanda. Hate-talk, broad sweeping declarations, and scapegoating.
I can’t figure out what’s behind scapegoating motherhood as a whole, unless someone really HAS produced an artificial womb, and we will not longer be even needed for the first 9 months or so. Whatever’s behind it, I say, wake up!
Back to our President. He’s NOT my kids, or the nation’s kids, “Daddy.”
He’s the Elected (and not by a landslide, either) President, and sworn-to-uphold the Constitution Man on the Job. I think too many Americans (perhaps we may point to our school systems?) have forgotten that document, along with the Bill of Rights, and have possibly lost our moorings among the designers of the titanic (pun intended) ship of state.
LINGUISTICALLY, I can say that language doesn’t even match biology on many of the white house sites, evidence-based practice or no “evidence-based practice.”
Upholding the Constitution and performing the office of President — and not designing and restructuring families, linguistically or any other way — IS the job description, among other things — detailed in the U.S. Constitution.
ANECDOTAL TESTIMONY
I’m a mother. I’m no longer kicking out babies to shortly thereafter kick out of my house (to go to Head Start, Early Head Start, or offer their poor little selves for a 0 to 5 program evaluation of “how children learn” or “the effect of paternal involvement on school readiness” or such.
I didn’t become a Mom:
undereducated,
poor(relatively speaking), or
unacquainted with responsible MOTHERhood,
Like many of my cohorts, I got more than a bachleor’s degree — and professional experience — before hooking up and settling down, I wasn’t clueless on how life works or how to have a healthy baby.
I also didn’t become a Mom even outside wedlock, which happened mostly to be simply part of my belief system, both common sense and faith.
I also didn’t become a Mom in my teens (or pre-teens), or even 20s, but late 30s, in fact I was 40 for one child. Nor am I at all alone in this statistical profile.
I had not been taught how instinctively to tell when wedlock might turn into a “headlock” which mine did, physically speaking. Maybe a more promiscuous lifestyle, or prostitution for that matter, MIGHT have taught me to judge men better, but I doubt it.
Now I have a rhetorical question, for Father Obama: I realize you are recently a President (although as a Senator — and in 2007, the 10th richest in the US, according to one study I read), you did not START the Fatherhood thing, and we now have a pretty good idea who. (“WE” meaning women who’ve been through what I have. Note. Most of us wouldn’t qualify for spitting out more kids for the 0 to 5 program. One thing I have recently Re-qualified for is Food Stamps.) Actually, I have two questions:
QUESTION 1:
(1) Where’s the Change in the fatherhood propanda? Aren’t we done yet? If not, why not? You are talking just like Bush & Clinton in this regard. The talk matches the budget — you don’t want the kids with Mama, and you consider OUR kids YOUR (communal) property, i.e., the “Property of the State.” While this may be appropriate for a prison uniform (only) or a courthouse, it is NOT appropriate for boys, girls, and adult mothers, or, for that matter, law-abiding fathers.
When about half the US is female, and a GOOD portion of those are OVER 21 years AND mothers, one time or another, Where’s the Representation of this word in the White House Style Sheets? Because I’ve looked, and I see “women” (though not filed, for the most part, under “families”) but I don’t see “MOTHER.”
So rhetorical question one is, that aint’ change — where’s the change in this talk, action, and budgeting?
QUESTION 2:
(2) Since you have now proved how a single MOTHER can get a son into the U.S.Presidency (and married to a Harvard grad), and since
I have now proved how a single MOTHER can get get one intact (female) child into the UC Berkeley, and graduating in the top 3% of her class, despite hell she went through from 2-8 (when I filed TRO with kickout) and MORE hell and abuse (including parental kidnapping — unchecked, unreported, and uncorrected), and I also proved how to get my entire household OFF food stamps and within plain view of solvent — withOUT taking up some of the $XX,000 of state (or is it federal?) public education funds to do so — how come YOU can’t keep YOUR administration out of MY family’s pants, purse, and pursuit of excellence, let alone happiness?
