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

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

Posts Tagged ‘OJJDP

Why a Connecticut Series Again; Why Now? Well, It’s ALWAYS Timely to “Look It Up,” While We Still Can(!), Also…

leave a comment »

With apologies to any inconvenience this may cause to any early readers of my last post (6/17/2016, “Post #1 of 3”), I’m moving most of its “Introduction/Exhort” and added post-publication “Brexit” section over here.

Section “Brexit,” with the associated “British Gun-Control Legislation and Policy” references, like Fathers’ Day, are only in there because they are “current news headlines and events.”  When they pass, something else will be chosen for “current news headlines and events — but probably not what I blog on — public/private partnerships, government grants, and how little most people know about where they go, what they do, or even how to find out.  Let alone who, if anyone, is keeping track.

Navigation: List of the “Section Titles. “

On this post, sections are marked out by Big, Bright-Blue Titles: So far I have, underneath the Community Foundation Logo and its caption near the top, and in order from the top:

  • The LAPTOP + LONG-TERM-LITIGATION LAMENT 
    • (Expressive, which slipped in here, and was promptly, most of it, moved to a side-link)
  • SHORTLINKs TO/ABOUT THIS POST SERIES: 

  • WHY timely, WHY Look Up Connecticut Organizations and Family Court/ Healthy Marriage/ Responsible Fatherhood Scenarios at this time?

  • IRS Returns are NOT Rocket Science!  They are a rich source of information on any group, including on how it fills out tax returns.

    • Best used in combination with similar looks at many (dozens, hundreds) of other tax returns of similar or related organizations who have mimicked the purpose of government, but done it in a privately controlled, tax-exempt model where fewer citizen’s rights to transparency in government expenditures exist. Let’s Take a Closer Look at this Community Foundation for Greater New Haven
    • YELLOW HERE BECAUSE, IF YOU HAVE TO PICK JUST ONE SECTION TO READ — MAKE IT THIS ONE!
  • FATHER’s DAY, and other Current Events.  

    • (Which is where we get “Brexit” and “British Gun-control Legislation,” and reference to “Orlando” in this post.).
    • Click on the words “Father’s Day” for a link to History.com’s short summary, although I don’t call attention to it, this holiday only went national in 1972, through Richard Nixon declaration.  Interesting, this came after the 1965 USDOL “Moynihan Report” which had so much to say about fatherlessness as a social scourge, and matriarchy as pathological in this patriarchal country.
    • Public policy and major social science academic centers (Columbia, Princeton, UPennsylvania, and elsewhere) STILL built on this premise that the federal government should get involved in designing families, particularly (in terms of that time, at least from this author) “The Negro Family.” I just found it interesting this holiday was so recent in national practice, came after 1965 and in a decade somewhat known for the emergence of a feminist, and a “protection from violence” (Battered women’s shelters) movement, too.  Simultaneously other things such as the 1975 Family Support Act pushing for greater and more aggressive collection of child support from (well, mostly fathers!) to reduce poverty.
  • NOW, about CONNECTICUT POST SERIES, particularly NEW HAVEN (City of / Metro area)….

    • More Exhortation, and this section in light-blue background was taken from Post#1, and is a good read:“About this Connecticut-based series from the starting point of “Male Information Network” participants:”

Those actual contents will be removed from there when this post is published.  Those sections are now  the bottom half of this post of about 8,400 9,500 words.  On the top half, some more exhortation and “show and tell” on not being intimidated by a little old IRS Form 990, even when filled out for a big old (in this case), financially fat Community Foundation — this one. I blurted out a quick summary below the caption before the computer could freeze up again:

Connecticut-based 501©3 which in 2015 began moving its “alternative investments” (Balance Sheet Line 12, Assets, “Investments in Other Securities), currently $138M, into Cayman Islands-based funds. Oh, and promoting Education, Health, Welfare, Youth Programming, and Civic Vitality. EIN#0660321; Related foundation (since 2004 per its IRS form) “The Valley Community Foundation,” (much smaller in size, focusing on a different set of Connecticut cities) is EIN#841637102. Look up either one at http://990finder.foundationcenter.org, but for the 2015 on the larger one, must go to its website, CFGHN.org. Located through its participation in supporting a (nonfiling) leader in the “New Haven Family Alliance” (status IRS revoked as of Nov. 2015 for not filing tax returns for 2012, 2013, or 2014). NHFA, says a local news article (promotional) modeled its “Street Outreach Worker Program” (SOWP) on one in Rhode Island, which (turns out) partners with “Rhode Island Partnership for Mentoring” which is part of “The National Mentoring Partnership” (specializing in Technical Assistance and Training for the same, program certifications?, and it seems (so far) mimicking a government entity through repeated use of the initials “OJJDP” on its material. [see: “https://www.ojjdptta360.org/“] This National Mentoring Partnership [Mentoring.org] (so far as I can tell), IF it is a legitimate business entity, is doing a good job of hiding WHERE (in which state is legal domicile or any HQ) — and taking donations currently under “NetworkForGood.org” [see “https://donatenow.networkforgood.org/mentornational?code=MainDonatePage“]. ~ ~ ~ ~> > But, see my Post #2 of 3 on Connecticut for more on all that. Meanwhile, CFGNH.org is an interesting example of public/private collaboration, and how ONE privately controlled entity, only 11 board members, can direct how and where nearly ½ billion of assets is invested, sold, spent, or stewarded. See also its Schedule O on composition of Board Members and who in local civic life appoints them (Chief Executive of City of New Haven, Head of local Bar Association, Head of PROBATE court, Chamber of Commerce person, etc.] ALSO SEE what it omits from its tax returns (details on Schedule I, etc.). VERRy INterrresting overall!!

“OJJDP” is “Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and part of (under) the Office of Justice Programs?under USDOJ.  http://www.ojjdp.gov/about/DivList.asp.   It relates to an act passed in 1974 by Congress, and, around this time, it would seem we got our NCJFCJ set up in Reno Nevada (although it claims origins back to 1939) and what later became a major subset of the NCJFCJ’s operations, their Pittsburgh-based “NCJJ” I blogged on earlier this year (2016). I DNR recall all those dates, but it does seem coordinated nationally to encourage diversionary justice programs — and it seems that this was then thought to also be a great idea for the family courts as well.  IN FACT, despite claims of earlier 1963 origin, it does seem that the AFCC (Association of Family Conciliation Courts — older name) incorporated in Illinois in 1975 also, with its registered agent (strangely) in Denver and its “entity” address out of 111 Hill Street in Los Angeles, which just so happened to be, I believe, a courthouse.  Private nonprofits (unregistered or registered) out of public buildings must have been harder to track — if you were clueless that they existed — before the internet age, for sure…ABOVE is the government logo.What “Mentoring.org” is doing in mimicking their websites, while (at least one says) taking a grant from OJJDP, I’ve not yet gotten to the bottom of, other than it doesn’t seem that honest in presentation.  As to Nationalizing Mentoring — everything else fatherhood, marriage, child protections, domestic or family violence prevention, for that matter “healthy communities” and so forth) is getting “nationalized” so someone saw an opportunity, obviously!   Also it should be obviously that the field of “fatherhood” would of course also involve mentoring training, and other profit-making adventures, even if there is no charge to the users on some of the websites.

Will discuss more on other posts, especially #2 of 3 in this series.


I have had three days of frustrating, significant computer problems or all this moving, splitting one post into three parts would’ve been done within 24 hours…and by Father’s Day..

“The LAPTOP + LONG-TERM-LITIGATION LAMENT” 

This section, optional.  I put it in, but if you’re not in the mood, skip down to next large-font, bright-blue title.

To personify this still unresolved “computer situation,” with participants: one inanimate, mostly-metallic  piece of hardware, and its related software & operating electronically organized systems, meaning my laptop and/or sources of internet access (plural) —  my “electronic staff” (computer/browser/keyboard, etc.) simply went on strike, refusing to process basic instructions of the simplest sort, but intermittently functioning — unpredictably in both how and when.  Several “saves” were lost during a freeze which then required sorting out which was which and if possible salvaging the latest version, or deciding when not to.

The delay brought home the reality that this blog remains every year still  a one-person volunteer operation, without administrative staff, tech support, or (obviously) copyeditors, or, really, any budget in regularly producing specific tasks (posts!) en route to chosen goals, with deadlines.

How Too Many Simple Obstacles can Deter Long-Range Goals.  When these are deliberately sowed by interested parties, and what that interest (as to family court litigation) is actually sometimes really about (hint — it’s not really the children):

The electronic vulnerability, and frustrating obstruction in just a single, otherwise straightforward sequence of just a few time-sensitive tasks in some ways, seems an analogy for my life run through the family court gauntlet and thereafter attempting to personally re-integrate into anything even approaching normal business, work, housing or social relationships — minus several years productivity and definitely minus confidence in the short- medium- and long-term future apart from things I, personally, have committed to do.  The terrain has most definitely changed, and my ability to “pretend” it hasn’t and re-invest in the same type of initiatives that, absent inter-generational warfare for total supremacy (and control of the resulting “story line” and its interpretations) which can and do produce positive results for many, is greatly diminished.

Read More, here (this is simply a page, which I probably will not add to the sidebar, but will be accessible through this link). If you’re short on time, come back to that later – what’s below is more important, “imho.” Read the rest of this entry »

Circles are for Girls, Councils are for Boys, and Trademarked Trainings are for . . . . .

with one comment

 [ONGOING post establishes that the heart

of “The Circle Foundation” and its trademarked training is for behavioral modification

and  again point out that behind this is the generous hand of the OJJDP

and its GIRLS STUDY GROUP .  Also, incidentally, the model’s frames of reference are sexist (Circles for Girls, Councils for Boys AND Young Men).

And etc…


Apparently, It takes a Village of Nonprofits to Raise Train A Child An Adolescent… not to steal, bully, etc

It’s also helpful if the originating nonprofit has people with connections to the juvenile, probation, or LMFT decisionmakers (and OJJDP grants as of 2004):

http://www.onecirclefoundation.org/

 

The USA is (too) full of programs that start and are disseminated in exactly this manner.  Many of them have built-in biases which are not confronted because of the distribution network, and because of the connections with the founders of the program material.  While private resources (i.e., here, from a major progressive nonprofit social change foundation in San Francisco) are involved — so are almost ALWAYS, public (federal, state, county) funds; this is an economic matter and a degradation of representative government.

So many of our public issues relate precisely to the income tax and the caste system created by the for-profit/non-profit power differentials.  ALL social and societal relationships are affected by this, with the favor and advantage going to those whose social connections and/or background are willing to take advantage of wage-earners by themselves operating under nonprofits. I hope this post sheds some light on the situation through a single example.

I am not going to track the funding on this — but note the founders, who jumpstarted it, and the content.  It’s a pattern.   For example, while this may sound like a great idea (support youth, stop bullying, etc.) — there are almost NO solutions which don’t have some inherent bias.  This is not a true “circle” program as the indigenous groups it’s modeled after, or allegedly modeled after — because of the technological advantage of the replicated curricula, and the uniformity of purpose in the founders.  The same inherent bias is built into ALL the models executed in this manner.

Conversational style with examples & narrative, as ever; this is not designed for power-point digestion.  See if it make sense, please also retweet.  

Please read — aloud, preferably — this 3-page (including references) description of “GIRLS CIRCLE” called “Is Girls Circle an Evidence-based Program?,” written when this was still under the umbrella of The Tides Center; notice the behavioral-health language, and also the Title II funding.  Just pay attention, and ask, who — really — should be in charge of behavioral modification for our youth.  Notice also, how the model began as aimed at risky populations (delinquent, etc.) but was intended to expand to “low-risk” populations, i.e., everyone.   Why should Girls be put in Circles (and boys & young men in “Councils”) to modify their behavior, rather than the institutions who failed to protect them from abuse, or in general eroded their meaningful connections with caring adults (systemically) be put into circles by the public and see if we can get a “behavioral modification” on whatever it was failed to protect them (for the most part) from abusive environments?


Found on-line at http://www.girlscircle.com/docs/EB-Principles-GC.pdf

“Is Girls Circle an Evidence-based Program?”

Nationally recognized as a promising approach by the OJJDP,** the Girls Circle program was implemented in a three year Title II grant-funded program through the Sonoma County Probation Department and community based organizations in Sonoma County, CA. Named “Circles Across Sonoma,” the program was highly praised by facilitators, probation officers, girls and families. While evaluation is underwayi, the program has been renewedii by the Sonoma County Probation Department for the 2010-2011 year. To date, over 900 girls have completed the program with a strong completion success rate. Data thus far indicate significance in body image, self-efficacy/esteem, and communication to adults. Completed analysis is expected at year end 2010. Previous national studies on the model have seen significant increases in girls’ social support, perception of body image, self-efficacy, attachment to school and communication with adults. Importantly, significant decreases have been seen in girls’ self-harm and drinking behaviors.iii

It has two co-founders (see photos below).  One of them had prior (I think) connections as a consultant with the OJJDP, a major grants funder .  (Giovanna Taormina).  This description of Girls Circles(r) program course doesn’t mention that, making the OJJDP recommendation look more impartial than it is. Other than this reference, per LinkedIn (St Martin of Tours (?which one?), i.e., Catholic upbringing looks like, Santa Clara University (no major shown) and 1993-1995, USF in “organizational training and development.  Apparently about this time she got involved in running some classes for girls in the justice system…).

Ms. Taormina is the only non-doctoral participant (citing Executive Director of “Girls Circles Association” as her title, i.e., she heads this nonprofit) in “The Girls Study Group, Understanding and Responding to Girls’ Delinquency” which is an OJJDP-convened project which is contracted out to someone working at RTI International out of “Research Triangle Park” (“Turning knowledge into practice“) North Carolina.  The fields RTI International (see WHERE…)… (and the US Government) is into are described as:

RTI is home to experts across the social, engineering, and laboratory sciences—including health**, drug discovery and developmenteducation and training,** surveys and statisticsinternational developmenteconomic and social policyadvanced technologyenergy and the environment, and laboratory and chemistry services.

**while RTI have 4 “experts” under Educ & Training, there are about three or four dozen under “Health Research,” many of which overlap with crime prevention (i.e., behavioral modification, criminology, behavioral neuroscience, etc.)

.

OJJDP NTTAC logo and National Training and Technical Assistance text A Program of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention text

What we are talking about in OJJDP is a major office of the US Department of Justice authorized by Act of Congress in 1974, and reauthorized in 2002.  It has national scope, major resources, and directs those resources according to its goals.  It is NOT an office of our USA government to be ignorant of — but I was, until in the last year or so, as I began researching grants! For reference of the scope:

OJJDP Infrastructure and Funding

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is authorized by the Juvenile Justice and Prevention (JJDP) Act of 1974 and subsequent amendments (reauthorized in 2002) to administer Federal programs and to provide national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization.

OJJDP provides block grants and discretionary funding to States, territories, localities, and private organizations, including nonprofits. The block grant funding is disbursed to States and territories through Formula Grants and Prevention money.  A Juvenile Justice Specialist is selected for each State to administer the funding to units of local government and private organizations through subgrant awards.

OJJDP’s discretionary funding is awarded through a competitive grant application process. Each year, OJJDP publishes a proposed program plan seeking public comment about proposed discretionary funding opportunities for activities covered under parts D and E of the JJDP Act. The proposed plan is published in the Federal Register and posted online. Once the public comments are evaluated, the program plan is finalized and published in the Federal Register. Program announcements for discretionary funding opportunities are disseminated to potential applicants and posted on OJJDP’s Web site. The funding levels, eligibility requirements, and application deadlines are detailed in the announcements. In an effort to expedite and streamline the receipt, review, and processing of funding requests, OJJDP requires that applications for funding be submitted through the Internet using the Office of Justice Programs online Grants Management System.

—-The NTTAC is trying to produce a One-Stop Shop for Practitioners to know What works.  The Circle Foundation (which began with “Girls Circle Association” as a project of The Tides Center) is part of this.

Girls Study Group

About the Study:

The goal of the Girls Study Group project was to develop a research foundation to enable communities to make sound decisions about how best to prevent and reduce delinquency and violence by girls. The Girls Study Group was responsible for developing and providing scientifically sound and useful guidance on program development and implementation to policymakers, practitioners, and the researchers.

About the Group:

The Girls Study Group, an interdisciplinary group of scholars and practitioners convened by OJJDP, came together to develop a comprehensive research foundation for understanding and responding to girls’ involvement in delinquency. The Study Group members brought with them complementary and multidisciplinary backgrounds and experiences that encompassed the range of knowledge needed to understand and explain female delinquency. The group included sociologists, psychologists, criminologists, and gender studies experts, as well as researchers and practitioners with legal and girls’ program development experience. The group was supported by RTI staff working under the leadership of Dr. Stephanie R. Hawkins, a research clinical psychologist.

This is where websites which at first glance look like their own companies, initiatives, or which (in short) look independent, simply often are not.
Therefore, to understand such things as GIRLS’ CIRCLES or THE COUNCIL FOR BOYS and YOUNG MEN or WOMENS CIRCLE (let alone foundations called THE CIRCLE FOUNDATION whose trainings are being run nationwide), an understanding of HOW the program directors came together, what is their professional background (and associations) and what is their INTENT — is important. Right now, it looks like the intent is crime prevention, and the marketing (besides the obvious, “program service revenue”) also provides a large database of people to practice behavioral modification on. I’ve colorcoded the quote by background color:
In short, the vast resources of the USDOJ are being pooled (throughOJJDP), to also pool the wisdom of the experts with the intent to advise communities on how to control their girl population, and prevent delinquency.  That this is headed up by a psychologist, contains no “citizen representatives” and doesn’t have a significant expert in violence against women (i.e., relationship of delinquency to prior child abuse, etc.) although such studies have already been run by the CDC –is significant.  This is about behavioral modification testing for already delinquent girls (are they young women? not til they turn 18?).

 The research behind Girls Circle is clinically sound and based on solid approaches endorsed by the behavioral health sciences field. Like its parent Motivational Interviewing and Strengths- Based approaches, Girls Circle does have the versatility to be applied to low risk populations such as schools, camp and after school programs, job training programs, mentoring, and it is now being demonstrated as a valuable program that makes sense in correctional and rehabilitative settings as well.

The strengths-based, motivational interviewing Girls Circle program: (1) enhances treatment readiness and client responsivity, and (2) develops and fosters a positive culture of self directed change. In the behavioral health sciences field, it has been demonstrated that program outcomes are substantially improved when the treatment readiness and client responsivity is enhanced. Clinically, this makes sense – if the client is not receptive to the program, or if the client has not resolved the ambivalence to change, it would be a struggle for that client to meet program goals.

The value of Girls Circle is as follows: this structured program addresses girls’ inherent needs and strengths to connect with others.


Further lookups show in a 2008 publication at “NCJRS.gov” that this Girls Study Group was convened in 2004, headed up by a Margaret A. Zahn (professor at NC State) (doesn’t say in what) and at this time also contained as the only NON-Doctor in the list, Ms. Taormina in her capacity as heading up Girls Circle Association (the Tides Connection wasn’t referenced, although at this time GCA was not independent of Tides, I’m pretty sure):

The Girls Study Group, Charting the Way to Delinquency Prevention for Girls

Girls Study Group Members  ” J. Robert Flores, Administrator”**

J. Robt Flores is Administrator presumably because at this time he headed up OJJDP since 2002 (Bush appointee) at this time, which is relevant — as there was a scandal regarding grants-steering (esp. to faith-based orgs) that, thanks to an investigative reporter at Youth Today, resulted in a House Oversight Committee Hearings (waxman) on cronyism!