How come you can’t say the word “MOTHER” on the site “FAMILIES” in “WHITE HOUSE.GOV”
I’m now back on a Food Stamps leash (no nonfoods, no cat food, no vitamins, no fish oil, and only certain– higher -riced — stores are acceptable).
While I”m on the topic, we have recently learned that the head of “Office of Child Support Enforcement” (Nicholas Soppa) and “Project Save Our Children” is himself a deadbeat Dad in the employ of — get this – the largest federal department, you guessed it, HHS. Last I heard, he spends his weekends in jail rather than pay that money-grubbing bitch (MOTHER of his children). I doubt it’s that he can’t, or needs job training. He is himself a deadbeat Dad. And how come the HHS refuses to garnish his wages?
Why has “competent single mother” become an unpronounce-able concept? Why have women like myself become a social pariah? Because I might show someone else where certain policies are full of holes
Now, I had myself off that, and my household too, until Family Law had a better program design, a seamless, womb to tomb, morning to night, hospital to hospital (birth/death), nationalized everything plan. I didn’t want to sign up for the educational portion of this, which REALLY, I guess put a monkey wrench in the works — a solvent single mother not on food stamps and off the radar. “Help, help, get her back!” Was the sense I had.
And I was within range of getting off that child support safety (?) net too. I ALMOST made it. I called this behavior “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness,” which didn’t take $100K a year for me, IN fact, I have since learned, I was making somewhere around what it costs to incarcerate an adult male in my state, for a year.
But I had just not done my patriotic and Personal Responsiblity to JOIN the welfare state. I wasn’t earning enough money to fund a foundation, or REALLOY kick in some tax revenues, NOR was my family, really on welfare and as such providing fodder for the Ph.D. programs’ federal grants to study.
(NOTE: this may sound irrational. Don’t judge until you’ve followed more of the links, posts, and data I have, many of them on this site. I was stunned, too. I felt fiscally clobbered at first, finding out how, why, and pretty much by whom my household — FAMILY – had gotten legally clobbered.)
Anyhow, back to then, me as single mother, daring to pursue happiness without enough government guidance. This HAD to be stopped. I would like to note here, that the guidance counselor (unsolicited), self-appointed, for the job, and just graduated from a government (actually, state) certification program, at which time it became clear that, as wet as (he, coincidentally, not “she” at this point) was under the ears in this category, this was no deterrent. Full of age, gender, pride, and presumption, he jumped, full-immersion style, into my personal business and continued to attempt to run it against my will, even after I (politely) put him out of my house and closed the door afterwards. And said, No thank you.
In fact, it was in this person’s subsequent (again, unsolicited) essays to me, about my sins (what else?), including dire prophecies and psychological armchair insights, (and a medical diagnosis or two of me, or my children thrown in for good measure), that I noticed this linguistic tricks, and perspective-switching talk, such as calling something “dysfunctional” which had already been called “violent” and mentally erasing about 20 hears of my life history, addressing me as if I was a little ignorant child, and a wayward one at that.
Anyhow, several years ago< i was caught in the act of being Personally Responsible AND a Mother, and without a man in the house. I forgot to add, our daughters were seeing Daddy regularly, in fact weekly (unless he skipped by choice). Even though a DV restraining order was in place. We were healing, recovering, and prospering. Horrors! !!!
Enter “Family Law” venue, the reversal of the income growth chart, and back go Food Stamps, eventually. It took a little while, because I fought back. Oh yes, that’s not a responsible motherhood behavior either. No, no.
ANYHOW:
Virtually Invisible in Public Agenda
This should be not taken personally, although I am having a bit of hard time, on behalf of the many, many mothers who became noncustodial as what now seems to be an overdosage of federal fatherhood funding f–ing (excuse me..) “duking it out with” due process in the family law arena.
I have noticed this before. I thought I would visually and statistically SHOW how ODD it is that the word “mother” just went underground, in favor of “father.”
Hey, if cars are going off the road and hitting pedestrians (see my last “can we call it a Day on these “Days”? post), which they are (some of them kids, many of them women), one might look at mechanical system (laws, rules of court). One might look at the gas in the tank (VERY few do this, some do, Liz Richards of NAFCJ.net in the D.C. area being one, also people in StopFamilyViolence.now and some others have finally begun looking at the FUNDING) (see randijames.com also). FINALLY.
How many are also looking, perhaps at the carburetor? It adjusts the mix of gas and air in the inflow right? (I’m obviously no mechanic). How rich is the fuel? Is there oxygen?
Well, the “atmosphere” of the “inflow” (of gas — cf. $$) is the rarefied vocabulary of the tops, decisionmaking intake funnels of these places.
Today, we look at usage. WORDS.
WHERE’S MOM? WHERE ARE MOTHERS?
what did we do, to deserve to disappear?
I have some friends who belong to N.O.W. (I don’t) and we commented on the need to return
this issues of mothers and the courts to the dialogue. The public has a short attention, but it takes a good 18 years at least to raise a responsible father or a safe mother, or (tap on wood) perhaps both genders might make it to 21 without starting a family yet.
I personally feel that keeping the public education system both relevant and engaging MIGHT help in this matter, but that’s my private opinion.
I already did this for FVPF.org. Here, I am doing it for WHITEHOUSE.GOV/ISSUES/FAMILY.
The Message is in the Usage.
The Power of Repetition
WHAT IS THIS, GENDER/BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION PROFILING?
HOW DOES OBAMA/WHITE HOUSE/YOUR GOVT? LOVE THEE?
LET ME COUNT (and Color Code) THE WAYS.
- 1x PINK — mothers — ONE, and ONLY one, stellar appearance, (not independently of fathers.)
- 10x BROWN — Families
- BLUE — Fathers OR Fatherhood
- 4x GREEN — PARENTS
- 13x Grape — Children, Young people
- 3X RED: — Women. (“Ladies first”)
- (Never independent of “and men” or children
- 3x “and men”/1x “young men”
- “President Obama Is/was/are/will”
FAMILY
Progress
Ten days after taking office, the President established a White House Task Force on Middle Class Working Families, led by Vice President Biden. The Task Force is focused on raising the living standards of middle-class, working families across America.
The President’s American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provided needed support to families enduring difficult times.
- The Act protects health coverage for 7 million Americans who lose their jobs through a 65 percent COBRA subsidy to make coverage affordable.
- The Act also boosts family incomes by expanding the Child Tax Credit to cover an additional 10 million children in working families and creating a new Make Work Pay tax credit.
- To help working mothers and fathers obtain quality child care, the Act includes an additional $2 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant, $1 billion for Head Start, and $1.1 billion for Early Head Start.
- To fight hunger, the Act includes a $20 billion increase for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps, as well as funding for food banks and the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC).
- The Act increases the Weatherization Assistance Program by $5 billion to help low income families save on their energy bills by making their homes more energy efficient.
- The Act increases job training funds for those who need them most, with $3.95 billion in additional funding for the Workforce Investment system, which will support green job training, summer jobs for young people, and other opportunities.
- The Act provides increased income support, including an increase of $25 per week for Unemployment Insurance recipients and incentives for states to expand unemployment insurance eligibility, as well as an extra $250 payment to Social Security and Supplemental Security Income beneficiaries and new resources for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
Guiding Principles
A strong nation is made up of strong families. Every family deserves the chance that so many of our parents and grandparents had – to make a better future for themselves and their children. Strong families will always be front and center of President Obama’s agenda.
Support Working Families
President Obama is committed to creating jobs and economic opportunities for families across America. And he is restoring fairness to the tax code and increasing child care so that working families have the support they need.
Reform Health Care
President Obama is committed to working with Congress to pass comprehensive health reform in his first year in order to control rising health care costs, guarantee choice of doctors, and assure high-quality, affordable health care for all Americans.