I may have blogged, more info here:  

  • Dr. Margaret A. Zahn, Principal Investigator, Girls Study Group (2004–March 2008) Senior Research Scientist, RTI International; Professor, North Carolina State University

Again, this GIRLS STUDY GROUP was convened in 2004.  Dr. Zahn came to RTI from the USDOJ per July 2003 RTI announcement, please read the RTI bio.  Seems very well qualified, but no question she is a sociologist, not just criminologist.

RTI established a dedicated Crime, Justice Policy, and Behavior Program in 2000. The program currently has more than 25 staff with professional backgrounds in criminology, economics, psychology, public health, and sociology.

Research Triangle Park, NC — Dr. Margaret Zahn has joined RTI as the director of RTI International’s Crime, Justice Policy, and Behavior Program. Dr. Zahn is a nationally renowned criminologist whose research focuses on violence and homicide in the United States.

Dr. Zahn comes to RTI from the U.S. Department of Justice, where she was director of the Violence and Victimization Division. In this role, she co-led the Task Force on Social Science Studies of Terrorism and directed a $35 million portfolio on studies of violence.

Prior to her service with the Department of Justice, Dr. Zahn was the Dean of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences and a professor of sociology at N.C. State University for six years. She continues to serve as an N.C. State professor of sociology  and will facilitate partnerships between RTI and the social sciences at the university. …

  • Dr. Stephanie r. Hawkins, Principal Investigator, Girls Study Group (April 2008–Present) Research Clinical Psychologist, RTI International  {{NOTE: current director of Girls Study Group}}
  • Dr. robert Agnew, Professor, Department of Sociology, Emory University
  • Dr. elizabeth cauffman, Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology and Social Behavior, University of California–Irvine
  • Dr. Meda chesney-Lind, Professor, Women’s Studies Program, University of Hawaii–Manoa
  • Dr. Gayle Dakof, Associate Research Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Miami
  • Dr. Del elliott, Director, Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence, University of Colorado
  • Dr. barry Feld, Professor, School of Law, University of Minnesota
  • Dr. Diana Fishbein, Director, Transdisciplinary Behavioral Science Program, RTI International
  • Dr. Peggy Giordano, Professor of Sociology, Center for Family and Demographic Research, Bowling Green State University
  • Dr. candace Kruttschnitt, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Minnesota
  • Dr. Jody Miller, Associate Professor, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Missouri–St. Louis
  • Dr. Merry Morash, Professor, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University
  • Dr. Darrell Steffensmeier, Professor, Depart­ ment of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University
  • Ms. Giovanna Taormina, Executive Director, Girls Circle Association
  • Dr. Donna-Marie Winn, Senior Research Scientist, Center for Social Demography and Ethnography, Duke University

 

back to ‘THE GIRLS’ STUDY”

The question comes up — with all there Doctors and Professors, what is it about Ms. Taormina’s background (although it’s clear she’s run groups for juveniles (girls) in the justice system, it says, since the 1995) that makes her (out of the entire nation of potential applications) appropriate to be in this study group?   Was it her connection to Beth Hossfeld, LMFT who obviously has connections to many educational, school, and other nonprofits, and “388 connections” on her LinkedIN, being also from the Northern California (SFBay Area in general) community, esp. “Bay Area Community Resources” which provides all kind of treatments, and is getting funding for this from an HHS department

2011  942346815 Bay Area Community Resources CA 1980 03 27,885,322 7,468,924 990

?One look at a tax return (I looked at 2004) shows it is primarily (though not only) targeted at the school, afterschool, and justice systems — and in 2004 had nearly $8 million of program service revenue; in short, it has a huge scope of activity, not just limited to one county or one field.  BUT much of this activity is in the school systems ,and supported by government grants and contracts.

GCA (Taormina / Hossfeld) have been panelists at a BCCEWH in Canada (British Columbia Center for Excellence in Women’s Health).  I wish they’d been down here doing something to investigate and STOP marriage/fatherhood funding so we could put a stop to this abuse of children and women within the institution of marriage.  However this doesn’t seem to be their emphasis.

Trademarked trainings are for visionaries who believe the world should look a certain way, AND know where to find captive audiences// institutionalized youth, and collaborate in marketing with other nonprofits of similar inclination.

Read the rest of this entry »

America’s Unified Family Courts (UFCs)– forget! due process, this is about “Treating” the Whole Family

with 3 comments

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation + ABA + HHS/DOJ (+Monsanto, CIGNA + Ford) = Unified Family Courts = Treat the Whole Family


This post is three of (my) comments from the “(Kids for Cash)” topic at Scranton Political Times…   Those who teach about “abuse” should be teaching about this — because how these courts were set up DOES rather explain why they have spawned (comparison intentional), literally, protest movements across the country, from their horrid treatment of litigants, particularly ignoring facts, law, and due process in individual cases).  They are horrible wastes of time and mind (a mind is a terrible thing to waste, is it not?) — and exist to dominate and intimidate, literally, the human spirit and eliminate the “unalienable rights” that SOME believe are innate (“unalienable”) to every man. . . . .And now that “every man” is to include more men – -and women . . . . those crying out for “Children’s Rights” don’t even endorse what’s right to start with — the REPUBLIC (representative government under rule of law) of the United States (plural) of America — not the Oligarchy, the Aristocracy, or the THEocracy of the USA!! — and turning the entire country, starting with children, adding youth, and expanding upwards into adults — into a treatable-at-will population — is hardly a Republic!

I was checking NAFCJ.net for a link to “the money trail” and happened across an unexplored link on there to grants by this Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to help the ABA create Unified Courts.  These grants spanned the period 1996-1999; my attention was hooked, and this is what developed:

It is worth processing if you are concerned about these topics.  I believe we need to FULLY understand who’s running the Justice and Legal Systems of the country, particularly if we are in the situation of attempting to squeeze some water out of a stone in those halls. . .   . . . .

I AM WRITING as a single woman who could never have anticipated, as a 20, 30, or 40 year old how dangerous this country has become for ethical, moral, working, and competent women who are also mothers, and value that role as they also value pulling their own weight.  Such women are horrors to this system — as they don’t need treatment, nor do their kids — but after a few years in it, ALL will!

So this is, literally, HOW the ABA (incl. AFCC) and others USED the family law system to turn “divorce” into a disease and treat every one for it, as collateral in treating for substance abuse and of course mental health problems.  That divorce is NOT a disease hardly matters in the face of such a policy backed by such power.

PART I (first comment on the topic from Scranton PT):

Since the idea sucks,
WHOSE IDEA WAS “UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS,”

ANYHOW, and WHY?

 

Hey, remember “unified family courts” and “drug courts” (I believe there have been some complaint about Lackawanna County’s right?) and so forth? – – – I just found an old article detailing how the ABA and specific funders were pushing “treating the whole family” and “changing the justice systems” to address substance abuse by youth. An unexplored link over at NAFCJ.net, and the timing of 1996 with welfare reform.

The goal, and the whole point, was to change the justice system — from the outside, not the inside.  Foundations pushing a concept and working through the ABA & Judges, plus money didn’t hurt either.  HHS/ACF happened to agree — so once that door was open (that it’s OK to revise the courts based on somebody in power’s got a bright idea) — it stayed open.

This is a  link from the ROBERT WOOD FOUNDATION grants page.  They also helped AFCC, I believe:

Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) had linked to it long ago from:

which leads to:
Grants 

$$$
How our money is misused to discriminate against women and children
http://www.statejustice.org/grantinfo/chifam.htm [broken link]
http://www.rwjf.org/reports/grr/029319s.htm [UFC link]

And here we can read:

Unified Family Courts: Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Drug Offender

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is powerful one, focused exclusively on health fields (and the largest philanthropy with this focus; been doing this for 40 years; influences medical education field, etc.)and Unified Family Courts (for substance abuse treatment) were one of their projects

SUMMARY

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

UFCs combine the functions of family and juvenile courts to provide a comprehensive approach to treating and educating young drug offenders and their families. This approach recognizes that substance abuse results from a combination of problems related to health, family structure, economics and community support. UFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem.

Key Results

  • See Grant Detail & Contact Information   Notice the Baltimore Connection (I have — it’s an AFCC stronghold) — this group helped Chester Harhut & Lackawanna County set up ITS “UFC”, remember?
  • In Baltimore, Md., a pilot UFC was established in September 1998. The state legislature approved $1 million for the Baltimore pilot UFC project and $4 million to create Family Divisions in four other judicial districts. For each case, judges can order social services, including substance abuse and mental health counseling, and diversion programs. The Baltimore Family Court has also developed an assessment/evaluation procedure that the project director believes provides a replicable model for evaluation at other UFC sites.

I blogged this (with some sarcasm) in March 2012:

  • Marylands Family Court Expansion, AFCC Model, takes Unifying Symbols to a New Level: Paper, Cotton, Leather, Fruit, Wood, Iron . . .”First of all, they are about as unbelievingly condescending and patronizing (move over, let us experts handle your family give us your kid, etc.) as it is possible for any human relationship to be, apart from some truly unhealthy (i.e., violent/abusive) ones.  They deal in force, and subterfuge when it comes to proliferating the program, and like any good, truly disaster capitalism enterprise, they deal with distressed populations, exploit them, and call that service.”  [My blog connects Barbara Babb of Baltimore to Lackawanna County pilot program in UFC]

After the Grant
The ABA continues to work with the six sites and has provided technical assistance to eight other states. It also is involved in a project funded by the Scripps-Howard Foundation to examine literacy as a way to address substance abuse in four family courts.

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®. It is building community solutions to substance abuse and delinquency by developing the systems infrastructure necessary to deliver comprehensive care within the juvenile justice system. See the program’s Web site for more information. . . .Funding

RWJF provided a $481,605 grant to the ABA for its work on UCF systems..(they mean “UFC — Unified Family Courts”)

In 1994, ABA adopted a resolution calling for the promotion and implementation of UFC systems to make the courts more responsive to family problems. {{??}} By 1996, six states had established versions of UFCs statewide, and four states had some UFCs operating on the county level.

[That, friends, is how the ABA operates…] [NOW for the FUNDING]:

Other Funding The ABA solicited and obtained additional project funding from the private sector and government, including:

  • the US Department of Justice ($100,000),
  • the ABA’s Standing Committee on Substance Abuse ($90,000),
  • CIGNA Corporation ($30,000),**
  • Monsanto ($10,000),** and
  • Ford Motor Company ($5,000).  [Ford is into most govermental things, and in the 1970s had helped from MDRC, which runs demonstration programs onw elfare and the courts, etc.]]

Those names should ring a few bells.  Look at some of them!

* *”Grrreat” — Monsanto is “only” the food giant that’s trying to put non-GMO and organic farmers out of business and basically co-opt the US Food supply. (Ya gotta read this one) Monsanto, Wikipedia:

… multinational agricultural biotechnology corporation. It is the world’s leading producer of the herbicide glyphosate, marketed in the Roundup brand, and in other brands. Monsanto is also the second largest producer of genetically engineered (GE) seed; it provides the technology in 49% of the genetically engineered seeds used in the US market.”. . .Monsanto’s development and marketing of genetically engineered seed and bovine growth hormone, as well as its aggressive litigation, political lobbying practices, seed commercialization practices and “strong-arming” of the seed industry[4

In 2009 Monsanto came under scrutiny from the U.S. Justice Department, which began investigating whether the company’s activities in the soybean markets were breaking anti-trust rules.[4][5]


What better corporation to contribute to an ANTI-Drug Abuse program which creates  genetically modified seeds, bovine growth hormone, and strong arm tactics + lobbying to maintain it — and financial clout to help create an alternate justice system (treatment versus accountability….)!!

Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear (Vanity Fair Article):

Monsanto relies on a shadowy army of private investigators and agents in the American heartland to strike fear into farm country. They fan out into fields and farm towns, where they secretly videotape and photograph farmers, store owners, and co-ops; infiltrate community meetings; and gather information from informants about farming activities. Farmers say that some Monsanto agents pretend to be surveyors. Others confront farmers on their land and try to pressure them to sign papers giving Monsanto access to their private records. Farmers call them the seed police and use words such as Gestapo and Mafia to describe their tactics.

[Starting to sound like the Unified Family Court “treatment Gestapo police” now in place?  Birds of a feather..]

in 1980 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a five-to-four decision, turned seeds into widgets, laying the groundwork for a handful of corporations to begin taking control of the worlds food supply . . .Monsanto patents SEEDS; farmers who use theirs sign an agreement to NOT save seeds, they are suing farmers into whose fields Monsanto seeds may, for example, drift (i.e., by wind).

With an agenda like this, it’s understandable why Monsanto may want a role in dismantling the US legal system!   !!!  (Other Monsanto Gov’t ties)  http://www.organicconsumers.org/monsanto/index.cfm

Millions Against Monsanto

CIGNA’s quite a player also: 

(from 1982 merger of Connecticut General Life — dating to 1865! and INA (Insurance Company of NA)  Before selling its international property and casualty business to the Bermuda-based ACE Insurance company in the late 1990s, CIGNA was among the companies with the largest international network in the league of Allianz, AIG and Zurich.  . . .CIGNA now operates in 25 countries, has in excess of 42,000 employees and manages around US$110 billion in assets . . .In October 2011, CIGNA has agreed to buy HealthSpring Inc. for $3.8 billion to jump-start its business selling Medicare plans from 46,000 Medicare Advantage members to almost 400,000 Medicare Advantage members. The payment would come from issue new equity to cover about 20 percent of the value, with the rest funded by additional cash and debt.

Gee,  I “can’t imagine” why — right around the time of “block grants to the states” welfare reform — CIGNA, being a global “health service” company might want to help the ABA turn large parts of the US Justice system into a treatment-philosophy-based system, including treat the whole family for one member’s substance abuse!

So, here’s the ABA creating all these Unified Family Courts  (hint:  The ABA membership includes subset no doubt of AFCC membership, who also are into unified courts = more business for the mental health membership..)

“Other in-kind support was provided by the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment (CSAT) of the federal Department of HHS, the Administrative Office of the Courts in Maryland (AOC), and ABA volunteers.  “

In short — have to watch out for these outfits… (that’s the UBaltimore one — see blog post)

Contact CFCC

Here’s how the ABA overcame opposition to UFC in Washington DC:

In Washington, D.C., the ABA worked on a strategy to establish a UFC. Judicial opposition to family court reform, based chiefly on economic concerns, blocked significant progress toward the UFC model. The ABA met with the Chief Judge, the primary opponent, and worked with UFC proponents in the District. Family and Child Services, a branch of the District of Columbia’s Child Protection Agency, and an ad hoc group of representatives from the judicial leadership and social service providers, have assumed the lead in efforts to explore the feasibility of a UFC approach in the District.

Does this part of the ABA seem like it’s going to take “No thanks!” as an answer?

Publicizing by ABA:

The ABA developed a network of national organizations to support UFCs. The American Judges Association, the Conference of Chief Justices, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, {{OBVIOUSLY this group would be in favor of UFC’s – gets its membership more customers!!}} the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, [NCJFCJ] and Join Together (a national organization created by RWJF that provides technical assistance and information** to communities on issues involving substance abuse and gun violence) distributed information and/or collaborated with the ABA on UFC programs

– – – – -**The phrase “technical assistance and information” ANYwhere should be better read “indoctrination — do it OUR way; but if anyone asks, we’re just “helping” (and not responsible if it backfires).- – – – – – –

Apparently in 2006, “Join Together” was phased out by RWJF to be replaced by a “VULNERABLE POPULATIONS” project:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF), which for two decades has been the most generous and visible private funder of addiction treatment and prevention programs in the U.S., has announced that it will no longer have a separate program area for funding addiction-related programs.

“Instead, any new grantmaking related to addiction will take place under the foundation’s Vulnerable Populations portfolio, said foundation president and CEO Risa Lavizzo-Mourey, M.D., in a recent letter to RWJF grantees. Often the neediest populations such as the chronically homeless, new immigrants, victims of domestic abuse** are faced with multiple health and social issues, including addiction, that must be addressed in an integrated way for these individuals to succeed. The Vulnerable Populations grantmaking effort focuses mainly on these populations.

**the substance abuse is often related to other kinds of abuse, which is already known (acestudy.org) from other longitudinal studies.  Perhaps if someone could focus on stopping the INJUSTiCE (including violence towards family members) instead of constantly TREATING it (both victm and perp as if both were responsible) there’d be less substance abuse!  (who knows?)

So now they’re going for “supportive housing” to keep kids out of the foster care system.  Guess who’s helping with THAT project?

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) has partnered with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and three private foundations to jointly fund a $35 million initiative to further test how supportive housing can help stabilize highly vulnerable families and keep children out of the foster care system. . . .Collaborating foundations include the Annie E. Casey FoundationCasey Family Programs, and the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation
This groundbreaking initiative is based on a successful pilot effort in New York City, known as Keeping Families Together (KFT) that took place between October 2007 and July 2009

This is actually an upcoming grant opportunity, $5 million available, per HHS. It’s under CAPTA (child abuse prevention).

What’s Wrong with this Picture? (coming….)

Interesting:  AFCC cite to the foundation:  see note at bottom of the page:  http://afcc.crinfo.org/action/search-profile.jsp?key=14482&type=web

This beta-test, demonstration gateway has been developed to demonstrate the structure of the Conflict Research Consortium’s joint gateway program to the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

This test site has not, in any way, been approved by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.

Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors and Editors
c/o Conflict Research Consortium, University of Colorado
Campus Box 580, Boulder, CO 80309
Phone: (303) 492-1635; Contac

— Edited by Outlaw_Wild_DoubleBill-KickbackCourts on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:06:09 PM on Wednesday 4th of July 2012 11:23:37 PM


PARTS II & III:

The powers that be (like ABA, foundations, HHS, etc.) determined among themselves that treatment is better than justice.  That some of them happened be in the treatment business must just be coincidence.

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family CourtsUFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem

Notice:  justice system — or treatment system.  Which would you rather have when walking into a courtroom?  Would you like to know which one you’re up for when it says “court” on the outside?

So, here comes that Robt Wood Johnson Foundation:

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) launched a national program, called Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime®.

… USPTO and trademarking social service reform (see that “®”?)

  • Search  . .Reclaiming Futures: Communities Helping Teens Overcome Drugs, Alcohol & Crime and get:

Sure ‘nuf that’s a robert wood johnson trademark:

Serial Number Reg. Number Word Mark Check Status Live/Dead
1 76117473 2592702 RECLAIMING FUTURES TARR LIVE
2 75627894 2540943 PROTECTING OUR FUTURE BY RECLAIMING OUR PAST TARR LIVE

They trademarked the act of giving grants!

IC 036. US 100 101 102. G & S: Charitable services, namely, providing grants to programs to combat substance abuse and delinquency. FIRST USE: 2001/01/25. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20010125

{interesting, executive order GWBush establishing faith-based office was 2001/01/29…}{Filed for opposition: August 24, 2000}

Owner (REGISTRANT) Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, The NON-PROFIT CORPORATION NEW JERSEY Route One & College Road East P.O. Box 2316 Princeton NEW JERSEY 085432316
Attorney of Record Richard C. Woodbridge

Reclaiming Futures logo

(the logo is also a hyperlink)

In 2001, with a $21 million investment from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, 10 founding communities located throughout the United States began reinventing the way police, courts, detention facilities, treatment providers, and the community work together to meet this urgent need

Amazing what a $21 million investment can do . . ..