Invest in Education
President Obama is committed to providing every child access to a complete and competitive education, from cradle through career. First, the President supports a seamless and comprehensive set of services and support for our youngest children, from birth through age 5. Next, President Obama will reform and invest in K-12 education so that America’s public schools deliver a 21st Century education that prepares all children for success in the new global workplace. Finally, President Obama is committed to ensuring that America will regain its lost ground and have the highest proportion of students graduating from college in the world by 2020.
Promote Work-family Balance
Millions of women and men face the challenge of trying to balance the demands of their jobs and the needs of their families. Too often, caring for a child or an aging parent puts a strain on a career or even leads to job loss. President Obama believes we need flexible work policies, such as paid sick leave, so that working women and men do not have to choose between their jobs and meeting the needs of their families.
Strengthen Families
President Obama was raised by a single parent ** and knows the difficulties that young people face when their fathers are absent. He is committed to responsible fatherhood, by supporting fathers who stand by their families and encouraging young men to work towards good jobs in promising career pathways. The President has also proposed an historic investment in providing home visits to low-income, first-time parents by trained professionals. The President and First Lady are also committed to ensuring that children have nutritious meals to eat at home and at school, so that they grow up healthy and strong.
**{{President Obama’s parent: REALLY? WAS IT A MOTHER OR A FATHER? IS THIS A PUBLIC SECRET?? CAN WE SAY “MOTHER” HERE?}}}
RELATED BLOG POSTS
MON, JUNE 22, 9:29 AM EST
A little more backstory on the famous and exceptional fathers who came to the White House for the “Responsible Fatherhood” event on Friday.
SUN, JUNE 21, 10:27 AM EST
A special Father’s Day video, and an op-ed from the President on being a responsible father.
Includes video.
FRI, JUNE 19, 7:39 PM EST
The President hosts a town hall at the White House to discuss the importance of fatherhood and personal responsibility.
Updated with video.
FROM THE PRESS OFFICE
FRI, JUNE 19, 4:15 PM EST
FRI, JUNE 19, 9:28 AM EST
Presidential Proclamation Father’s Day
FRI, JUNE 19, 8:26 AM EST
ADVISORY: President Obama to Discuss Importance of Fatherhood and Personal Responsibility
MY COMMENTARY:
Hey, I had a choice of candidates, and he got my vote, for many reasons. ONE of which was, I felt that perhaps, having been raised by a single MOTHER (translated below into the word “parent”), he might acknowledge, along with me, a single mother who, absent government interference through this family law forum, and despite domestic violence, was shouldering my “Personal Responsibility” without complaining about it, hesitating, or dodging it, either. I’m not anti–work. I also loved my children. In fact, when someone was interfering with me doing this, I actually sought help so I could continue to carry my share of work, and I already was of parenting. When their education was inferior, I also returned to the former, superior brand of it, innocently enough and reasonably so.
MORAL: NEVER, if possible get on one more than 3 governmentally organized radars simultaneously.
Little did then I know what demonstration projects had been projected upon our populace in this geographic area, and how deeply this would trickle down to the courtroom.
WHY did I not know?
Well, if your car ain’t running, would you think of looking at the atmosphere? or its mechanical operation? And how many people would go look at a federal agency (and its history) as well as a host of related credentialing and certifying organizations, and a child support agency, to figure out why this car keeps running off the side of the road (of evidence, facts, and fairness) into pedestrians? ANd yet, so extensive is the operating system these days, that this is about HOW ponderous, how networked, and how invasive and pervasive some very, very basic human processes are.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
When I did certain kinds of music, for years, I lived, breathed, talked and walked certain melodies, harmonies, vocabularies. Even in some of my mental down time (including going to, from and sometimes during school, as I took buses), and on weekends, and among my friends, this was what and who we were, enthusiastically so. We knew the jargon, and used it and could discern varieties of practice within it.
WELL, the Family Experts live, breathe, talk, and walk certain jargon with each other too. When Federal talks to Nonprofit talks to University talks to Court, guess what? that’s common air inhaled.
And where’s Mom? Where did she go? Is she hiding under “Women’s Issues?” Maybe. . . . I’ll have to go look (again) Where is the positive, federally promoted ACT of MOTHERING or being a MOTHER?
Even God, and an apostle or two, compared himself in some aspects to a nursing mother, a tender nurse cherishing. Jesus Christ compared himself one time (in grief) to a mother hen. One of his hallmarks (hey– it’s my blog! Did I say no religion? My Government hasn’t said that — they have a national religion (see last few posts) and faith-based advisories too. So, deal with it!) was that he actually NOTICED women that his disciples and others ignored: widows, women caught in adultery, (Where was the man), a broke widow casting in her last mite (for the cause), and old woman stooped over, a woman with a fever, and so forth. The reason I have noticed this is the stark contrast with many buildings, and locations, I’ve been in using the word “God,” and they not only didn’t notice women (except when their services were needed), they didn’t notice when one of the men was beating on one of his women. Or, living with him, they lacked, when he didn’t — same household. Basics.
Where did the concept of Motherhood go?
I gather, it is not wanted. We are to go to work, no matter what the wages and what the future, or hand over our children to a federal program. Alternately, we could seek to enforce child support, in which case, sooner or later, it’s quite likely that any “dude” who woudln’t willingly pay it may protest, and go grab his kids back, in which case she is STILL handing over them kids.
WHOSE CHILDREN ARE THEY?
Look above: they are “our” children.
I want to know why the word “mother” is in disfavor, and whose policy was it to eliminate the usage. As a copyeditor, I know that there are “style sheets” and that these differ with different publishing houses.
As an educator, I read “The Language Police” (about the text publishing industry, telling how self-censorship affects even the proposal level of textbooks, for political correctness. I also know that, as in courts, California leads the way, along with Texas, in this arena).
So, HOW COME a private nonprofit (well-funded) dedicated to prevention of violence against families, including WOMEN, has now gone all gaga over fathers? And how come this reminded me of the whitehouse site as well?
How many people here noticed that the incoming “change.gov” did not have a hyperlink for (correct me if I was wrong), “women.”
How dare anyone talk so much about families, which requires 9 months (usually) of gestation, followed by labor for even one baby, to come to suck air, and sometimes this even can occur outside a hospital or without a doctor, and the child survive, or thrive, yet not say the word “mother?”
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
FOIA request still leaves vital info boxed up in Garrido case. Keep on trucking, reporters!
leave a comment »
More in this case: The public wants answers. Are we going to get them? Will Media even get them?
I wanted to quickly post some recent data released about the parole history of Mr. Garrido, and HOW did they “not notice” what was going on in that back yard? The act of requesting public records IS a good habit. Even if some are withheld, the withholding is itself a piece of information.
For those who may wonder why i continue posting on this case — the “we never knew” aspect also applies to domestic violence cases. Women face this all the time in reporting, as did I. Eventually, a situation is “stablized,” i.e., the cycle or standard of total control of another person’s life, either economically, physically, mental intimidation, or physical threat. Or, the person reaches out and help ain’t there. Over time, the reaching out gets onerous, and the constant analysis of HOW TO detach absorbs the vital energies used just to live.
That’s why. I also have experienced having my kids stolen on an overnight, as I’ve said repeatedly here. Somehow, if two parents are involved, it’s not taken as seriously. I have serious, serious, questions about how, AFTER a neighbor reported, STILL nothing was found. If these questions are answered adequately, perhaps, the next time, it might not be 18 years, or might not happen. Period. To me, the moral in this story is that many creeps and offenders can perform well when there’s a motive. On the other hand, I’m sure there are people who do go to prison and repent, change, and I have spoken to some of these. But when it comes to kidnapping, rape, and sex offenses combined with prior domestic violence, PLUS then some drug offences? Give me a break! I think that the presence of a woman in the home (Nancy Garrido) put some people’s guard down — OR (what I’m more concerned to learn) perhaps there was complicity.