“Reclaiming Futures has been evaluated by The Urban Institute in Washington, D.C., in collaboration with the Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago.”  (RWJF helped pay for the evaluation also)
Now there are six partners, including from OJJDP, HHS (SAMSHA), another foundation, Portland State, and a research institute at Portland state.

“Re-engineer the justice system in your state” (how-to manual):
Bring Reclaiming Futures to Your State or Tribal Lands »
Re-engineer the juvenile justice system in your state or region to avoid unnecessary costs and cut recidivism. Here’s how to get started.

RWJF + ABA = UFCs + Drug Courts (cont’d.)

For the Record, American Bar Association is listed at HHS as “Private Profit (large) Business.”  

HHS has donated over $20.6 million of grants to the ABA per TAGGS.hhs.gov. So taxpayers are supporting it, too, even if they’re not engaged in litigation.

ABA activism (from site below about Unified Family Courts):

From 1992 to 1996, RWJF funded the ABA Standing Committee on Substance Abuse’s Community Anti-Drug Coalition Initiative to mobilize lawyers, judges, and justice system leaders to help create new justice systems and structures to solve the substance abuse problem (see Grant Results [] on ID#s 019838 and 023195).

The ABA was also instrumental in persuading legal community leaders to support drug courts for juveniles, which link juvenile justice and community treatment resources to juvenile drug offenders and their legal caretakers.

OK, get JUVENILES into treatment, what next?

The ABA then helped cities nationwide set up drug courts for adultoffenders, which offer defendants who have been charged with a drug offense (typically first-time, non-violent offenders) court supervised substance abuse treatment in lieu of incarceration. Drug courts can motivate drug users to enter rehabilitation programs and reestablish productive lifestyles. These courts have dramatically decreased recidivism rates and drug use among participants.  [have they?]

UFC’s complement the work of the drug courts. UFCs combine the functions of family courts (which handle family-related legal issues) and juvenile courts (which handle [criminal or status offence, they should’ve said] cases in which minors are involved) into one entity and provide a comprehensive approach to helping “families in crisis. UFCs incorporate treatment for young substance abuse offenders into the wide range of cases heard in civil court involving family matters.

– – – – -OK, what’s that mean?

– – – – Basically, where family court would’ve been perhaps about custody and divorce primarily, UFC’s tempt the judges to order more services, and treat the entire family — although the case may be as simple as a custody/visitation plan or a divorce, NEITHER of which are criminal matters.  Also omitted — juvenile courts are not just for people of a certain age — they are for juveniles who’ve caused (or allegedly caused) some problems, committing a legitimate crime (breaking and entering, robbery, rape/sexual assault, etc.) OR “status offence,” i.e. violated some rules that wouldn’t apply to adults, like a curfew, or attendance at school (truancy violations).

Changed the entire climate, definitely affecting people with straightforward business in the FAMILY court who may not be sick or criminal.  This was less for the families than for the court’s convenience, and for its liaisons with treatment-providing organizations.

You can look up ABA HHS grants around this time and see:

#90CW1087 
Award Title: CHILD WELFARE RESEARCH AND DEMONSTRATIONS 
OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization: CHILDREN’S BUREAU (CB)
Award Class: DISCRETIONARY
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 5 0 ACF 09-17-1998 $ 700,000 
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 1 ACF 09-30-1997 $ 80,000 
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 2 ACF 04-15-1998 $ 26,004 
1998 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 3 ACF 06-24-1998 $ 21,276 
Fiscal Year 1998 Total: $ 827,280
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 4 0 ACF 09-10-1997 $ 450,000 
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 3 1 ACF 12-19-1996 $ 0 
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 3 2 ACF 03-29-1997 $ 0 
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 3 3 ACF 08-20-1997 $ 3,369 
Fiscal Year 1997 Total: $ 453,369
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1996 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 03 000 ACF 09-25-1996 $ 400,000 
1996 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 03 001 ACF 12-19-1996 $ 0 
1996 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 03 002 ACF 03-29-1997 $ 0 
Fiscal Year 1996 Total: $ 400,000
FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Yr of Support Award Code Agency ActionIssue Date Amount This Action
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 000 ACF 09-29-1995 $ 400,000 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 001 ACF 09-29-1995 $ 38,947 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 002 ACF 09-30-1995 $ 3,310 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 003 ACF 01-22-1996 $ 0 
1995 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  WASHINGTON DC 93608 02 004 ACF 07-15-1996 $ 55,125 
Fiscal Year 1995 Total: $ 497,382
Total of all award actions: $ 2,178,031

AND:

Award Number: MCU11A301
Award Title: PARTNERS IN PGRM PLANNING FOR ADOLESCENT HEALTH 
OPDIV: HEALTH RESOURCES AND SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (HRSA)
Organization: MATERNAL CHILD HEALTH / SYSTEMS EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (MCHB)
Award Class: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

FY Recipient City State CFDA Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
1997 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION  CHICAGO IL 93110 02 000 HRSA 09-02-1997 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 1997 Total: $ 100,000
Fiscal Year 1996 Total: $ 100,000
Total of all award actions: $ 200,000

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Award Actions

NON-COMPETING CONTINUATN
KATHI GRASSO 7 $ 100,000

So, ABA is a partner in “HEALTH SERVICES.”  Principal Investigator “Kathi Grasso”:

Ms. Grasso worked for the ABA Center for Children and the Law, OJJDP atsome point and is a member of NACC based in WDC.   She has a degree from Catholic University.  .She’s very active around the country and publishing on these matters:

  • (footnote to an NACC publication) A Judges Guide to Improving Legal Representation of Children, edited by Kathi Grasso, ABA Center on Children and the Law, © ABA May 1998.
  • Kathi Grasso  [From OJJDP “staff” list]
    Senior Juvenile Justice Policy and Legal Advisor
    202-xxx-xxxx
    kathi.grasso@usdoj.gov
First she worked for the (activist) ABA center for children, then she moved over to OJJDP which is a large agency which allocates GRANTS in Judicial Programs; as there she also functioned (I see) as OJJDP Liaison to other ABA commissions on Youth At Risk (etc.) causes.
(presented at some workshop on representing Indigents, in Texas)

Video 2: Keynote: Effectuating Reform in Juvenile Justice
Presenters: Kathi Grasso, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention with the U.S. Department of Justice
Link to handout and Juvenile Ten Core Principles

_ _ _ _ _
Curious about who was over the “Child Welfare Research and Demo” Grant (above), I looked — it’s a Mark Hardin, who retired in 2009 after 30 years of this type of advocacy:
Award Number Budg Yr Action Issue Date CFDA Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
90CW1087 02 09/29/1995 93608 MARK HARDIN $ 438,947
90CW1087 02 09/30/1995 93608 $ 3,310
90CW1087 02 01/22/1996 93608 $ 0
90CW1087 02 07/15/1996 93608 $ 55,125
90CW1087 03 09/25/1996 93608 $ 400,000
03 12/19/1996 93608 $ 0
03 03/29/1997 93608 $ 0
3 12/19/1996 93608 $ 0
3 03/29/1997 93608 $ 0
90CW1087 3 08/20/1997 93608 $ 3,369
90CW1087 4 09/10/1997 93608 $ 450,000
90CW1087 4 09/30/1997 93608  (etc.) $ 80,000
90CW1087 4 04/15/1998 93608 $ 26,004
90CW1087 4 06/24/1998 93608 $ 21,276
4 03/24/1999 93608 $ 0
4 04/26/1999 93608 $ 0
90CW1087 5 09/17/1998 93608 MARK HARDIN $ 700,000
5 04/26/1999 93608 MARK HARDIN $ 0
PROFILE from ABA shows:

Mark Hardin, National Child Welfare Law Authority, Retires

WASHINGTON, D.C., Oct. 13, 2009 — The American Bar Association is announcing the retirement of Mark Hardin, director of child welfare at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and an Oregon attorney.  A legal pioneer in the field of foster care and the role of the courts in aiding abused and neglected children and their families, Hardin spent 35 years utilizing his legal skills and knowledge to improve the plight of children removed from their homes due to child maltreatment.

Beginning as a legal aid lawyer in Portland, Ore., Hardin handled family, juvenile and welfare cases, giving him practical insight into the lives of vulnerable children and families.  In the late 70’s, during two years at Portland State University, Hardin forged development of the law on “permanency planning” for abused and neglected children and wrote several early publications helping social workers and policy analysts understand the legal aspects of a child’s placement in foster care.  He was among the country’s first trainers of lawyers and child welfare agency staff, educating them in their legal responsibilities relative to children removed from their homes due to abuse or neglect.

Hardin joined the Center on Children and the Law in 1980 where, according to ABA President Carolyn B. Lamm, he became “the country’s foremost legal scholar on foster care legal and judicial reforms.”

Hardin’s experience includes having directed the ABA’s National Child Welfare Resource Center on Legal and Judicial Issues, a program of the Children’s Bureau, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

  • Wait a minute.  is this “child welfare resource center on legal and judicial issues” something belonging to the ABA (a large, private, FOR-PROFIT BUSINESS) or the HHS (a dept. of the US Federal government, Executive Branch, of, by and for the people?  How can it be an ABA thing AND a program of the Children’s Bureau?  Conflict of interest, much?

. . .With nearly 400,000 members, the American Bar Association is the largest voluntary professional membership organization in the world. As the national voice of the legal profession, the ABA works to improve the administration of justice, promotes programs that assist lawyers and judges in their work, accredits law schools, provides continuing legal education, and works to build public understanding around the world of the importance of the rule of law.”

     [Was that supposed to be a JOKE?  We are having frequent issues with lawyers BREAKING the law!]

AN AWARD NAMED AFTER MARK HARDIN:

First Annual

Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change

The Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Legal Scholarship and Systems Change, created by the ABA Center on Children and the Law in 2011 with approval from the ABA Board of Governors, honors the work of Mark Hardin. Before his retirement, Mark served for almost 30 years on the staff of the ABA Center on Children and the Law as director of child welfare. Mark has long been recognized by those who work in this area of law as an early innovator in the child welfare legal field. He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.

This is understandable, given common interests in these goups

ANYHOW, now there is a MARK HARDIN AWARD, and the FIRST (2012) recipient of it is the Director of CALIFORNIA’s “AOC” “Center for Families & Children in the Courts,” — which is part of the Judicial Council — DIANE NUNN.


May 23, 2012AOC Director Receives ABA award for Work on Behalf of Families and ChildrenRecipient of ABA’s First Mark Hardin Award . .SAN FRANCISCO—Diane Nunn, Division Director of the Center for Families, Children & the Courts,Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), is the recipient of the First Annual Mark Hardin Award for Child Welfare Scholarship and Systems Change

DIANE NUNN (along with “Depner” along with Isolini Ricci) is AFCC — and the AOC in California — this year, last year, and in recent years — has been split with scandal over fiscal/financial irresponsibility, a bloated bureaucracy, overbilling and fraud in the creation of a new, huge statewide computer system (CCMS) and to my recall, several of its leadership suddenly stepped down:  Ron Overholt (administrator), his replacement, and another person — after a whistleblower suit.  (see this topic at “courthousenews.com” [back issues]).
This AOC/CFCC also administers and distributes the federal grants to nonprofits around the state for the “treatment programs” parents and kids are ordered into, as well as the Access/Visitation Grants.  i can see why a systems change award might go to one of their own!
” In 2000 she became the director of the Judicial Council’s AOC/Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC), the first entity devoted exclusively to family and children’s issues in a statewide administrative office of the courts. As Division Director, Nunn leads a nationally-recognized team that provides an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to serving the state’s family and juvenile courts. ”
…  {{“multidisciplinary” is code word referring to AFCC many times.  It’s their hallmark.  Why just have the rule of law when you could have social workers and psychologists as well?}}
“Describing the Award & Mr. Hardin:   He is recipient of the “Adoption Excellence Award” bestowed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; an award for “extraordinary contributions to children” from the administrators of the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children; the prestigious “Outstanding Legal Advocacy Award” from the National Association of Counsel for Children; and an award for interdisciplinary collaboration between law and social work.”
ABA is a private, for-profit business, supported by business(es) in the form of foundation grants, and with a little too close for comfort cooperation with HHS and the Adoption Incentives, plus the theme of we, the elite, know better how to rule society, so let’s change a few laws, and court practices!  After all, who’s going to complain — the indigent?

BMCC Day 3: Hierarchy Behavior @ Mothers’ Conference Derails Problem-Solving.

with 4 comments

Treat this as “news-alert” and not expository blogging today. I think it’s timely and relevant, though.

My post from last year speaks to this:

HAPPY NEW YEAR: What Rhetoric are You: Father, Mother, or Mediator?

There’s a live-stream programming from this year’s Battered Mother’s Custody Conference in Albany, New York, where many people actually acknowledging there IS a problem with custody courts giving custody to “batterers and abusers” exists.

“Houston, We Have a Problem” with DV & Child Abuse in the Family Courts

Here is the Speaker Schedule (on-line, dated 12/2011)

This awareness is NOT revealed by the composition of the recent Task Force of the “Defending Childhood” Initiative, which task force is called “Children Exposed To Violence” and has not ONE representative of, or authority speaking on, the matters of the US Custody courts, although even at the International level (“IACHR”) the USA has been recognized as a consistent violator of women’s human rights specifically in the family courts.

Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence

The Defending Childhood Task Force is composed of 13 leading experts including practitioners, child and family advocates, academic experts, and licensed clinicians. Joe Torre, Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations, founder of the Joe Torre Safe at Home® Foundation, and a witness to domestic violence as a child himself, and Robert Listenbee, Jr., Chief of the Juvenile Unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, will serve as the Co-Chairs of the Task Force.

Seriously: Here’s a list of links from the “DEFENDING CHILDHOOD” D.O.J. site. Take a look at the one called “Engaging Men and Fathers.” Look at its recommendation — this is classic federal protection policy for kids being raped by men. Make sure that Daddy stays involved and has a connection with the children. THis shows up also at “child welfare.gov” sites as I’ve shown before (or, you can simply go look): For active links, go to the DOJ site: “Take Action to Protect Children.”

If you’re a victim of violence in your home, and want HELP right away, call or visit:

National Domestic Violence Hotline 800/799-SAFE 800/787-3224 (TTY)

National Child Abuse Hotline 800/4-A-CHILD 800/2-A-CHILD (TTY)

Tips for Agencies and Staff Working with Youth (PDF)

Tips for Agencies Working With Immigrant Families (PDF)

Tips for Child Welfare Staff (PDF)

Tips for Domestic Violence and Homeless Shelters (PDF)

Tips for Early Childhood Providers (PDF)

Tips for Engaging Men and Fathers (PDF)**

**scroll to bottom, and see “Additional Resources”: several from FVPF (now “Futures without Violence”) and “national family preservation network.”***

“For more information and resources, please contact the Safe Start Center, a National Resource Center for Children’s Exposure to Violence:

http://www.safestartcenter.org 1-800-865-0965 info@safestartcenter.org”

Safe Start Center, Children's exposure to violence, it's everyone's business

Tips for Parents and Other Caregivers (PDF)

Tips for Teachers (PDF)

Safe Start Center Online Toolkits and Guides

Greenbook Initiative’s tools and resources to assist communities with the overlap of domestic violence and child maltreatment.

Child Development-Community Policing Program

*** “National Family Preservation Network” looks like yet another nonprofit (started ca. 1994?) I hadn’t of aught its influence yet. When I spoke yesterday about a (grand)mother who said that the basic function of CPS, AFTER child molestation has been confirmed, and under the “Welfare and Institutions Code,” was not to help the child, but to reunify the family? . . .. This seems to verify. Look at the money put behind this:

See book of Job: Commentary on losing everything: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, blessed be the name of the Lord.” Substitute “CPS” for the first LORD, “NFPN” for the second “LORD” and for the third, I suppose the public is not only supposed to “bless” but also FUND whatever DOJ, HHS, HUD, or DOE task force or initiative promises to moderate the taking and giving away, which brings us to the two certainties in life:  Death, and taxes.  And while there are taxes, there is going to be war, competition for the fruits of taxes and fights over which is closest crony to the government programs distributing them THIS year . . . . .     That creates a “high-conflict” struggle among the (plebians, non-experts, etc.) which then justifies more control systems.

Really now:  there’s an organization to take children away because parents are abusing them, and an organization to give them back; also a service to enforce child support, and a service ($4billion/year, ongoing) to compromise arrears are abated (or it’s eliminated) {{see  fatherhood, access/visitation, etc. }}  There are also incentives to move children into foster care and adoption, and incentives to Preserve Families.

In fact, at every level, “we” . . .  and future grandchilren . . . . are being made to pay for “Society’s” screwups, many of which can be directly graced back to a specific government institution — not “society,” — or several of them, already funded by the public. How Paternalistic! Meanwhile, the state of “society” (including portions previously engineered by various corporate/government/religious collaborations) is used as a justification of more corporate/overnment/religious collaborations and breaking down EVERY due process, civil liberty, and individual bill of rights protection engineered originally into the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution.

ANYHOW:

The mission of the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) is to serve as the primary national voice for the preservation of families. Our mission is achieved through initiatives in the areas of family preservation, reunification, and fatherhood. NFPN offers research-based tools, training resources, and technical assistance to public and private child- and family-serving agencies.

Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

In 1993 the National Family Preservation Network (NFPN) was instrumental in the passage of the Family Preservation and Support Act, the only federal legislation specifically designating funding for family preservation. This source of funding was incorporated into the Promoting Safe and Stable Family Program (PSSF) in 1997. The legislation is approved for a maximum of 5 years and Congress has just reauthorized funding.

Here’s a summary of what the legislation contains:

$345 million in mandatory funding and $200 million in discretionary funds

States are required to develop a five-year plan as to how they will spend the funds, report annually on progress, and provide a final report on funding

Funds must be spent primarily in four categories of services with at least 20% going to each category: family support, family preservation, time-limited reunification, and adoption promotion and support. About 25% of the funds are currently spent on family preservation.

PSSF also includes designated funding for tribes, court improvement, monthly caseworker visits, and substance abuse treatment.

Read more: Federal Approval for Family Preservation Funds and Waivers

Name change in 2005 (click on the IRS form) but apparently it’s still doing great business with the Federal Government? These are from “foundation finder” website:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR TOTAL ASSETS FORM PAGES

EIN:

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2005 $0 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2004 $155,649 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2003 $110,028 990 14 13-3715995

National Family Preservation Network Inc. ID 2002 $134,970 990 14 13-3715995

A quick search doesn’t show this name registered in Idaho, although website “Contact us” address is in Idaho (which is why I looked there); Also does it look like the IRS forms are complete or up to date, either? Check Idaho Corp. Search, here;

http://www.accessidaho.org/public/sos/corp/search.html

I found the listing under different name in Idaho (through simple google search)
133715995 Intensive Family Preservation Services National Network Inc National Family Pres 145,761 72,218 2009
(that’s a link to its 2010 tax return). Given the influence of this organization, I plan to find out whether it’s legitimately filed in Idaho, or some other state.)