Kidnapping initially isn’t that easy. But keeping a person concealed, and identity change takes some real manipulation. Another alert would be, a pattern of lies, or a pattern of only associating with certain groups of individuals. For example, botht he print shop and the auto detail — it seems to me (??) these were somehow related to Mr. Garrido’s religious rants, so-called. Or, he exploited connections with them.
The Apology Heard Across the Country
Costra County Sheriff Warren E. Rupf Apologizes For Mistakes In Jaycee Dugard Kidnapping Case
(NYT article — case is in California) . . .08/28/2009
Kidnapping Victim Was Not Always Locked Away
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/28/costra-county-sheriff-war_n_271710.html
Makeshift tents and other structures where Jaycee Dugard was held in the backyard of the home, at far left, of Phillip and Nancy Garrido in Antioch, Calif.
By JESSE McKINLEY and CAROL POGASH (08/28/09)
SAN FRANCISCO — About a year ago, Ben Daughdrill drove to the home of Phillip Garrido near the Bay Area suburb of Antioch to check on a printing job he had hired Mr. Garrido to do.
Mr. Daughdrill was met by a polite young woman with blonde hair who Mr. Garrido had said was his daughter Allissa.
“She was the design person; she did the art work; she was the genius,” Mr. Daughdrill said.
Mr. Daughdrill said that he had regularlyexchanged e-mail messages and even spoken on the phone with Allissa, but that she had never hinted at her real identity or at the secret of her life with Mr. Garrido.
The woman, in fact, was Jaycee Dugard, the authorities say, and on Friday, Mr. Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, were arraigned on more than two dozen counts of kidnapping, rape, false imprisonment and other charges in connection with Ms. Dugard’s abduction in 1991 as she walked to a bus stop in South Lake Tahoe. She was 11.
Ms. Dugard and her two daughters — both fathered by Mr. Garrido, the police said, when Ms. Dugard was a teenager — had been living in a squalid compound hidden behind Mr. Garrido’s plain single-story house. Her seemingly normal interaction with customers of Mr. Garrido’s printing business was just one of the many revelations on Friday in the bizarre and unfolding story about her life over the last 18 years.
“We were in hell,” said Ms. Dugard’s stepfather, Carl Probyn, who had been watching from a distance when Ms. Dugard was abducted near their home. “We climbed out, and here we are, still climbing.”
. . .
Mr. Probyn said Ms. Dugard had told her mother that she sometimes was forced to live in a box, and the police said that at least one of the sheds was soundproof. As investigators prowled the compound this week, a wire cage could be seen next to a tent.
Even as Mr. Garrido — a convicted sex offender who had recently taken to posting religious rants on the Internet — and his wife pleaded not guilty on Friday in the kidnapping case, the police searched their home for clues in a string of nine murders. The killings, from 1998 to 2002, involved mostly prostitutes, many of whom were sexually violated, said Capt. Daniel Terry of the investigations unit of the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department.
Photo from Sacramento Bee Article, 9/22/09, Sam Stanton & Denny Walsh (article below)
How’s come no parole agent found Jaycee Dugard even AFTEr a woman reported there was a woman and children living in the back yard?
Suppose that had been your kid missing. Would “Oops” or “we didn’t have a warrant” been an OK excuse??
How’s Come such a person as Garrido got out? Kind of sort of reminds me of that guy in Tom’s River, NJ that was released in 2009 to kill (within 24 hours) and another that was released, same NJ county, to kill (within 24 hours). Your mind wants to know WHY they get out?
“Cops: Kidnap Victim held 18 years, bore two kids”
Published online on Thursday, Aug. 27, 2009 {{NOTE THE EARLIER TIMEFRAME HERE…}}
HIDING FACTS ON GARRIDO — Editorial from FRESNO BEE
The Monterey County Herald
Updated: 09/25/2009 01:32:27 AM PDT
Ever since Phillip Garrido was arrested in the kidnapping of Jaycee Lee Dugard, the public has wanted to know: How was he able to hide her from state and federal parole agents for so many years?