~ ~ ~

Really — even the Jerry Sandusky, Penn State, Second Mile expose so far hasn’t brought up much — at all — on the lowly topic of family courts enabling the same thing. This situation also exposed a charity (The Second Mile) aimed at needy children (See “The Haiti Fund” of CT) which participated — and yet, are women, at this Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference, being encouraged to look at nonprofits for signs of impropriety, or tax evasion which may coincide with mistreatment of children (nb: Both are illegal activities, in fact, when Larry King of a MAJOR child-trafficking (male and female victims supplied through foster parents and/or Boys Town Nebraska) coverup broke, Mr. King did time on financial charges, not on abuse charges, kidnapping, torture or terrorism, etc. despite testimony and the extent of this operation.). Money-laundering or other tax-evasion when it comes to a charity dealing with children should be investigated — quickly!

Similarly, the Luzerne County (also, PA) “Kids for Cash” scandal,* which hasn’t finished spinning itself out yet, and which uncovered kickback activity involving juvenile institutions and a nonprofit with the word “Child Care” in it, and yet still dots are not being connected, mental perception hasn’t set in that this also is likely and has applied before in the family law arena? ???

*Ciavarella Found Guilty on 12 of 39 Counts

February 19th, 2011
By The Times Leader

SCRANTON – A federal jury on Friday convicted former Judge Mark Ciavarella of illegally accepting money relating to the construction of the PA Child Care center, but entirely rejected allegations he extorted Robert Powell or accepted money relating a second juvenile center.

The verdict, which was reached after about 13 hours of deliberations over two days, left both prosecutors and the defense declaring victory in the corruption case that has captivated the public for more than two years.

The jury found Ciavarella guilty of racketeering, racketeering conspiracy, money laundering and money laundering conspiracy relating to the $997,600 finder’s fee he received from Robert Mericle, the builder of the center. It also found him guilty of honest services mail fraud for filing fraudulent statements of financial interest with a state agency and five tax counts for filing false tax returns.

…The government could clearly show through bank records the flow of the initial payment of nearly $1 million from Mericle to Ciavarella, Zubrod said, but other payments allegedly funneled through Pinnacle Group of Jupiter, a Florida corporation the ex-judges set up, came out as cash and thus could not be traced with the same precision.

(Notice:  the government looked at cash flow, and saw what they believed a front group set up — in a different state — but were stymied where the payments turned to cash.  Note:  In Lackawanna County Court, PA, I believe one of the complaints about visitation supervisors, and another (DNR if parenting coordinator, or what) parents complained that they were forced to pay in cash (or not see their kids).  It was the economic matters which were prosecuted, and which took the case down.

RE:  Luzerne County situation — it was so embarrassing, so scandalous that in 2009 the state voted an Interbranch Commission on Juvenile Justice, which issued a report, “Lessons from Luzerne County

State records show that between 2003 and 2008, approximately 50 percent of juveniles appeared in Luzerne County Juvenile Court without benefit of counsel – nearly ten times the state average. Virtually all of these unrepresented juveniles were adjudicated delinquent, many for acts so minor and trivial that in most counties these charges would never have even made it to juvenile court. Of those youth without counsel who were adjudicated delinquent, nearly 60 percent were sent to out-of-home placements. The state data show that former judge Mark Ciavarella presided over more than 6,500 cases, leaving thousands of children and parents feeling bewildered, violated and traumatized. Luzerne County was a toxic combination of for-profit facilities, corrupt judges, and professional indifference.

In October 2009, in an unprecedented opinion, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court vacated Ciavarella’s adjudications of delinquency made between 2003 and May 2008. Just three months later, Special Master Arthur Grim ordered that all cases heard by former Judge Ciavarella were to be dismissed. In providing relief, the Supreme Court restored integrity to Pennsylvania’s juvenile justice system and gave hope to youth who suffered enormous harm at the hands of corrupt judges

Although it has been overtly shown, and acknowledged even within government, that there are indeed things called “corrupt judges” and that their interest is in financial gain  and this case, in particular, demonstrated spectacularly that ordering unnecessary services by judges to nonprofits or corporations they had a financial interest in, for some reason the BMCC conference in approximately 8 years does not seem to have had a workshop or presenter talking about the similar phenomenon in family courts.  I witnessed a woman from the floor ask, after all this advice on how to approach the bench, “what do you do if you get a corrupt judge?,” to which the speaker’s answer was, we don’t deal with specific cases.  I also heard in breakout sessions, a woman ask “what do you do when you can’t afford an expert witness” (the workshop being led by one), and some vague comment about, aren’t there pro bono services available?

Regarding Penn State situation

When it’s a stranger molesting, and others not reporting, somehow it’s more noteworthy than when parents do, which is so often just another relationship problem, and “who knows”? what REALLY happened in the case to provoke, well, murders, etc.

So, as there are so few conferences (that I’m aware of) that have been ongoing and specifically address CUSTODY and DOMESTIC VIOLENCE _- to which women themselves are actually invited, how much more important is it when women come from across the continent: the south, the west, the north, and the east coasts (presumably) to seek help and confer with each other about WHAT TO DO and get feedback on what has happened last year — this one has a moral and ethical responsibility to “GET IT RIGHT.” Anyone getting up in front of women who have experienced what these have, and what their children have — should be concerned about telling the Most relevant Truth, The WHOLE relevant Truth, and nothing which strays from the truth, clouds it, obscures it, or distracts from it.

In this matter from what I can tell, BMCC has failed abysmally this year as in prior years.

One thing that appears to guarantee “presenter status” and special attention is anyone whose advocacy and leadership has previously failed — sometimes, dramatically. Of course, presenters can apply I suppose — and do — but why is it that year after year the groups who show the least progress (when: Father, Mother, or Mediator Rhetoric is compared) regularly get up on the podium to commiserate and to exaggerate progress made — i.e., another task force appointed — and strengthen the sense of Family through this event?

As such, Linda Marie Sacks (see 2nd “About This Blog” post, I give links to the brief) is now a presenter, as are some of the groups specifically mentioned on her brief that was turned down (not heard) at the Supreme Court of the USA level. Eileen King (Justice for Children) was one of those, and is also a presenter at the conference. In all the years of these conferences, has there been one mother who was battered, or had child molestation situation (with evidence, i.e., CPS or police, etc.) — who SUCCEEDED in defeating a custody challenge? Or, any professional whose leadership (or group’s leadership) successfully changed the climate of the local custody courts to the point that this situation does NOT happen?

That should be a lesson for attendees (but probably isn’t).

Loretta Frederick, of BWJP (Battered Women’s Justice Project), who worked on a project alongside AFCC (see my blog, we know who this nonprofit for great profits lobbying trade group of family law judges, mediators, and attorneys (etc.) is now, right?)takes the podium to tell mothers something. I missed that live stream; it may still be up, but as I said in last post — this is more appropriate for to be put on the hotseat and have mothers fire questions at her — WHY is her group collaborating with the exact same people that market PAS theory which they so protest? (Of course, the same crowd is not informed HOW PAS theory gets marketed, which is primarily via AFCC and some related organizations).

The description in the conference schedulefor this ssegment:

2:00 – 2:30 Gabby Davis and Loretta Frederick:  Developing and Implementing a Conceptual Framework for Identifying, Understanding and Accounting for the Implications of Intimate Partner Abuse in Contested Child Custody Cases.
Ample research, local practice, and lived experience collectively inform us that the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children are not adequately accounted for in contested child custody cases where domestic violence is alleged.  Very little systematic attention is paid to whether there is a history of abuse, whether the abuse is ongoing, who is abusing whom, what the abuse looks like, and how the abuse impacts the children, the abused parent, and the parenting capacities of both the abusive and the abused parent.  Consequently, from an institutional standpoint, the family court system is often poorly organized to accurately identify and describe what is actually happening in people’s everyday lives so that it can respond in ways that are helpful, or at least not harmful, to the safety and wellbeing of battered mothers and their children.  This presentation describes a collaborative effort by the Battered Women’s Justice Project, Praxis International, and a local jurisdiction in NW Ohio to develop and implement a concrete framework to help family court professionals better identify, understand and account for the context and implications of domestic violence in contested child custody cases.

Like other segments, apparently, to bring up that the family court system is intentionally and systematically organized (and by whom) so as NOT to use a “conceptual framework” that pays attention to reality, or police reports… . .. The passive writing and constructions here are specifically NOT to finger or point to any real agents. It’s just an unfortunate “situation” that exists, which this grant series can address.

I addressed this specifically in July, 2011:

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: (= title of that post, and a link to it).

Reviewing BWJP website on this project shows that, no matter what changes, one thing won’t — so long as grants exist, advocates will be publishing their thoughts and observations, and then getting some nice conference engagements with travel expenses deductible, while NOT reporting on who set up the family courts to operate as they do.

http://www.bwjp.org/advocating_for_battered_mothers.aspx

Anyone checking out the BWJP site describing this project can see that it’s a joint project with AFCC and from funding by OVW, meaning, while we are so excited about the OVW actually NOTICING this issue (finally), the fact is, that they are paying AFCC to talk about what to do with the topic! And (see link above), I clicked on a few of the references; these women also know about Women’s Justice Project (which I cited yesterday), they know plenty — but they are not reporting the MOST relevant things to us: HOW COME year after year, our accounts continue to fall on deaf ears?

Nor do they talk about their own funding, or the apparent serious failure of this “collaborative Community Response” Model, which appears to have been pushed/originated most out of Duluth, MN.

A few TAGGS.hhs.gov grantees whose titles have the words “Battered Women” (Ms. Frederick’s group is not on this set): (I may clean up this paste tomorrow):

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN  LITTLE ROCK AR 72203 PULASKI $ 15,780
CENTER FOR BATTERED WOMEN  AUSTIN TX TRAVIS $ 204,581
COUNCIL ON BATTERED WOMEN  ATLANTA GA 30308 FULTON $ 3,000
GEORGIA ADVOCATES FOR BATTERED WOMEN AND CHILDREN  ATLANTA GA 30312 FULTON $ 1,440,579
MINNESOTA COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN  SAINT PAUL MN 55103-1844 RAMSEY 076896112 $ 3,157,167
NEW JERSEY COALITION FOR BATTERED WOMEN  TRENTON NJ 08690 MERCER 883332645 $ 3,504,339

Showing: 1 – 6

100% of the MN grants (here) if you look are the “SVDC” grants — statewide DV coalition, even though it says “Battered Women” on the title.  The Georgia group hasn’t got anything in this millennium, and what it did get relates to Mental Health protection and advocacy, plus $47K for “SVDC 1996.”   The NJ group is getting the statewide (SVDC) grants for several years — around $250K — but in the year 2010, gets some more for “Youth” as well.  Helping Battered Women is “old School.”  Helping Children and Youth is much more fashionable, although seems to me one way to help children and youth is to stop people from knocking their mothers around while they are growing up!

2010 90EV0404  FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION AND SERVICES/EXPANDING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN AND YOUTH 1 0 ACF 09-24-2010 883332645 $ 150,000 
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:

As we can see, it’s few groups and little funding under “battered women.”  This was ALL years combined.

However, change the term to “Domestic Violence” and you get the advocates that are centralized and under better federal control, for example, I just checked recently — Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence ALONE got $26 million in one year alone of grants, which it distributes in part to local “women’s resource centers” which (I checked some) already show direct links to fatherhood groups, particularly one on Scranton. a.k.a., PCADV is sharing funding with groups promoting fatherhood under the title “Women’s Resource” or what a battered women, entering in or calling for help, might be very much misled to believe is actually about helping HER — and not promoting family reunification or other fatherhood agendas.

This has some more details, and we see that to start out with (1996 — oddly, same year as welfare reform) the groups all got $47,140 each to get started, and no one even bothered to name the grant.  This is just a slice of them, all coming from the “ACF” (Administration for Children and Families”.

ACF ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AZ 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CA 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CT 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DC 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DE 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HI 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ID 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IL 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC IN 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IA 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170
ACF KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KS 01/01/1996 NONE $ 47,170

(etc.)  No CFDA# was assigned, yet and no “principal investigators” are even named.

Fast forward to 2005 (the year I’m searching on below for 990s), and I’m showing again ALA through KS (plus it picked up a RI at the top).  The amounts are nearly 5 times larger ($237K/$250K), and someone has bothered to key in a Grant Title, but few Principal Investigators even named:

Program Office Grantee Name State Grantee Class Grantee Type Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ASH/ODPHP RHODE ISLAND COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE RI Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization SAFE AND BRIGHT FUTURES: A STATEWIDE PLANNING PROJECT TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF CHILDREN WHO WITNESS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 09/28/2005 93990 SHEILA FRENCH $ 75,000
FYSB ALABAMA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB ARIZONA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AZ Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB CALIFORNIA ALLIANCE AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB CONNECTICUT COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CT Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB DC COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DC Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB DE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DE Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations Community Action Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE FL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization COLLABORATING TO IMPACT TEEN DATING VIOLENCE IN THE LIVES OF RUNAWAY & HOMELESS YOUTH 09/20/2005 93592 TIFFANY A CARR $ 75,000
FYSB HAWAII STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE HI Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB ID COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL ABUSE AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ID Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB ILLINOIS COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IL Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB INDIANA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC IN Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Special Interest Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB IOWA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,037
FYSB KANSAS COALITION AGAINST SEXUAL & DOMESTIC VIOLENCE KS Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038

This year we should also show the NYS Coalition (I remember discovering Patti Jo Newell as a BMCC presenter, and as a NYS DV person, a few years back, it seems).  Odd grant labeling, don’t you think?

FYSB NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC NY Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization 2005 SDVC 05/06/2005 93671 $ 237,038
FYSB NEW YORK STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, INC NY Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 09/22/2005 93592 PATTI JO NEWELL $ 130,000

I think that “Executive Director” is an interesting award title, don’t you?  (Compare, below).  I also note that the CFDA has moved from 93671 to 93592

For PCADV (Pennsylvania) this was also a good year, it got SIX funding streams to start new projects.  two of these were from a different program office (see below); the “DELTA” awards coordinated through two women, Karen Lang and Pam Cox, whoever they are:

FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  2005 SDVC  05/06/2005  93671  $ 237,038 
FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  DEMO PROJECT FOR ENHANCING SERVICES FOR CHILDREN EXPOSED TO DV  09/22/2005  93592  CONNIE THOMAS  $ 130,000 
FYSB  PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  PA  Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations  Other Social Services Organization  NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  08/29/2005  93592 SUSAN KELLY-DREISS $ 1,561,230 
FYSB PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  09/28/2005  93592 SUSAN KELLY-DREISS $ 700,000
NCIPC PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization DOMESTIC VIOLENCE DATABASE EARMARK GRANT 06/03/2005 93136 KAREN LANG $ 297,600
NCIPC PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PA Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations Other Social Services Organization NATIONAL ON-LINE RESOURCE CENTER FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN  07/27/2005 93136 KAREN LANG $ 388,398

I looked at a tax return (recommended).  It shows approximately where the money is going, and relationships also with MPDI, Battered Women’s Justice Project, PA Crime Comissions, and USVAW (as program expenses which resulted in profitable income (i.e., expenses were less than revenue from the activity).  More  to the point, it also shows which programs money is being distributed to, including names and EIN#s (i.e., are these subgrantees also filing properly…) and officers.  While only the Exec Dir. is earning over $100 from PCADV (and a reasonable salary for a very large nonprofit), there are also quite a few others earning around $75K plus a parallel column of income from “related organizations” averaging from $18-25 or so, meaning it’s got a LOT of officers who are pulling in $100K a year, plus a few pages of unpaid “directors” which I assume? (right or wrong, could be checked) represent the directors of the various shelters.

Program purpose is stated (sorry about lack of spaces:  Link here:)

1.TO ELIMINATE DOMESTIC ABUSE OF WOMEN AND THEIR DEPENDENT CHILDREN IN THE COMMONWEALTH OF PA. 2.TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE. SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS SHALL INCLUDE CRISIS TELEPHONE COUNSELING, TEMPORARY SHELTER FOR THE VICTIM AND HER DEPENDENT CHILDREN AND/OR PEER AND PROFESSIONAL COUNSELING, ASSISTANCE IN OBTAINING COMMUNITY RESOURCES, HELP IN ACQUIRING EMPLOYMENT SKILLS, AND/OR WORK REFERRAL.

{{Please note that apart from temporary shelter, it says nothing about legal advocacy in the case; once she’s out of the shelter, and in the family law system, the protection order usually comes off, and then — depending on the ex and circumstances — these women are forced to interact long-term with their exes in a system which has a federal grant-incentive, and a child support enforcement agency incentive, and affiliated programs incentives — in addition to whatever incentives the ex had then, and may have now if child support order is in place — to keep the case stretched out and going as long as possible.  Sometimes women then are killed, and/or their children, and/or their exes (i.e., murder/suicides), to the extent that websites have been set up unofficially to track this!  (dastardly Dads, etc.) .   I fail to see how a huge movement of this sort which fails to take seriously the situation of women AFTER they leave the shelter is doing to STOP violence against women.

I also note it says “abuse” and not “violence” in the program description.}}

3.TO EXPOSE THE ROOTS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE INSTITUTIONALIZEDSUBSERVIENCEOFWOMEN INTHISCULTURE.4.TOPROVIDEQUALITYSERVICES STATEWIDE AND TO EXPAND SERVICES SUCH THAT EVERY VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE COMMONWEALTH MAY OBTAIN IMMEDIATE, COMPREHENSIVE SERVICE LOCALLY. 5.TO DO ANY AND ALL LAWFUL ACTIVITIES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY, USEFUL, OR DESIRABLE FOR THE FUTHERANCE, ACCOMPLISHMENT, FOSTERING OR ATTAINMENT OF THE FOREGOING PURPOSES, EITHER DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, AND EITHER ALONE OR IN CONDUCTION WITH OTHERS.

Response:

RE:  Purpose 3.  The roots of DV in institutionalized subservience of women in this culture includes religion AND government AND the workforce.  PCADV is funded by government, and not likely to take on government itself; it doesn’t deal extensively with religion, although so much backlash against feminism (which is mentally associated with pro-LGBT where much of conservative religion is against LGBT, and the Bible is clear on the matter too — it does not endorse homosexuality.  Then again, it doesn’t endorse robbery, usury, or adultery, either.) comes from religious roots.  

Family Law/Domestic Relations Courts  is an institution which could be easily a focus of PCADV (if goal#3 was a major one), as it’s the venue which fathers’ rights groups have targeted as unfair to them, and in which the pendulum swinging the other way has a lot of money behind it.  Yet this major, federally-supported organization, is not focusing on the custody issues, and does not report on even the AFCC, CRC, CPR, AccessVisitation Grants etc. (at least they don’t lead with this information; I haven’t seen it).   They do not report on the various Fatherhood Commissions now being established at the state levels (feel free to correct if you can find anything dating to around the time they were being created).

We are beyond the point of no return in pretending that the domestic violence organizations do not KNOW about the extent of their supposed counterparts, the fatherhood-funded organizations entrenched throughout the executive branch of government (and by executive memo from a Democrat President in 1995, Pres. Clinton’s memo), written into public law in welfare reform, and in both houses of congress fatherhood resolutions were passed, 1998 & 1999.   The NFI has now grandchildren, i.e., nonprofits (also with federal support) training the trainers.  HHS is courting a Coalition of Fathers and Families — and yet organizations like this, and following this lead — simply don’t see fit to MENTION this to women they serve, with the result that these women are losing their children to men they fled, sometimes fled recently!  What kind of “Future without violence” is that/

This information — that the group puts out — is tremendous when it comes to validation for women who have been suffering from this, and useless when it comes to advocacy when they are in a custody battle!  That some of the key scandals came this year FROM Pennsylvania is perhaps an indicator of a bit of tunnel vision?  

I don’t feel “comfortable” criticizing the work of anyone who’s obtained this much public presence, federal help, and cultural change in spreading the concept of “domestic violence” as a serious problem — and the founder of this nonprofit also grew up witnessing violence in the home, her bio says, and was recently inducted into a Women’s Hall of Fame.  HOWEVER, we have to be honest — when institutions get large and established, they also tend to become calcified as to taking feedback constructive, or simply truthful; there is a “territory” to defend.

I also wish to mention that of the “Coalitions Against Domestic Violence” (funded — not in a major way, most of them except this one, but in a minor way) are usually members of the over-arching nonprofit “NATIONAL Coalition Against Domestic Violence.”  If one looks at its website, I believe membership has multiple breakdowns, but one of them (for nonprofit groups) as i recall includes either this minimum or “a % of the budget.”  Therefore if member CADVs are getting federal funding, NCADV, which is not, takes its “tithe” (so to speak) and this is public money.

Susan Kelly-Dreiss was inducted into the Women’s Hall of Fame (for her PCADV work, etc. — see link) in 2009.  She got laws passed, shelters started, and was a recognized leader.  I do not see that anything much was done about the problem with the family law system which started in earnest in mid-1990s. Isn’t that something of an oversight, considered in what context women are fleeing their homes with children, and then having unsafe visitation exchanges by court order afterwards, which results sometimes in death?  Wouldn’t a situation which is getting people killed require a little attention, like prominence?  But despite all this funding, success, and honors, it seems Pennsylvania is having serious problem living down its recent scandals.  It continues to put out DV literature (“Telling Amy” out of PSU just being one of them).   FBI has been called to handle corruption in a family courthouse.  Now go through that site and see if it mentions the problem!

Also, I’d like to get an answer why the hotshot resource center, which has been receiving funding since 1993/1995, didn’t bother to register with the state til 2011!   In this, its behavior is beginning to resemble the marriage/fatherhood grantees.  Note:  in 2005, it’s called a grant, not an institution — but in their literature, it’s spoken of as an “entity.”

HHS describes some of these resource centers HERE:  BWJP is one of them….  The “on-line resource center” (“VAWnet”) describes its philosophy:

National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women

About VAWnet

VAWnet is a comprehensive and easily accessible online collection of full-text, searchable materials and resources on domestic violence, sexual violence and related issues.

The goal of VAWnet, The National Online Resource Center on Violence Against Women is to use electronic communication technology to enhance efforts to prevent violence against women and intervene more effectively when it occurs.

– – – – – –

in 2011 (top two rows only are PCADV), over $1,000,000

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 981,771
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 315,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE  ENOLA PA 17025-2500 CUMBERLAND 929907426 $ 1,500,000

Overall:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 156527558 $ 39,965,461
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  HARRISBURG PA 17112-2669 DAUPHIN 166527558 $ 945,000
PENNSYLVANIA COALITION AGAINST RAPE  ENOLA PA 17025-2500 CUMBERLAND 929907426 $ 14,559,328

Showing: 1 – 3 of 3 Recipients

 

Checking USASpending.gov (the top DUNS# only, which relates $39,965,461 in total grants), it shows only:

  • Total Dollars:$10,040,520
  • Transactions:1 – 20 of 20

This is in part probably because TAGGS goes back further in time (to 1995), but should be looked into for discrepancies.  That’s a large one, and the bulk of funding was after the time period USASpending database covers, not before it.   The discrepancy is, as we can see, over $29 million.  I call that a lot!

In addition from the DOJ (this is per the above site, USASpending.gov) PCADV — under that top DUNS# only — got this many grants:

  • Total Dollars:$2,443,223
  • Transactions:1 – 11 of 11

The second DUNS# relates to “VAWnet” creation.  Technology (i.e., disseminate information, PR, research, websites, etc.) to stop violence against women.  OK . . . . started in 2009…

2009 U1VCE001742  VAMNET IN ITS GOAL TO HARNESS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY TO SUPPORT EFFO 1 000 CDC 08-21-2009 166527558 $ 315,000 

~ ~ ~ ~The variety of program funding it draws from in both the DOJ and HHS side shows that this is a favored group.   In their home state — and home town — there has been to date, a scandalous cover-up of child abuse (Sandusky), cheating and racketeering re: sending children off to a juvenile institution (Luzerne) and FBI investigating financial fraud at a county courthouse (Lackawanna) among other things.  The next president elect of AFCC also works out of Harrisburg and is an expert witness (Pay, $150 hour, $75 for travel for the firm, last I looked) and I see nothing at all in PCADV of this helpful information.

~ ~ That most of this money comes from HHS and not DOJ tells us one thing — that DV is considered NOT a criminal matter, but a health and children/family matter.  I believe it’s time to call it what it is — crime — and stop writing theses (see below) trying to get family court professionals to apply domestic violence law, and for that matter, I wish to see what results training and technical assistance are providing, except to ensure that no one is under this training going to “out” the systematic fraud and program overbilling (etc.) going on in the other court sectors.

(I’ll come back to this topic another post.   When I looked at the “income from related organizations” column on their 990, I saw amounts — on each row — on which I could’ve adequately sustained (fed AND housed) my family in one of the most pricey areas to live in the country, though not the safest (SF extended Bay Area), and a salary level I couldn’t possibly obtain once the case hit the custody courts, which continually interrupted work!    In other areas — and I have looked at some housing prices in Pennsylvania while helping look at the Scranton area disgraces — these amounts would probably sustain a family of four, comfortably.  But instead, they are “supplemental” income from related groups by people on the Board of PCADV who already are making in the realm of $70+ per year.  I don’t have a problem with people making that much income, but when the program exists because of federal funding, then it has to be accountable to taxpayers for what it’s doing.  If it is functioning as a leader among state-funded coalitions and allowing people to go through programs it subsidizes, and not warning women about upcoming custody issues WHILE it serves them, it doesn’t deserve to continue leading.  This is exactly what is happening throughout the country — and probably because of the centralization & “professionalization” of this movement!

 

From “foundation finder” — and only for a single year, 2005, here are how many state (and county, etc.) groups are “Against Domestic Violence.” Who wouldn’t be “against domestic violence” and actually admit it? The list is long: Again, these are from groups who have apparently filed tax returns with the IRS (if not their local states) in 2005.

62 documents matched. 62 documents displayed. (Search on “Against Domestic Violence“)

ORGANIZATION NAME

STATE

YEAR

TOTAL ASSETS

FORM

PAGES

EIN

Agape Foundation Against Domestic Violence Inc. CA 2005 $3,401 990EZ 14 95-4697016
Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. AL 2005 $586,764 990 22 63-0907890
Alliance Against Domestic Violence WA 2005 $-4,005 990EZ 15 91-1920654
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence VA 2005 $6,394 990EZ 12 54-1679023
Amherst County Commission Against Domestic Violence VA 2005 $29,691 990EZ 11 54-1679023
Arizona Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. AZ 2005 $584,318 990 15 86-0593601
Asian Task Force Against Domestic Violence Inc. MA 2005 $1,349,359 990 20 04-3103354
Botteneau County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. ND 2005 $-1,660 990 12 36-3653713
Branch County Coalition Against Domestic Violence MI 2005 $747,905 990 21 38-2463183
Bridges Against Domestic Violence SD 2005 $45,935 990 13 46-0425839
California Alliance Against Domestic Violence CA 2005 $422,627 990 17 77-0347420
Center for The Elimination of Violence Family Inc. (D/B/A Center Against Domestic Violence)*** NY 2005 $8,313,868 990 28 11-2415837
Citizens Against Domestic Violence NC 2005 $27,649 990 15 56-2023076
Citizens Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $9,025 990EZ 19 31-1703077
Colorado Coalition Against Domestic Violence CO 2005 $305,976 990 25 84-0742604
Committee Against Domestic Violence NV 2005 $991,442 990 27 88-0187930
Connecticut Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. CT 2005 $1,141,502 990 22 06-0985675
DC Coalition Against Domestic Violence DC 2005 $177,997 990 22 52-1515600
Employers Against Domestic Violence MA 2005 $62,063 990EZ 11 04-3389211
Florida Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. FL 2005 $5,065,959 990 19 59-2055476
Fremont County Alliance Against Domestic Violence WY 2005 $262,417 990 13 83-0254163
Georgia Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. GA 2005 $218,210 990 17 58-1854962
Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence HI 2005 $34,704 990 20 99-0235218
IA Coal Against Domestic Violence IA 2005 $344,360 990 18 42-1285094
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence IL 2005 $683,281 990 20 37-1056288
Illinois Coalition Against Domestic Violence Foundation IL 2005 $39,132 990 14 37-1381646
Indian Country Coalition Against Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault OR 2005 $8,491 990 14 04-3601074
Indiana Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. IN 2005 $227,338 990 13 31-1009769
Kankakee County Coalition Against Domestic Violence IL 2005 $584,737 990 15 36-3100202
Knox County Task Force Against Domestic Violence Dba Harbor House IN 2005 $331,796 990 15 35-1662335
Lincoln County Coalition Against Domestic Violence NC 2005 $185,074 990 18 56-1822730
Louisiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence LA 2005 $426,982 990 25 72-1015427
Marshall County Coal Against Domestic Violence AL 2005 $38,628 990 17 30-0178911
Maryland Network Against Domestic Violence MD 2005 $188,574 990 17 52-1233434
Maury Co Center Against Domestic Violence TN 2005 $412,158 990 16 62-1375056
Merrimack County Task Force Against Domestic Violence NH 2005 $291,019 990 26 02-0342221
Mississippi State Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. MS 2005 $407,812 990 28 64-0656865
Nashville Coalition Against Domestic Violence TN 2005 $0 990PF 13 58-2165997
Nassau County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $1,710,858 990 20 11-2442377
National Coal Against Domestic Violence CO 2005 $217,684 990 24 91-1081344
Nevada Network Against Domestic Violence NV 2005 $277,241 990 19 94-2910861
New York State Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $449,377 990 18 22-2337608
NM Coalition Against Domestic Violence NM 2005 $1,116,716 990 16 93-0792163
North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, Inc., The NC 2005 $449,411 990 21 61-1077481
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault I OK 2005 $247,396 990 25 73-1131211
Oklahoma Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Inc. OK 2005 $261,112 990 30 73-1131211
Partnership Against Domestic Violence Inc. GA 2005 $1,067,804 990 20 58-1314556
Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence PA 2005 $3,700,229 990 29 23-2052886
People Against Domestic Violence MO 2005 $36,174 990 14 43-1577117
Pike County Partnership Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $46,070 990 17 31-1438441
R I Coalition Against Domestic Violence RI 2005 $882,830 990 17 05-0384580
Richland County Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. MT 2005 $27,674 990EZ 10 36-3452392
Ross County Coalition Against Domestic Violence OH 2005 $146,155 990 22 31-1044779
SC Coal Against Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault SC 2005 $310,313 990 21 57-0760811
South Dakota Coalition Against Domestic Violence SD 2005 $29,146 990 13 46-0357192
Stand! Against Domestic Violence CA 2005 $4,439,016 990 22 94-2476576
Suffolk County Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. NY 2005 $924,328 990 17 11-2470902
Unidos Against Domestic Violence Inc. WI 2005 $61,765 990 24 39-1967912
Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence WA 2005 $821,765 990 19 91-1507028
WI Coal Against Domestic Violence Inc. WI 2005 $228,954 990 23 39-1380437
WV Coalition Against Domestic Violence Inc. WV 2005 $486,285 990 17 31-1011750
Wyoming Coal Against Domestic Violence WY 2005 $664,354 990 25 74-2466406

In short, Everyone (if you ask them — or fund them) is against domestic violence.  Imagine a group being honest enough to say, “I’m FOR Domestic Violence!”  — it’s one of the easiest topics to say you are against.  So we have:  Coalitions, Centers, Task Forces, Networks, Partnerships, but the primary ones taking money from HHS come under the centralized “Coalitions.”  Some are by state, others are by county, others have some particular emphasis (“Unidos” or “Asian” or “Agape” etc.) (I put anything over $1 million in red font).

*** This one (new to me) says its program purpose is SHELTERING VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, and has leased some property in NY for it.  Its officers have one Executive Director at $125K (very reasonable for the field), and “Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Employees Other Than Officers,Directors,and Trustees” shows from mid-sixties to $81K, including two shelter directors.  This one looks like it is actually getting help to people, and not spending its money on training, building fancy websites, and “technical assistance” while selling curriculum to everything that moves and breathes.   LEt’s see if this comes from HHS by an “EIN#” search:  Recipient EIN = 112415837 No matching awards found.

The Center began at a “speak out” in Brooklyn in 1976 where more than a hundred women told how their lives had been turned upside down by domestic violence. One thing became clear: There was no place where mothers could flee to safety with their children. In fact, it was against regulations to bring a child to the “unfit” environment of a shelter. A group of trailblazing women—domestic violence victims, survivors and advocates—set out to change all that and the Center was born.

The Center’s Women’s Survival Space, a place where abused women and their children could find safety, was the first of its kind in the State and is now the longest operating domestic violence emergency shelter in New York. Today the Center houses up to 1,000 women and children each year in three emergency shelters.

By contrast, the Florida CADV (which got $5 million+ in 2005) shows this amount in TAGGS:

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
FLORIDA COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE  TALLAHASSEE FL 32301-2756 LEON 053274101 $ 7,878,370

$2.2 million of this (above) was from “DELTA” alliances….

Award Number: CCU422481
Award Title: DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PREVENTION ENHANCEMENT & LEADERSHIP THROUGH ALLIANCES
OPDIV: CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC)
Organization: NATIONAL CENTER FOR INJURY PREVENTION AND CONTROL (NCIPC)
Award Class: COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT

The other thing these grants go to is sometimes to set up “resource centers” aka nice websites which republishes the same type of information, and I wonder who’s monitoring the results and the tax returns of these nonprofits-within-nonprofits. Anyone?

Do a basic “recipient search” (by NAME) on TAGGS, for “Domestic Violence” and notice how much larger the results list is, and how much larger the grants are. PCADV shows over $40 million alone. California Alliance Against Domestic Violence has three different DUNS# it is taking grants under. New York Coalition Against DV — two. There are consortiums and interventions and councils when it comes to “domestic violence” — 74 recipients in all.

Many of these grants are being shared with shelters, and I really wonder if some of the money actually gets TO the shelters, as there is so much emphasis on “Technical Assistance.” There’s one called a National Resource Center on DV (which I looked up) in Harrisburg, PA — which received $1.5 million — and yet I am wondering how separate it really is from the PCADV?

(Filed for incorporation in PA in 2011 only):






National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, Inc. 4023857 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 4/11/2011

(I don’t understand why — but the Secr. of State  PA Corporations page shows one filing only for PCADV — in 1977.  No annual report filings show up.).  Again, the “NCRDV” is an HHS project, and per its own website, existed by name since 1993, 1995 — but only as a corporation this past year?

ABOUT NRCDV…

It is the mission of the National Resource Center on Domestic Violence to improve societal and community responses to domestic violence and, ultimately, prevent its occurrence.

Since 1993, the Pennsylvania Coalitions Against Domestic Violence (PCADV) has received core funding to operate the NRCDV from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, with supplemental funds from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to support VAWnet, our national online resource center, and other private and public grants. The NRCDV employs a multidisciplinary staff and supports a wide range of projects to address the complex challenges domestic violence poses to families, institutions, communities, and governments.

Similarly, an Ohio Coalition Against Domestic Violence — in Franklin County, OH — has gotten over $7 million (from HHS, not including any from the DOJ) — and yet Ohio also has a major parallel network to counter any feminism, entrenched and well organized — which I looked at when a little girl got molested and raped INSIDE a government-funded facility, and it was photographed on cell phone, during one of those “Family Reunification” Supervised (?) visits that everyone is paying for. This little girl’s sister had previously died in foster care after being removed AT BIRTH from the mother.

See below, I also address that these groups are NOT necessarily mothers’ friends:

BWJP associates with the Duluth group (DAIP) and “MPDI” which I have blogged on, obviously. I forgot to mention – the live stream of the conference indicated that now the women are to honor “Ellen Pence.” That’s fine — how about a moment of silence for all the dead women, children, and let’s throw in the bystanders, that Ms. Pence’s Collaborative Community Response theory (CCR) is NOT saving, as we speak, and for a round of applause for completely silence on the fatherhood funding, when addressing women and mothers. I also think she should be commended for fronting and schmoozing with another fraudulent group called the National Family Justic Center Alliance (Casey Gwinn Gael Strack, etc., brainchild) out of San Diego, the “Enron by the Sea.”

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

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC
DULUTH  MN  55802-2152  ST. LOUIS  193187069  $ 19,901,530

~ ~ ~
When people stand up and speak to (you) — one of the first questions to answer, particularly in this field, is, who is funding them, and who are their friends. I am sorry to be so blunt, but I have just spent almost 20 years in the geographic area of one of the largest “family violence prevention funds” around — and I cannot see what lives it is saving, and it has completely avoided dealing with the family law crisis. That’s simply unacceptable, at this level, and while other social services (like to the disabled) are taken into consideration.

Taken from the “DAIP” (Duluth Abuse Intervention Program) site — where solicitations for donations, and products being marketed are prominent figures, we learn that BWJP is one of its projects:

The mission of Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs is to end violence against women. We give voice to diverse women who are battered by translating their experiences into innovative programs and institutional changes that centralize victim safety. We partner with communities worldwide to inspire the social and political will to eliminate violence against women and their families.

Our programs include the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, the Duluth Family Visitation Center, the National Training Project, and the Battered Women’s Justice Project.

The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project is a program that collaborates with community agencies such as law enforcement, criminal and civil courts, and human service agencies to provide an institutional advocacy response to battering.

Our Visitation Center offers support for victims of domestic violence and their children as well as supervised visitation, monitored visitation, and monitored exchange services to families affected by domestic violence.

Supervised Visitation was one of those compromises with radical men’s groups; and it is an adaptation from the field of child welfare, i.e., “reunification theory.” Thanks to the concept that intervention, supervised visitation, and judicial trainings are the solution, we have had nightmare circumstances where non-offending mothers are being put into supervised visitation monitoring and further traumatized, monitored and reported on. Jack Straton testified in early 1990s!! AGAINST doing this to children, and why — and that testimony actually is printed under DAIP type letter head (and probably on my blogroll to right). His advice was ignored, and now the situation is far worse — because while he said this in 1992, 1993 — in 1996 welfare reform opened up a grants stream (diversion from TANF) to encourage the development of such supervised visitation centers.

These centers are now making negative press headlines, have been since 1999 reported as sources of potential and identified double-billing (in fact one of the women’s cases who was at the head of the room at BMCC is on-line documenting this. For some reason, her voice in this matter has been silenced, and she sits by mutely while her colleague Connie Valentine recites how great it is to have this task force about “Children Exposed to Violence.” .. . .. I have a question (speaking of Sandusky) — if one of the most heavily funded coalitions against DV is in PA — and what’s more, I think isn’t it even AT Penn State? — then how come they didn’t put two and two together about the Second Mile, Sandusky, and the scandal in the Lackawanna County family courts? Which the FBI is now investigating (and which overlaps with the field of supervised visitation).

etc.. . . . .

BWJP is one of “Four Resource Centers” according to a 2007 Federal Register description.