Media organizations are trying to answer that question. But a pair of parole bureaucracies — one federal and one state — are standing in the way. They are refusing to release public documents that might shed light on the decisions and actions of parole agents.
The first of these is the U.S. Parole Commission, which discharged Garrido from federal parole supervision in 1999. As we know now, that was eight years after he is alleged to have kidnapped Dugard, who was 11 years old at the time.
Garrido had been convicted of kidnap and rape in Nevada in 1977, was sentenced to 50 years in federal prison (with a concurrent state sentence of five years to life) and was released from prison in 1988. Upon ending his parole supervision 11 years later, a federal administrator lauded Garrido in a document for “having responded positively to supervision,” even though the convicted kidnapper had committed three drug offenses while in federal custody.
The Sacramento Bee unearthed these laudatory comments about Garrido through a Freedom of Information Act request. But in agreeing to release a mere 19 pages of documents, the U.S. Parole Commission refused to hand over another 92 pages from Garrido’s file, claiming they could “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion” of the privacy of third parties. The real reason, of course, is the commission is trying to protect itself from additional embarrassing revelations.
That means the agency is providing no information on how often a federal agent visited Garrido’s Antioch home while on parole, or whether such agents ever became aware of a young woman living at the residence.
Corrections officials in California are dragging their feet in releasing information. They are refusing to say how often their agents visited Garrido’s home since 1999.
In hiding behind obscure regulations to prevent release of what is clearly public information of vital interest, government agencies leave the appearance they are engaged in damage control.
These are public agencies, and they should be accountable for their performance.
— Fresno Bee editorial
{{YEP!}}
File under: “Kinda Makes You Wonder”:
Commission once lauded Garrido behavior post-release
(See actual article for more active hyperlinks and related articles on this topic)
Nearly eight years after Jaycee Lee Dugard was kidnapped, Phillip Garrido received a certificate from the U.S. Parole Commission lauding him for his behavior since his release from prison in 1988.
“You are hereby discharged from parole,” the March 9, 1999, certificate read.
“After a thorough review of your case, the Commission has decided that you are deserving of an early discharge,” said the document signed by administrator Raymond E. Essex. “You are commended for having responded positively to supervision and for the personal accomplishment(s) you have made.
“The Commission trusts that you will continue to be a productive citizen and obey the laws of society.“
The certificate is among 19 pages of parole commission papers released to The Bee under the federal Freedom of Information Act on Garrido, who allegedly kidnapped Dugard from in front of her South Lake Tahoe-area home in 1991, then managed to hide her from federal and state parole agents for years afterward.
Garrido had been convicted of kidnap and rape in 1977 in Nevada and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison and a concurrent state sentence of five years to life, The release of the documents adds perspective to how he managed to win release from federal parole after only 11 years. At the time he was sentenced, he was expected to be on federal parole until 2027.
After kidnapping Dugard in 1991, authorities allege, Garrido was able to keep her hidden in his Antioch-area backyard for 18 years. The federal records give only a bare-bones glimpse of Garrido’s supervision during that time, and do not provide any indication of how regularly he was visited by federal parole agents.
After being released from federal parole in 1999, Garrido remained under California supervision. California corrections officials have refused to provide The Bee with records of how often agent Edward Santos visited Garrido’s Antioch home between 1999 and last month, when Dugard was discovered alive after walking into Santos’ office with Garrido.
Those parole records, requested by The Bee through a state Public Records Act request on Aug. 28, would include Santos’ field notes from visits to the Garrido home and Garrido’s visits to the Concord parole office.
{{PART OF THE PURPOSE OF MY POST IS TO DRAW ATTENTION TO THIS AVENUE FOR OTHERS< INCOMPLETE AS IT IS}}
Corrections officials have said Santos operated “by the book” and solved the mystery of Dugard’s disappearance by calling police when she walked into his office.
On Tuesday, a corrections official said the matter was under review, but that the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation likely would refuse to release the parole records because of a two-month-old department regulation that does not allow release of agents’ field notes. Previously, the department had cited a different law — one that applied to probation records, not parole records — to deny release of the documents.