During FY 2006, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made 241 grants to States and Tribes or Tribal organizations. HHS also made 53 family violence prevention grant awards to non-profit State domestic violence coalitions.Show citation box
In addition, HHS supports the Domestic Violence Resource Center Network (DVRN). DVRN consists of the National Resource Center for Domestic Violence (NRC) and four Special Issue Resource Centers (SIRCs). The four SIRCs are: The Battered Women’s Justice Project, the Resource Center on Child Custody and Protection, the Resource Center for the Elimination of Domestic Violence Against Native Women (Sacred Circle), and the Health Resource Center on Domestic Violence. The purpose of NRC and the SIRCs is to provide resource information, training, and technical assistance to Federal, State, and Indian Tribal agencies; local domestic violence prevention programs; and other professionals who provide services to victims of domestic violence.

(NB: Plenty of collaborations between DV & Fatherhood groups are held behind mothers in custody battles’ backs, and without soliciting their input, see any federally supported, state-level (or state-wide) DV provider these days, or fatherhood provider, and it’ll become clear how cozy a relationship these two types of groups have with each other. Eventually (in time marked by statistics and headlines of people shot or otherwise killed surrounding divorce & custody issues) some of these two groups — and very proud of themselves they seem — even talk (with each other) about oh, yes, and women ARE losing their children to abusers.

Here’s a segment from “TimesUP” (a blog, with lengthy article by Barry Goldstein, telling how the first (BMCC) custody conference had a great idea — which was to reach out to the domestic violence groups (“After all, are they not the experts?” must’ve been the reasoning)and get them involved. I’m sure the expenses can be written off at the nonprofit level. It’s called “History of the Battered Mothers’ Conference” and appears to be dated (or at least posted) Dec. 2010, and ends inviting people to attend the January, 2011 conference.)

QUOTE:

The battered women’s movement is a natural ally of the protective mothers movement.*

“After our first conference Mo and I spoke about the importance of working with domestic violence organizations and we reached out to the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters. Domestic violence advocates are now well represented at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference. Mo and I were invited to lead a workshop and then a separate discussion group at the 2008 NCADV national conference. Rita Smith, Executive Director of the NCADV and other staff have become regular participants at the Battered Mothers conferences and have given us everything we ever asked for. The NCADV invited Mo and I together with Garland Waller and Judge Mike Brigner to present about our book at a plenary session during the 2010 NCADV national conference in Anaheim. This has been a wonderful collaboration that will continue to benefit protective mothers and all of the battered women’s movement.

END QUOTE:

MY RESPONSE(s):

[[*FALSE! The Protective Mothers’ Movement (as such) was only necessary because of work the Battered Women’s Movement left undone, conveniently for the family court system, or couldn’t break through and accomplish, instead compromising away rights of future battered women — without their knowledge — by compromise, and failing to advertise heavily to what degree they had compromised. This evidently is Mr. Goldstein’s perception still, which may explain why he’s still nonplussed (or at least silent on) what really is “up” in the custody courts, and (more to the point), WHY!]]

RE, Above:

“the New York State Coalition, the State Office for the Prevention of Domestic Violence and other similar groups. As a result of these meetings and the ever more horrendous situation in the courts, domestic violence organizations have become our biggest supporters”

Why shouldn’t they? BMCC is not about to “out” the various alliances these organizations have, and when women in attendance have tried to (from the floor), it’s not exactly a warm reception. On the live stream, so far, I heard approximately three women bring this up from the floor. One of these did so during a break, while people were going in and out and talking a lot in the background, i.e., she didn’t have official “floor.” (ALSO NOTE: Unprofessional — the schedule was behind by this point, over an hour behind. Mr. Goldstein was to start his session at 10 a.m. Instead, did not have the floor until after 11:30am, PST.).

This person also commented on the “TimesUpBlog” in Dec. 2010, and basically reiterated it today, around a din of people coming and going for their long-overdue rest break, I guess:

ricky fowler said…

nys coalition against DV and NYS domestic prevention are not advocates of battered mothers, they do not fight DV the do not fight the courts. the DV shelters are fathers rights. and when the mothers complained at the first conference that the shelters are useless, this is still the truth, it haven’t changed. they are the enemy, the YWCA all over the nation is partaking in abuse of mothers and children.

we have no experts in DV, we have people that make money . we need a non custodial mother movement. battered mothers that are not protective mothers are being rubberstamped and lose their children. the admi of family and children promote abuse, the MH proffessionals promote abuse. we are making no progress. and the NCADV is not addressing the real problem. the dog need to be called in its name. it is not just custody scandal. is human trafficking, and one of our worst enemies are the carrer driven women. they are selling the mothers. the public will only care when when they will see the blood, the bones the death. so far the bublic does not want to know and does not want to care. to many of them are getting rich this way.

Today (see live stream, perhaps earlier you tubes are saved to the site), after this, a woman got up and said, she comes from a DV program (provider) and feels under attack every time she comes to the conferences, “not all programs are the same.” (I believe this is true, however, some similar things have happened to where they get their funding from, which is no doubt affecting what they can do.)

When this second woman from a DV program (I don’t know which kind, whether shelter or another source) another grabbed the mike more authoritatively and said, “listen up people, this is important.” Then shared that, while she could see both sides of the question — AND, the battered women’s shelter hadn’t helped her custody case either — we should honor everyone’s work, we honor “all you do” — (and then proceeded to list, basically, the presenters again…)

Another woman (in earlier session) named some NY state agency that was getting quite a bit of money. The presenter (I couldn’t see which one) said, they didn’t want that dialogue now, get it together with others separately. The woman mentioned “OHEL,” which I began to look up.

Well, at least now I know why the BMCC hasn’t published the most important materials mothers need to know in their custody case, or fathers, in their child support or custody cases, for that matter! Or taxpayers — which is who is paying the other side? If this were reported, then the natural tendency of women would be to run across who is funding groups like FVPF, NCADV, PCADV, etc. And to my knowledge, the NFI (incorporated ca. 1994!) Ron Haskins, Wade Horn, David Blankenhorn, Brookings Institutions, STATE-LEVEL Fatherhood Commissions, etc. — are not going to be brought up, either.

I want to also quote another section of the same article on the same blog to illustrate what mean by the Hierarchy Mindset, when a movement is NOT a true grassroots movement because the paid professionals ARE involved:

For the fourth annual conference, Mo had the idea of creating a Truth Commission made up of a multi-disciplinary group of leading experts in domestic violence and custody

    who would listen to the testimony of sixteen protective mothers and use this information together with their knowledge of domestic violence custody cases to make a report

about the problems in the custody courts and potential solutions that could prevent the all too common tragedies discussed in the testimony and research.

Notes: It was Mo’s idea — not a participating mother’s idea. Mo Hannah, Ph.D. straddles two worlds — she is a mother who has experience in this system (how recent, I don’t know) and also a college professor, major, psychology — which is significant in this field, dealing with criminal matters, or what WE like to believe are criminal matters, even if the family courts decriminalize them because they were committed by personal relationship, and not a stranger.

And in her conception, the women could tell their stories, and the experts would write it up, adding their inside knowledge on cases (what makes these parties think that women have not themselves networked, read other casework, sat in on hearings, seen firsthand enough to testify on?)

We listened to the mothers’ testimony in front of the conference and then met privately to discuss the issues and prepare the report. While there were a few minor disagreements most of the conclusions and recommendations were unanimous and the atmosphere for the discussions was collegial. The Truth Commission presented its report and discussed it at the conference in front of all the participants. The reaction was supportive and appreciative. We later exchanged drafts by email as we prepared the final written report that can be found on the Internet and in our book.

The Truth Commission Report created a lot of excitement when we released it because it not only exposed the extent of the problem but also provided realistic solutions.

{{PI’VE READ ONE OR ANOTHER VERSIONS OF THIS ON THE INTERNET, AND HAVE READ CAREFULLY THE CONTENTS AND PREFACE MATTER OF THE RESULTING BOOK (OVER 100pp of it). ITS SOLUTIONS COMPLETELY FAIL TO REPORT ON THE PWORWA AND EXPLAIN FINANCIAL INCENTIVES TO THE COURTS TO PROLONG CUSTODY CASES, AND A WHOLE LOT MORE. THE BASIC SOLUTION HAULED OUT AT EVERY CONFERENCE USUALLY BOILS DOWN TO — THE JUDGES NEED MORE EXPERT TRAINING. OURS…}}

One of the people who was impressed by the report was a publisher at Civic Research Institute which produces quality research and other material by and for professionals. She asked Mo Hannah to prepare a book based on the Truth Commission Report and Mo invited me to co-edit the book with her. This became DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ABUSE and CHILD CUSTODY which was published in April of 2010. Many of the experts who present at the Battered Mothers Custody Conference became contributors to the book. We are excited that the book will be available at the upcoming 8th annual conference January 7-9. We will be discussing how to use the research in the book to help win better results in court.

While this is presented as “we’re all in is together” a “Truth Commission” on the presenters — and on this book — would include that the groups mentioned above, particularly NCADV, in its Anaheim CA Conference (2010?) mercilessly promoted each other, this book and through mailing lists provided by, it seems, “California Protective Parents Association,” Connie Valentine, et. al. A special “Custody track” was added to the NCADV conference, and people who played nicely by the rules could also present there, which Ms. Valentine and others did. More products were introduced to sell to women whose kids and lives were presently being injured and whose lives were under threat, while receiving horrible treatments and further abuse in the courts.

I protested loudly when a friend of mine, who put up an excellent blog, and who was known to be homeless, had been so slapping up press-releases for NCADV/CJE (Kathleen Russell Consulting -related nonprofit), and so forth, while these women were having their wages garnished and THIS one was homeless and working FT to pay her ex-batterer, having zero visitation with her son! There seems no end to what can be drained out of mothers, while concealing relevant information that at least makes some sense!

I do believe that at some level, women leaving abuse are prone to simply finding another controller/handler to replace them, and are particularly vulnerable when this includes both women and men.

The overall standard within this crowd is that anyone who disturbs the peace — i.e., has some “high-conflict” relationship with the overall strategy, process, or themes — can just either learn to get along, or go somewhere else. In this manner, the tendency of women to congregate and work together, and also use peer pressure and group pressure to control dissidents or troublemakers (or, those who won’t go along with the gang when IT is the troublemaker) — is being, to my mind, exploited by those running the conference.

There is also the issue of “blurred boundaries” and thinking that the “is what WE are doing working” actually represents a true “we.” it doesn’t. The women gave their testimony, but the experts wrote the book. Even if they make zero money from it, it’s still on their resume, and can be sited for further speaking engagements.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Anyone who runs a conference, puts it on (which is a major deal) and has had to plan, advertise, administrate, staff, design PR and brochures for, handle finances of presenters and exhibitors, etc. — has a right to control the conference and who gets up front and who does not.

i also believe that this type of podium/floor conferences are NOT the best places for experts to interact with non-experts. It’s not enough to overcome the self-perceived professionalism of the presenters, and the very professional and sometimes expert observation mothers bring to the floor, but without their Ph.D.’s etc.

By innocently? bringing in the “DV Experts” and developing an ongoing momentum of some sort, Mo and Barry, together with west coast helpers Connie Valentine & Karen Anderson (group, CPPA), and non-mother, non-family court survivor Kathleen Russell & CJE (Center for Judicial Excellence), etc. – have all but assured that the TRUTH is not going to come out honestly in this forum. I know from pretty reliable hearsay that Mo also has known about some of the materials I report, and others have reported (California NOW 2002, Marv Byer, NAFCJ.net, in particular) and has chosen not to lead with this information. We all need to make a living, right?

I have personally by email more than once, and also in commentary on material (blogs) these have written, brought up the influence of the nonprofit groups, the actual data regarding the access/visitation funding (to enable increased noncustodial time) and other very obvious (once you look at the stuff) influences on custody decisions, over a period of more than two years, and speaking as a family court survivor who had seen that the information coming out of this source now DOES NOT HELP CUSTODY CASES CONSISTENTLY.

They are still talking about “batterers manipulating the courts” and seem very foggy on the matter that the courts have also influenced the batterers.

conic Analysis is not only more objective than psychological and hearsay reports from the experts — it’s something a person could do at home without an advanced degree, but with some persistence. Doing this type of look-ups also is enlightening and convicting to individuals; the information CANNOT be ignored forever.

I also saw segments from a 2011 protest at HHS building (Washington, D.C.) and saw the signs /banner put up. They were blunt and confronting — but did not give readers or passers by a single website to go to, almost (except “Save Elsa Newman” type one) or mention any terms which could provoke a neutral person to go look things up at home later.

It mentioned the words “$500 million fatherhood funding.” Like the “58,000 children a year put in the custody of (molesters/abusers) which comes from The Leadership Council” — I don’t know where they got this from. If the goal is consciousness-raising, then how about a cite when the data is put out, so a person would see it him/herself.

I personally think the information is far larger. One newsletter I have leads me to believe that possibly someone got it from a Washington Post article!

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

If the Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference comprises a warm, but extended family that’s spread out all year long, but comes together for a ceremonial occasions to share stories and exchange gifts (well, in this case, SELL THINGS), then I would like to propose another paradigm of this family which may speak to mothers involved:

Before you reported, did YOUR family of origin, or extended family, try to “keep secrets” and severely ostracize or punish people who spoke up about what was happening behind closed doors, or collectively by tacit assent — when a child or spouse (or both) was being abused?

I have to at this point say, that’s what you have in the BMCC. Mothers have allowed professional DV organizations to drive the agenda, and to help you sell product. However noble or sincere their intentions may be (and I do believe many of them are), it is NEGLIGENT to omit the statistics on who is running the court system, year after year (8 years in a row), enabling the more informed organizations to “play the field” and dig organizational and financial network of trenches to further compromise the safety of women leaving abusive situations.

You do NOT send troops into battle with chinks in their armor. this IS a battle for the safety of children and particularly “battered mothers” — and they are not even being provided with an adequate boot camp, or even weapons, not unless they know who their opposing side is and what the modus operandi is. Less coaching, more observation would help.

It seems clear that either Mr. Goldstein has not done his homework on TAGGS, USASPending.gov, or on the readily available on-line material about AFCC, and about Welfare Reform, etc., — or he has, and hasn’t digested it.

For example, getting the state (government funding) involved is likely to frame the question in a certain manner so as not to compromise other funded issues — such as fatherhood promotion, which is quite well, thank you, in NYS.

Moreover, as I mentioned above, NOW has many priorities, and reforming family law is NOT a top one. It’s on the back burner.

I hope by being VERY overt and blatant about this position, it may help wake up, or resonate with someone who’s on the fence about, what’s really going on here? We need to know who is and who is not a “friend” when it comes to the most important issues in any parent’s life: Staying alive, and protecting (her, in this case) young. The same principles apply to when assessing who is and who is not going to live in one’s household any longer. Assessment needs to happen.

My blog will NOT continue to be added to after January 2012, (the end of this much) pretty much. This work is volunteer, and no one has to volunteer years on end, after so many years of devastation in the “custody courts” following a pretty devastating marital relationship.

Life consists of time, which is precious — so do good analysis, check it from time to time, adjust as needed, and make good decisions — but make them at least your own decisions!

Consider this a “Shout!” and hopefully it will echo in someone else’s ears.

When mothers who have been battered, or had extreme trauma through either CPS, or removal of children without due process in the courts, will take some time to look up (not rocket science!) on-line some of the people who preaching and teaching them how to manage their own court cases, and what the dynamics are like — I believe they will be more empowered; and will take their RIGHTFUL place in leading — not following — any reform movement within the family law system.

Many of such women may not feel comfortable standing up and saying STOP! No! Ludicrous! or stepping apart from (this) crowd. Others may — but until you take the position of, I am going to VALIDATE information I’ve been receiving, and moreover, I’m going to show a little initiative, or “ADHD” and look at some things these teachers are NOT mentioning to see if they fit in the puzzle — the less need they will have to cross the continent to listen to the “same old” and hopefully get a few seconds of mike in-between presentations.

Really, we need to analyze what good have the experts done here, be thankful for the progress, and probably, take the reins away. “Thank you, foremothers and forefathers, now this is what’s been happening in the last 15 years that your driving down this road failed to see. No harm meant, but it’s time to reconsider the license to lead.”

(Of course, there is no license needed to put on a conference — just organization and some funding. So the matter is of, where to spend one’s time.)

There’s a lot more being communicated than just content at any conference (this one included). As a former teacher, I know this. There are standards, values, processes, and so forth. Right now, I feel from this far away — and by who’s presenting — (today’s post is a sampler, and I didn’t mention the ever forefront promotion of the Holly Collins case and Garland Waller’s film) that it’s time for something different.

When Faith in Faith-Based Nonprofits [with Missions to Rescue Helpless (Boys)] is Badly Misplaced. And Potential Remedies.

with one comment

(this is a 15,000 word post, including quite a bit of quotes…. and the result of a whole day’s writing, plus some).

NARRATIVE: 

On Christmas Day, yesterday, having no (biologically-related) family contact, I was driving around noticing society’s nearly unanimous agreement to shut down business-as-usual for December 25th, every year, as I know they did across the country.  Streets and curbs that were normally full of cars, and ripe pickings for the parking monitors (producing income for Traffic Court, etc.), were barren.

So why can’t this same society unanimously also decide to shut down “business-as-usual” for more than one day a year, or in a row, when it comes to child abuse?

Perhaps I’m a heretic in bringing up what happens to young boys in a season focused around the Birth of Baby Jesus to (most likely) what we’d now call an underaged young woman, and Who was the real father??

But let’s get honest — it’d be a hard sell to convince anyone that this season is not about sales to start with.  The news, television, local street lighting some places, house decorations, stores, on-line offers, and did I mention, churches?, are all out strutting their stuff, as newspapers frantically take the measure of the economy and encourage people to step up to the plate for the economy and BUY something that won’t outlast the season, might contribute to a diabetic condition, and is otherwise useless in normal life.

And, if possible, another car, or diamond, to show how much you really love each other.

Therefore, I excuse my own lack of reverence for, participation in, or collaboration with this insane holiday.  It has been the source of equal amounts of joy and pain since I got married, and afterwards, a colossal sense of loss (after kids are gone), preceded by sense of dread for which incident was going to be concocted for THIS year’s holiday.  I could write a chronology of my life based on the transformation of this one holiday (in association with probably also Easter, and the beginning and ends of every school year as well) from, special occasions for wonder, joy, fun, and sharing into the Nightmare on Elm Street.  This metamorphosis began shortly after marriage (I remember the marriage — ALL of it, practically — as a living, and pretty much waking nightmare, and it went on quite too long).

So could many others in similar situations.  Still yet others can’t, because one year, the holiday cost them their lives.  And this is still going on, and “blessed be” anyone that has the guts to keep track by reporting — mine can’t stomach it, for sure.

 To me, it’s “Business as Usual,” which is reporting on this– or that.  Today’s post is a “that.”  It’s been eventful (for sure) in the land of local message-boards stopping local corruption (they’re up / they’re down / they’re up — but is it a real one or a mirror site?) and the parties running them (they’re heroes/ they’re villains), and so forth.  This is why I keep an ear to the ground for character indicators, but like to keep a closer eye on the financial flow — which is a little more of an objective thing.

And monitoring and controlling financial flow is a great handle for stopping abuse, better than saying “We Stop Abuse” loudly, often, and expensively.  (Wow.  I found Women’s Justice Center in Sonoma County CA, is with me on questioning not only these bogus “domestic violence” agencies — which are sleeping (figuratively speaking) with both the family law and the law enforcement sectors, plus some — AFCC — while taking ongoing grants labeled “discretionary” — but also the VAWA itself.   Part of my holiday fund-appeal came from a VAWA-related group (it seems), which I think is funny, because when I appealed to some VAWA-type organizations for real-time, tangible help in my situation — the phone line went dead, so to speak.  I fail to see what help they are doing anyone besides the program adminsitrators, and anyone whose expertise is in setting up beautiful websites, i.e., a lot of the telecommunications and conference-hosting sectors of the economy.)

TODAY’S TOPIC:

  • Remember Kids for Cash in Luzerne County?
  • Remember the Penn State Scandal?
  • Remember my blogging Project Pierre Toussaint and consistently blogging the problems with nonprofits that keep on collecting AFTER they’ve lost their corporation status (let alone after their founder gets arrested, as Doug Perlitz did)?
  • Are You Aware of the Administration’s Knee-Jerk Response in Appointing another Task Force to help others stop embarrassing themselves by getting caught?

Some of my (former) associates are always trying to get a Congressional Hearing to Form a Task Force to appoint Somebody Else to fix the problem they are upset about.  They often do this without even bothering to consider what the job of “Task Forces” is to actually do, namely get grants to justify their existence and issue reports (unmonitored, often) about what they actually are doing, did do, or promise to do.  That, among other reasons, is why these are FORMER associates.  See title of this post.

The other thing Congressionally Appointed Task Forces do – becuase typically they are addressing some systemic outrageous problem that government itself previously created — is to expand authority and expense of the Federal Government’s control over (everyone), while blaming (everyone but itself) for the problems it is solving.

Sooner or later all of this looks to be coalescing, pretty swiftly, into one big, fat, fascist mechanism in which we all will play our federally-assigned places in the newly designed breathing mechanism called “one world” government, aka please re-read Brave New World, 1984, and even A Wrinkle in Time.  It’s not like the authors, artists, musicians and playwrights actually ARE functional authors, artists, musicians and playwrights to start with because they don’t notice what’s going on around them, and synthesize it into understandable and symbolic translations, now — is it?  Government and faith groups certainly understand the power of the arts (and architecture) to communicate world views, and restructure reality — that’s why they pour so much money into them. Nowadays, this includes anything on the internet as well.

In this version of the future, perhaps we will all be one big happy family (that’s certainly the True Parents’/Sun Myung Moon et al.’s vision, which appears to have folded into the US Presidents’/Administration’s fetish with marriage/abstinence/faith-based & fatherhood programs) — and our futures will have no violence, if only we could just stop thinking, feeling, observing, and leave it to the qualified experts we are paying for to do this for us.  But in the meantime we already have had CAPTA (see below) since 1974.  There’s been a multitude of task forces and other entities stopping violence against children around.

~ ~ ~ ~

History tells us that this thing about putting everything in “order” with a single, all-knowing & of course kindly male at the top of the heap, and at the top of every family (kind of like the Pope & Santa Claus & God & a Sugar-Daddy all rolled up together) is less benign and altruistic than it may seem.  Everybody know your places, and don’t get out of them, either!   Just accept another Task Force, and we experts will take care of the problems of:

  • Child Abuse AND
  • Children Exposed to Violence AND
  • woman abuse (VAWA) AND
  • domestic violence (NCADV etc.) AND
  • father-absence (Fatherhood.gov) AND
  • also your local affiliates of the US Government (state/county, Unified Family Court etc.) will take care of local domestic ‘disputes’ as directed by the local AFCC & CRC chapter, about which we are not interested.  (i.e., compartmentalization of tasks, but the most important ones lead back to an executive agency).     

Go back to work, don’t worry.  Somebody, after all, has to pay for this great leadership.  Consume, consume, consume — and we will organize and fix.

~ ~ ~ ~

Now, 2011, from the Federal Register — I am talking about, what happened to all the previous Task Forces (etc.) and Initiatives?  Why a new one, and what’s so different about it this time?  Who wishes — really — to analyze why the other ones have failed in their missions?   And why does it take this amount of firepower to convince ANYONE that children being exposed to violence in the home is bad (and can we discuss that it’s also bad for both adults — the person committing the violence as well as the person taking it on the chin, and other body parts).  Parents of these children have been reporting it for decades.   So have news headlines.  So have DV organizations.  So have Child Abuse organizations.  So now, it’s official?

Notices
Establishment of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence
Pages 67761 – 67761 [FR DOC # 2011-28319] PDF | Text | More
Hearing of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence
Pages 67761 – 67762 [FR DOC # 2011-28322] PDF | Text | More

(Below, I post Task Force Members and talk about it more….)

I’m not real informed on CAPTA, but here’s a summary on it from a 2009 Congressional Research Service (fairly neutral gov’t source, I believe; their function is summary explanations; I’ve cited their works on other topics before).  Wikipedia describes CRS as the “public policy research arm of the US Congress”  or example, they will summarize bills and post it on Thomas.gov, I think…  Although Wikipedia also notes:

CRS reports are highly regarded as in-depth, accurate, objective, and timely, but as a matter of policy they are not made directly available to members of the public. There have been several attempts to pass legislation requiring all reports to be made available online, most recently in 2003, but none have passed. Instead, the public must request individual reports from their Senators and Representatives in Congress, purchase them from private vendors, or search for them in various web archives of previously-released documents.

(which what I’m about to cite probably is):

The Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act: Background, Programs, and Funding

[[==”CAPTA”]]

by  Emilie Stoltzfus, Specialist in Social Policy, November 4, 2009

7-5700 http://www.crs.gov R40899

Child abuse and neglect is a significant social concern. Children who experience abuse and/or neglect are more likely to have developmental delays and impaired language or cognitive skills; be identified as “problem” children (with attention difficulties or challenging behaviors); be arrested for delinquency, adult criminality, and violent criminal behavior; experience depression, anxiety, or other mental health problems as adults; engage in more health-risk behaviors as adults; and have poorer health outcomes as adults.

Currently we have a conflict of interest in this statement with the fatherhood groups.  All of the above situations are supposedly caused by father absence.  This is neatly handled by combining the concept of “father absence” with “child welfare” as seen in the multitude of fatherhood programs on the site “childwelfare.gov.”   Actually, a far more significant problem is likely to be father PRESENCE, in some cases, and society’s reluctance to accept that when for the child’s safety father ABSENCE is required, that the mother then (the careless, overly fertile bitch in heat that can’t choose a companion right, and what’s worse is burdening the public welfare caseloads.  Oh yes, we forgot to mention that in initially passing Welfare Reform, we (the US Congress– see ethnic & gender profile) particularly are concerned about this characteristic among women…, and hereby “tweak” the “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) to create “Welfare-to-Work” concept, from which adequate and ever-increasing amounts of marriage/fatherhood(abstinence, relationship skills education, etc.) will be diverted so this problem can be stopped at its (alleged) root!!”)

This being a typical publication (notice the domain name, Child Welfare.gov)

The Importance of Fathers in the Healthy Development of Children

Author(s): Office on Child Abuse and Neglect, U.S. Children’s Bureau Rosenberg, Jeffrey., Wilcox, W. Bradford.
Year Published: 2006

In fact, for a REAL quick “Cliff Notes” (summary at a glance) version of the field, FIRST click on that title above, “The Importance of Being Earnest,” I mean, (sorry, I mixed up my comedy of errors period piece titles), “The Importance of FATHERS…”) and see all the hyperlinks in the outline.  Then go down to “Appendix B” and do the same thing.  That’s about as good a quick education on what’s happening to public funding of untested theory (although the tests continue….) on fatherhood and preventing child abuse through it as one can get.

Appendix B – Resource Listings of Selected National Organizations Concerned with Fatherhood and Child Maltreatment

Listed below are several representatives of the many national organizations and groups that deal with various aspects of child maltreatment, as well as several that address fatherhood issues.  Like (by now any regular readers of this blog should know a few of these names).  Under the section “For Fathers and Fatherhood Groups” (as opposed to general public)

Bootcamp for New Dads  (Irvine, CA)

Center on Fathers, Families, and Public Policy (Madison, WI)

Center for Successful Fathering  (Austin, TX)
Family and Corrections Network  (Palmyra, VA)
The Fathers Network  (Seattle, WA )
— I guess this one is in case the various state-level Commissions on Fatherhood are falling behind on their nationwide PR, and Fathers and Families Coalition of America ever gets busted for how many improperly incorporated organizations are among its affiliates, that is, allegedly are improperly incorporated — meaning, I haven’t gone through all of them yet).
National Center on Fathering  (St. Louis, MO)
National Fatherhood Initiative (Gaithersville, MD)
National Latino Fatherhood and Family Institute (Los Angeles, CA)
National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, Inc. (Washington, D.C. and see my blog)
    let’s not forget this set of fathers:  Stay At Home Dads, who (just like some Moms) might feel isolated, and need a support group.  This is a resource for helping them connect with each other.  It just merged with “AtHomeDad” and can be found there (I linked)
with the motto (at new site — angelfire.com carries it) “men who change diapers change the world.”

Which gets me thinking – if we could enforce this policy with members of Congress — get them to practice this — perhaps there’d be fewer fatherless children around — there’d be fewer wars!

CONGRESSIONAL RESOURCE SERVICE ON CAPTA, cont’d. , now that I’m through with the sarcasm part…  This 2009 summary seems to be in preparation for making sure funding for this act continues.  CAPTA started in 1974.  We are on the topic of how forming child abuse prevention task forces is a surefire way to stop child abuse, as Penn State and the Haitian Fund, and for that matter, a recent child-rape during a supervised visitation (with both of her parents, one with a sex abuse prior on his record, as I recall) in an FCFC (that’s Families & Children First) funded type building, supported 77% by government funding, including a recent state-wide “Children’s Levy” in Trumbull County, Ohio.  Ohio is very “up” on preventing abuse of children — because it has BOTh a commission on Families and Children AND a commission on fatherhood, not to mention a Governor’s Office of FaithBased and Community Initiatives which draws funding (probably) from both sides of that fence (promoting fatherhood and protecting children, as it did the family in Trumbull County which also (I forgot to mention) had an older child — snatched at BIRTH — later (not much later — at about age two) die in foster care too.  Which brings me also to the concept of federal incentives to states for foster care, ALSO, and so on . . .. ).

LIKE I KEEP SAYING — IF YOU WANT TO PREVENT CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR, PASS A LAW AGAINST IT, SET UP A TASK FORCE, PAY, EVALUATE, REPORT, AND HOPE.  THIS IS FROM THE CRS 2009 REPORT ON CAPTA:

In FY2007, states reported an estimated 3.5 million children were in families investigated or assessed by CPS workers and some 794,000 were identified as victims of abuse or neglect.

In 1974, Congress enacted the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, P.L. 93-247) to create a single federal focus for preventing and responding to child abuse and neglect. As a condition of receiving state grant funds under that act, states are required to have procedures in place for receiving and responding to allegations of abuse or neglect and for ensuring children’s safety.

YES.  and by the same logic, to receive federal fatherhood grants, the state organizations or (whatever) are supposed to have procedures in place to prevent domestic violence also.  Neither says that there is supposed to actually be any evidence that the program LAST year (or last 5 years) actually did prevent child abuse or domestic violence.  Just to have procedures in place.  Again I say — where do all these horrible parents come from to start with?  Who raised THEM?  (See public education, USA??  Foster Care USA?  Prior failure to stop child abuse or domestic violence in or out of the home, USA?).

Further, they must define child abuse and neglect in a way that is consistent with CAPTA, which defines the term as “ at a minimum, any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker, which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation, or an act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm.”

Since its enactment, CAPTA has been reauthorized numerous times, most recently by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36). Currently, it authorizes formula grants to states to help improve their child protective services; competitive grants and contracts for research, demonstration, and other activities related to better identifying, preventing, and treating child abuse and neglect; and formula grants to states for support of community-based child abuse and neglect prevention services. Funding authorization for these CAPTA programs expired with FY2008. However, Congress appropriated $110 million for CAPTA in FY2009 (P.L. 111-8) and a similar amount has been proposed for FY2010 (H.R. 3293). In addition, CAPTA authorizes grants to improve the prosecution and handling of child abuse and neglect cases. These formula grants to states, commonly referred to as Children’s Justice Act grants, are funded via an annual set-aside of up to $20 million from the Crime Victims fund.

CAPTA is LARGE, PERVASIVE, INVASIVE & EXPENSIVE — has it been successful?  The CRS summary here shows some of the extent:

Between 1963 and 1967, every state and the District of Columbia enacted some form of child abuse and neglect reporting law to permit individuals to refer cases of suspected child abuse or neglect to a public agency.

Reminder:  by definition any “Public Agency” is being financially supported by the public.  We pay income taxes, sales taxes, city, state taxes, property taxes, and you name it.  Our taxes are used for things far beyond our awareness and comprehension at times, including unwarranted wars on foreign soil (Iraq) and otherwise protecting such things as corporate wealth and Bush Family Interests, aka Oil.    Citizens with or without children pay for public schools that apparently are turning out child abusers, and we also pay for the world’s largest per-capita system of prisons, again, which are getting privatized.  In these prisons, there’s plenty of outcry about juvenile abuse — as in rapes, isolation, you name it.  We fund all levels of law enforcement from the local up to Mr. Holder.   So when a public agency exists to protect children and is failing — that’s a very serious situation, and that IS the situation.

I come from a region of the US where a man previously convicted of kidnapping and raping, and had done jail time for it, was let out and thereafter, something got lost — and he was able (with a wife he married, who met him on a prison visit) — to kidnap another minor, hold her hostage in a series of sheds in the backyard in a suburban area outside the SF Bay Area — and while on probation.  In this matter, he also went to prison for some other reason for a while — and the wife (living in a mother’s home) held down the fort.  This young woman was not only kept hostage and raped, giving birth to two children which she then somehow managed to raise and thought she was their SISTER — she also financially assisted her rapist/captor in his printing business.  This went on for 18 years.  I’m talking about obviously Phil Garrido & Jaycee Dugard.  So I believe from these and plenty of other instances, that it’s time for people at the street level — not the top, most official levels — to examine WHY child abuse continues to be such a horrible problem decade after decade.   And to do this we have to start looking at our mindsets (the cult of the experts) and our willingness to believe everything said on the internet and in a very officious manner — without the means to check it out.

Or, our habits of simply throwing up our hands and saying, it’s out of my control, I don’t know.  Suppose it were your kid?

Sometimes the most valuable learning comes after the most serious setbacks and defeats — but it happens with a cost, a cost of somehow making the TIME to reflect and investigate “how did we get here” and an insistence on acknowledging when the usual answers simply make no sense.

BACK to CAPTA description:  

The rapid adoption of these laws was aided by a model reporting law disseminated by the Children’s Bureau, which is housed within the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

In 1974, Congress passed the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA, P.L. 93-247) and state reporting laws were modified to conform to the standards it established. In creating CAPTA, Congress sought to increase understanding of child abuse and neglect and improve the response to its occurrence by establishing a single federal focal point on the issue. Since its enactment 35 years ago, the law has been reauthorized and amended numerous times, most recently by the Keeping Children and Families Safe Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-36).2 Currently, CAPTA authorizes:

State Grants: Formula grants to states and territories to help improve their child protective service (CPS) systems, in exchange for which states must comply with various requirements related to the reporting, investigation, and treatment of child maltreatment cases. The FY2009 appropriation was $26.5 million.

Discretionary Activities: Federal data collection, dissemination, and technical assistance efforts related to child abuse prevention and treatment, as well as competitive grants to a range of eligible entities for research and demonstration projects or other activities related to the identification, prevention, and treatment of child abuse or neglect. The FY2009 appropriation was $41.8 million (including a $13.5 million set-aside for the ACF home visitation initiative, $500,000 for a feasibility study related to a national child abuse and neglect

CAPTA — Children’s Bureau in HHS/ACF sets the standard – CPS strengthening — Federal leadership — millions invested.  Lots of data collection, dissemination, and technical assistance, plus research & demonstration grants.  The same approach has been used for fatherhood and for domestic violence activities, wouldn’t you say (with HHS often the lead public agency, alongside DOJ)….  (All these years, has anyone IN government or HHS bothered to investigate the role of the AFCC, CRC, etc? directorates?)

As a consequence of this huge effort, there are now major reform efforts by parents (and complaints) about CPS abuses of families. It appears their invasions, tossing away due process, guilty-til-proven innocent (but then after proven guilty, other systems still exist to put kids back into the care and comfort of their abusers) and other — a multitude of other — issues tend to bring up whether or not CAPTA was actually a good idea.

See Nancy Schaefer (sorry to keep bringing this up, but a questionable murder/suicide of a State Senator & Her Husband — from Georgia — I feel bears remembering!)

Backing up to 2001 (this is for purposes of simply stating who CAPTA is, and what it’s supposed to be doing, in very basic format, just an intro):

And testimony on its reauthorization in 2001, from a Disabilities Consortium (Disabled Children are at much higher risk of assault, and are assaulted more often, it asserts — which only makes sense when one considers what kind of creep mentality gets off on assaulting helpless children:

Testimony for  The Committee on Education and the Workforce Select Education Subcommittee

United State House of Representatives Hearing on

Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act [[= “CAPTA”]]

August 2, 2001

Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building

Submitted by:

Consortium for Citizens with Disabilities  (CCD)
Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect

According to an HHS report released in April 2001, substantiated cases of child abuse and neglect investigated by child protective service (CPS) agencies numbered an estimated 826,000 children nationally in 1999. States report that nearly half (44.2%) of the child victims or their families in confirmed cases of child abuse and neglect receive no treatment or any other kind of services following investigation of the report. Deaths from child maltreatment remain unacceptably high: an estimated 1,100 children died of abuse or neglect in 1999 alone. And, as noted above, near-fatal child maltreatment leaves thousands of children permanently disabled each year.

Ergo, Child Abuse is Bad.  Establish and Fund procedures to Stop it.   When Child Abuse is not stopped by these procedures, just do more of them anyhow, to appease whoever noticed that there’s still child abuse going on.
Hero Worship is Good for the Economy, and particularly while worshipping heroes, include the charities they set up to Help the Helpless (and/or Fatherless) children.  See Penn State, Sandusky and the Second Mile.

Now here’s the resulting Task Force from recent Congressional Hearings:

Here’s an article on how we need — OBviously– more government funding to study and raise people’s consciousness about the effects of domestic violence upon children (i.e., all those parents reporting all these years, and the children themselves reporting, plust abusers that go on to kill their children is not “real” evidence presented in JUST the right way to convince (who? precisely) that it’s actually bad for children to witness one of their parents beating and abusing the other?  We need more evidence that it’s bad WHY?  Perhaps to counter the institution — called, for one, the family law system — that tells one parent (often the mothers) that it’s all in their heads?  Here it goes, again:

By Rep. John Conyers, Jr. (D-Mich.) and Brian Martin – 11/03/11 06:36 PM ET

Read on for the translation of what is really meant by this: . . . what do they really want?  First the rhetoric:

There are recent examples of positive steps to address the intractable problem of domestic violence. On Oct. 12, the Makers of Memories Foundationparticipated in a special congressional briefing on Capitol Hill to educate policymakers, leaders and the public about the children affected by domestic violence, which UNICEF has called “one of the most damaging unaddressed human rights violations in the world today.”Children who are raised in homes with domestic violence are 50 times more likely to abuse alcohol and other drugs and six times more likely to commit suicide. Shockingly, 90 percent of prison inmates report that they experienced domestic violence as children.