{{The source of this 2- month old dept. regulation – Jaycee was found only about a month ago — would sure be interesting…}}
Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, said the state cannot create regulations that exempt it from laws that require disclosure of public documents.
“The department has no authority to amend the Public Records Act by regulation, and certainly has no authority to regulate the California constitution by regulation,” Scheer said.
{{Yeah, but they sure can stall and throw obstacles in the way…}}
Garrido, 58, and his wife, Nancy, 54, are in the El Dorado County jail facing kidnap, rape and other charges stemming from Dugard’s abduction when she was 11. Both have pleaded not guilty
LET”S TRY THIS AGAIN. ANOTHER ARTICLE, SAME REPORTERS:
Parole board praised Garrido, even while Dugard was captive
Published: Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009 – 3:54 am
Last Modified: Wednesday, Sep. 23, 2009 – 11:20 am
. . .
Under the scenario laid out by law enforcement officials, Garrido had been out on parole for three years when he grabbed Dugard and had held her for eight years when he was released from parole for exemplary behavior.
Garrido was convicted of kidnap and rape in 1977 in Nevada and sentenced to 50 years in federal prison and a concurrent state sentence of five years to life. The newly released federal documents indicate he won release from federal parole after 11 years, even though he committed three drug-related offenses while in federal custody.
The federal parole commission declined to release 92 pages of documents from his file, saying that could “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of third parties.”
It released no information about how often a federal parole agent visited Garrido’s Antioch house.
Nor did the commission indicate whether parole authorities ever became aware of a young woman living in his home or backyard.
Redacted from the 19 pages that were released are the reasons he was reinstated to parole after a 1993 drug violation.
At the time he was sentenced, Garrido was expected to be on federal parole until 2027. The documents show that he was paroled from the federal prison at Lompoc on Jan. 20, 1988, “with a total of 14,235 days remaining to be served.”
In the certificate of parole, Garrido was judged to have “substantially observed the rules of the institution,” although two months earlier federal officials found he had violated prison rules.
“You committed 3 drug-related infractions,” a Nov. 20, 1987, report stated.
The parole commission decided in January 1988 that his release “would not jeopardize the public welfare,” and he was ordered released with the agreement that he would remain in Nevada until April 10, 2027.
The federal sentence covered Garrido’s kidnap conviction, and he was sent from Lompoc to aNevada state prison to complete his rape sentence of five years to life. Less than a year later, he was released from prison by the Nevada parole board, and despite the federal requirement that he remain in Nevada, {{OOPS!}} he was allowed to return to his home in Antioch.
Authorities allege he kidnapped Dugard in 1991 and kept her hidden in his backyard for 18 years. The federal records give only a bare-bones glimpse of Garrido’s supervision during that time, and do not provide any indication of how regularly he was visited by federal parole agents.
However, the records confirm that Garrido was subject to drug testing and that a warrant for his arrest was issued March 18, 1993, after a marijuana violation. He was sent to a federal prison inDublin for about a month, then ordered released back to Antioch on electronically monitored house arrest until Aug. 31, 1993.
While he was incarcerated at Dublin, authorities allege, Garrido’s wife, Nancy, kept watch over Dugard.
(end quote).
Kidnapping takes helpers. Case in point, Family Law venue, other women. I’m biting my tongue here, I would like to speak, but it just wouldn’t make sense. This has been studied and written on already. Still, kids get taken, and not always returned.
After being released from federal parole in 1999, Garrido technically faced lifetime parole under the supervision of Nevada officials. However, Nevada transferred responsibility to Californiabecause he was living in Antioch.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up
September 26, 2009 at 9:40 AM
Posted in Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions
Tagged with "We had no idea!", false imprisonment, FOIA-Freedom of Information Act applied, Jaycee Dugard, kidnapping, law Unenforcement, obfuscation, Parole, Phil Garrido, rape, Sheriff Rupf, social commentary