First of all, whoever wrote this should start talking — we want to listen in of course — to the marriage/fatherhood movement, which asserts that NO, it’s NOT domestic violence that causes criminal behavior and substance abuse, plus suicide — it’s fatherlessness!   . . . But I believe the reason they are NOT getting their talk lined up right is that it’s just too convenient to lump them together — when it comes to obtaining grants and starting up certain groups to get them — and too inconvenient to let on that they know thats the racket!  First of all, we have to hear how no one has done anything to prevent domestic violence against, or traum from witnessing it against someone else, on behalf of children since at least 1974, when CAPTA was passed:

While it is common to hear calls for an “end to the cycle of violence,” it cannot logically end without a substantial focus on the children

Domestic violence programs throughout the country are focused primarily on adults who are involved in violent relationships. A range of services are offered, including temporary housing, crisis counseling, legal assistance, health services, vocational aid, substance abuse programs and anger management and other behavioral modification initiatives for perpetrators. The focus on children comes as a distant second concern.

Perhaps that’s because domestic violence groups are aware of CAPTA already.  In fact, they’ve had plenty of conferences with both the child abuse prevention and the fatherhood promotion groups (including BWJP with AFCC on custody matters) already.  But if this were publicized then what would justfiy more grants with the “new, improved, re-labeled” emphasis?

OF COURSE, here’s yet ANOTHER (presumably nonprofit — should I check them?) calling the Congressional Hearing a bunch of baloney, and reporting AGAINST it.  I’ve heard of this group before, maybe you have:

SAVE: Stop Abusive and Violent Environments

Here’s their E-Alert about the (then’) upcoming 10/12/11 conference on this theme:

ELERT: Trash-Talk: Call on Rep. Gwen Moore to Cancel Gender-Biased Briefing

A Congressional Briefing on the Effects of Domestic Violence on Children has been scheduled for this coming Wednesday, Oct. 12 in Washington DC. The event is hosted by Makers of Memories and the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence (NCADV).

See, when one group sees another group making some inroads against THEIR interests, here comes the negative press, and they go after them with crying gender bias

I see the same reporting and (with my particular background) think:  “Hmmm.  NCADV — I’ve looked at this group, some of its conferences, grants received, items for sale, and bedfellows, but who is this “Makers of Memories”???  And then I read on — it’s a FOUNDATION.  It’s a Nonprofit.

Now here comes “SAVE” to SAVE the day with counterintelligence to the feminists:

As you can see to the side, the image they chose to promote the briefing shows a man, presumably a father, yelling at a small girl who is cowering in the corner. And no surprise, the websites of Makers of Memories and the NCADV are brimming with gender-biased information.

SAVE supports evidence-based efforts to address young victims of family violence. These are the facts that need to be highlighted:

1.    Women are at least as likely as men to engage in intimate partner violence. One national survey found mothers are twice as likely as fathers to engage in severe marital violence. [i]

Well, I’m going to say this anyhow — OK, “SAVE,” show me all the headlines on the “estranged husband” “custody dispute” “crime scene cleanp” and the wife was the killer.    . . .. .  Anyhow, the next two points made:

2.    Most child abuse is committed by mothers. According to the DHHS, “approximately one-half (53.8%) of child abuse and neglect perpetrators were women and more than 40 percent (44.4%) were men.” [ii]

3.    Partner-abusing mothers are equally likely to abuse their children as partner-abusing fathers. [iii]

(I slogged through some of these type of reports on-line in earlier 2011 on the SFWeekly series by Peter Jamison on California Courts giving Custody to Pedophiles.  The GlennSacks hounds were talking like SAVE and NCADV people arguing back.  Some look at the stats shows how the word “mothers” breaks down into biological, step- etc.  I say there is a difference, but more to the point, let’s talk about what all this talk is really about anyhow — it’s going to be, in the bottom line, about who gets more funding.  And I say, it’s about time we scream “WHOA!” — and inspect whether there has been a pattern of tax-compliance and reporting, or tax-EVASION and non-reporting, before voting ANY more appropriations for this stuff.  And then I want more parents like me (mothers, and fathers) to get up there and say what difference did it make in My case, or in anyone’s case in our neighborhoods, that we can point to — or that any of these organizations can point to their having tracked.

The truth is, apparently — most of them do not track much more than who was “served” — and notice the quotes.

– – – — ANYHOW — HERE WE ARE WITH ANOTHER TASK FORCE: (found at “findyouthinfo.org”)

December 05, 2011

National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence Holds First Public Hearing

On November 29, Attorney General Eric Holder’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence, part of the Defending Childhood Initiative, convened its first hearing in Baltimore, Maryland. This hearing is the first of four that will aim to gather expert and community testimony on the epidemic of children’s exposure to violence. Coming out of these hearings, the Task Force will identify {{WHAT ELSE:…..}}} promising practices, programming, and community strategies used to prevent and respond to children’s exposure to violence and will issue a comprehensive report presenting its findings.Learn more.

I’d bet my bottom dollar that this “comprehensive” report doesn’t address — at all — what is going on in the family law system, or how all the previous helping groups (particularly certain categories of them0 are presently using the federal grants stream, which apparently goes underground, lots of it, once it’s out of the the very large faucet pointed at favorites.

Who is actually ON the task force is a real slap in the face to common sense. let alone pointing another one — at all — on the issue.  Like it’s a TASK FORCE — get it?  How many simultaneously operating and funded task forces does it take to turn the other way while some adult in another “help the children” nonprofit (or situation of professional ongoing access to children which already has severe and highly publicized violations of trust track in the record)?

I don’t know — but looks like here’s another one.  Public Outcry — Appoint a Task Force — Go through the routines solemnly — distract the public — end of story.

HERE’s the DOJ Description of Who’s ON that Task Force:

The task force is composed of 13 leading experts from diverse fields and perspectives, including practitioners, child and family advocates, academic experts and licensed clinicians. Joe Torre, Major League Baseball executive vice president of baseball operations, founder of the Joe Torre Safe at Home Foundation, and a witness of domestic violence as a child himself; and Robert Listenbee Jr., chief of the juvenile unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia, serve as co-chairs of the task force. The full list of Task force members is located at:

How appropriate — in view of recent VERY high-profile incidents of sexual abuse (allegations) to a high-profile sports figures functioning as substitute father figure for youngsters (i.e., young boys especially) , and highly positioned religious leaders (which seems an unending parade), to make sure the leading edge of this “prevent abuse” includes a Leading Sports Figure with close associations with Fatherhood Promoting Organizations (which Joe Torres has) and a Jesuit Priest, simultaneous with a federal lawsuit against “The Society Of Jesus” for outrages in Haiti, and subsequent money-laundering (?) or at least continuing to collect funding after the perpetrator was arrested!

This “Task Force” membership reveals the public expectation that ONLY prominently placed citizens and people running other nonprofits and foundations (etc.) are truly qualified to report on how to stop child abuse — no matter how often we come to understand that it’s exactly in some of these fields (Child Psychiatry much?) that this abuse takes place and is covered up!    I’m listing them all here.

FYI, when I saw this list, I wasn’t just disheartened (hardly unexpected) but also incensed.  Another person, who forwarded the link, although we all seem to know how eager certain protective mothers groups are to get a “Congressional Hearing” and feel victorious once they get one — said (she) was “livid,”

This is who is on the force.  There are 13 members, and to their credit, 6 are women, but that’s beside the point.  Look at the associations:

http://www.justice.gov/defendingchildhood/tf-members.html

Co-Chair:Joe Torre, Chairman of the Joe Torre Safe at Home® Foundation 
Mr. Torre, Major League Baseball’s Executive Vice President for Baseball Operations and former manager of the Los Angeles Dodgers and the New York Yankees, created his foundation to educate students, parents, teachers, and school faculty about the effects of domestic violence.

Everyone wants to educate others about domestic violence.  What an industry.  I don’t mean to disrespect or pick on Mr. Torres as a person, however, as myself a person — and a victim of domestic violence — I can assert most groups dono’t want to hear about it.  Particularly judges in the family law system, GALs, mediators, faith-groups, and for that matter, when I sought help in recent years from a local DV group, they didn’t have anyone to sit with me until the hearing to renew, or re-instate a restraining order to protect my right to work without harassment from this ex.  No money in the budget.  I heard the same thing from another judge after my kids were stolen on an UNsupervised visitation exchange:  No money in the budget.  Eventually, I am out of work and go to the local employment agency looking for some — and lo and behold, there’s LOTS of money from one of the same organizations — to go into middle schools and teach about domestic violence and preventing it.  Something’s wrong with that picture — you can perhaps support yourself (as a DV survivor) by becoming a DV advocate, a professional, if you are willing to promote programs that you already now do not, actually, prevent domestic violence or address what happens when children are involved.  A.k.a. Sell your Soul,  join the business.

Just perhaps people who’ve gone through years of this might want to work in something OUTside the field?

Anyhow — briefly — Joe Torres LOVES the Family VIolence Prevention Fund (and vice versa) which is a major resource center (per HHS) in Preventing Violence.  Obviously it’s working — which is why we need this task force, right?  Here he is, with FVPF founder Esta Soler, amid other luminaries, rejoicing at the new, groundbreaking “Futures without Violence” set up at the SF Praesidio, as reported in “SF Philanthropy”

Photographer: DREW ALTIZER PHOTOGRAPHY
Publication Date: JANUARY 17, 2010

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, UNIFEM Goodwill Ambassador Nicole Kidman, Major League Baseball Manager Joe Torre and Actress Joan ChenCelebrated Renovation of Family Violence Prevention Fund’s New International Center and Exhibit Hall on the Main Post of San Francisco’s Historic Presidio. . . .

The Family Violence Prevention Fund, one of the world’s most innovative and respected agencies working to stop violence against women and children, broke new ground on Friday, January 8th with the start of construction on an international conference center and exhibition hall.

Among those who joined Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) Founder and President Esta Soler for the groundbreaking ceremony were House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whose support has provided significant funding for the $18 million project, actress Nicole Kidman, who will appear on behalf of UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women) and Los Angeles Dodgers manager Joe Torre, who has been an active supporter of the FVPF’s highly successful national campaign, Coaching Boys Into Men . . .

Building 100, located on the Main Post of San Francisco’s historic Presidio, will be redesigned and reconstructed as a global action center to serve as a forum for international discourse, leadership training, education programs and public exhibitions designed to change attitudes and practices that harm women and children who are oppressed or exploited around the world.  Architectural design was provided by BAR Architects and construction is being managed by Oliver and Company.

Success attracts success attracts federal funding — and the architectual firms, etc. and management, and all kinds of businesses are EXACTLY who is profiting from these types of projects.  From a group that has used years of “DISCRETIONARY” funding, to be shared with battered women’s shelters in the area — to expand it’s customer base, at its clients expenses.   Here’s their own website’s description of the same event.

Meanwhile — in the same city! — we see how the propensity for glamour and royalty and love of the theatrical occasions is shared by family court commissioners and judges — and POOR (Silenced) Mamas continue to speak out against this.  No federal funding fro THAT activity! (At least since last I checked).  I just about started my blog (unintentionally) contrasting Poor Mamas with “what a friend we have in each other” rhetoric, back in 2009.  I didn’t realize at the time that this may have opened a local can of worms.  Anyhow, here’s the latest from the same source (looks like the on-line got SOME funding, as it’s had a facelift also, but nothing close to Futures without Violence’s):

(I have posted this photo before on the blog, but from different URL):

Silenced Mamas Speak back to Commissioner Slabach!  (LGH: please read!)

PNNscholar1 – Posted on 29 September 2010

Author:  Marlon Crump

San Francisco Family Law Commissioner Marjorie A. Slabach was featured as a “queen” alongside of other California county judges in “Familawt” years ago. Picture featured on the Rogues Gallery at http://home.earthlink.net/~elnunes/camelot.htm Silenced Mamas Speak back to Commissioner Slabach!

 FACT:  Family Law Proceedings sometimes result in homeless mothers, a.k.a. Poor.  The article, besides detailing its intent to continue ongoing reports of this particular commissioner, and outrage at a 2010 Glide Foundation honoring her (by another person I believe shown in the royalty picture above)…

. . .Below are details of the upcoming event “Through the Eyes of Children” presented by The Family Law Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco and Rally Visitation Services ** of Saint Francisco Memorial Hospital:

Where: Pierrotti Pavillion Saint Francis Memorial Hospital 900 Hyde Street San Francisco, CA 94109

When: October 7th, 2010. Time: 5:30 p.m.-7:30 p.m. Keynote Speaker: Janise Mirkitani, President, Glide Foundation Honoring: Dr. Patricia Galamba and Commissioner, Marjorie A. Slabach Lifetime Achievement Award presented to: Judge Donna Hitchens In a continued effort in re-porting and supporting the “Silenced Mamas” movement, POOR Magazine/PNN will be at this event to protest the honoring of Marjorie Slabach.

**Translation:  Access/Visitation funding, Supervised Visitation Network, and how to extract a child from a mother, for profit . . . and other things FVPF simply refuses to acknowledge or properly report about – –in their own back yard!   There are 94 signatures on the petition page to have her removed, revealing several of the common practices in family law courts that FWV (formerly FVPF) could care less about — and has treated with silence.

Here’s a slide from an “Winslow Events” organization about this wonderful “futures without violence” group. Obviously the kind of individuals who would know firsthand about the matters they’re dealing with….  They are poor, they are oppressed, and they have walked the walk, particularly with communities of color and helping (groups like Winslow Events — which produced “Produced a stage program and reception event for 500 guests” in order to help stop violence).

Mr. Torres — who says that baseball was a safe refuge for him from violence at home (I understand how getting involved in such activities can help counter it — and until MY family went into the family law system, and even during abuse, I was able to negotiate, bargain and get them there.  However, once the custody courts eliminated the ability to work safely, and insisted on frequent and continuing contact (without REAL protection for me at any time past removal of the restraining order) I could not handle this entire burden — which FVPF simply wasn’t interested in — nor could other women in the same situation.  You can get help from the Feminists to join a DV group, and simultaneously from the Fatherhood Groups (either directly, or while participating in a so-called DV prevention group), but good luck getting any help going through family law as a result of, or after, leaving abuse.   That’s why I believe BOTH terms:  “Domestic Violence”  AND “Fatherhood” need to be retired, and instead, let’s just look at the nonprofits foundations, and etc.

I don’t see the photo was looking for (Mr. Torres actually holding a banner of FVPF), but this will show his close association:

  He tells his story on their website; baseball was a place where he could hide from his father.

On Mother’s Day, he created a video in honor of his mother for the Founding Fathers.  Mr. Torre is a member of the Founding Fathers movement which promotes the Coaching Boys Into Men media campaign and training programs.  Mr. Torre is featured in the Coaching Boys into Men playbook.  You can learn more about the program at the Futures Without Violence’s (formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund) web site.  Mr. Torre also created a PSA for their RESPECT campaign.

Mr. Torre’s story was featured in “Breaking the Silence: Children’s Stories,” a PBS special funded by the Mary Kay Ash Charitable Foundation.

Here’s a listing of a whole BUNCH of the Stop Violence, End Abuse, Prevent Domestic Violence, and “A Call to Men” type groups, including “Safe at Home.”  This one happens to link to another film, “TELLING AMY’s STORY” which likewise, I have some serious issues with.  It is billed as a “Domestic Violence Documentary Film and Public Service Media Project.”

Moreover, it was out of PENN STATE!    If you judge by the beauty of the websites and film productions — I’d rate it highly.  If you judge by content, I give it a zero!  The “Amy” in this situation had a custody case.  They dono’t report anything relevant on the family law situation, and she dies at the end, by making a very foolish decisions right after confronting the father (around getting some diapers!) and her parents were lucky they didn’t die too, given the circumstances.  The film made no commentary on this, and did not reply when I made several attempts to contact (phone messages, phone contact, as I recall email) about this very disturbing omission.    This one even has the One-Stop Justice Shop alliance (that’s what I’m going to call them):

The Family Justice Center Alliance aims to create a network of national and international Family Justice Centers and other models of co-located, multi-agency service centers for victims of family violence and their children with close working relationships, shared training and technical assistance, collaborative learning processes, and coordinated funding assistance.

A LET”S GET HONEST MOMENT (actually, COMment):

The laugh truly is on the public if we continue to believe that people who insist on associating with each other as luminaries, reformes, educators, and collaborators — the coalitions of coalitions, the alliances, the partnerships, the centers, the projects, the initiatives, and — case in point — the Task Forces — are going to ever do anything other than MORE OF THE SAME until it becomes unprofitable for these individual groups to keep doing so.  Seeing as we have been taught to look up them and be reassured by them that “someone” is on the job, that’s probably not anytime soon.

NEXT MEMBER OF THIS DEFENDING THE CHILDREN TYPE TASK FORCE:

Co-Chair:Robert Listenbee, Jr., J.D., Chief of the Juvenile Unit of the Defender Association of Philadelphia 
Mr. Listenbee also serves as a member of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Committee of the Pennsylvania Commission on Crime and Delinquency.

Father Gregory Boyle, S.J., Founder of Homeboy Industries 
Fr. Boyle was ordained as a Jesuit priest in 1984 and serves as a member of the National Gang Center Advisory Board.

I believe that this Father Boyle very likely has done wonders, and helped lots of people.  But as I am in the business of looking at the business angle, I first of all noticed that (no offence) I think it’s relevant that someone decided to put a sports figure (above) and a Jesuit Priest on a task force of this nature, when there’s an open federal court, and a SCANDALOUS one involving a Jesuit Priest at a (I think) Jesuit University scamming the public by continuing to collect funds AFTER arrest of a perp — in Connecticut, USA regarding Haiti.   Would it not make sense for members of some of these organizations, rather than trying to save everyone and stop gang violence, instead started cleaning their own hosue and examining their own consciences?

Be that as it may — and this might be a separate post (except it’s been a long day, and I need to close out).  I looked, naturally, at Fr. Boyle, S.J. and noticed that he was recipient of an “Opus Prize.”  I know Latin, and had heard of a cult called “Opus Dei,” however, this relates to the Opus Corporation.   TO cut matters short, they aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, except that this kind of behavior apparently goes with the territory of being wildly successful as a corporation (particularly real estate) and figuring out the proper use of foundations –and subsidiaries — which is to funnel money torwards the family trusts (in this case “Rauenhorst”)

In such situations, along the way helping stop some gang violence, sooner or later somebody reports.  No matter — at this level, one can afford lawyers, and/or to settle when caught (or accused).  This settlement kind of reminds me of child support contractor, the megalith “Maximus” having to settle for about $30 million on fraud (or — see record) charges in more than one state.  No matter– it’s still in business all over the US and abroad also.

Wealth Accumulation and “keeping it in the Family” hasn’t exactly been a new practice for this religion, or others, but here’s how it played out this time.

To make it clear — I’m not at all connecting the individual, Fr. Gregory Boyle, S.J. — with this corporation other than to say its Prize is funded by its Foundation which is funded by its Corporation, which apparently has some ethical issues.  Didn’t take me too long to find the reports on it — so goes the internet, if you look…..

05/20/2011

Opus Corp. Quietly Settles Suit Filed by Subsidiary

The Star Tribune, citing “two people familiar with the case,” said that the two parties settled last month for $45 million; Opus West had accused its parent company of siphoning tens of millions of dollars and causing its demise.

Once-prominent developer Opus Corporation quietly settled a lawsuit brought by subsidiary Opus West, which claimed that it siphoned vast portions of Opus West earnings and kept the subsidiary in a constant state of financial dependency that ultimately led to bankruptcy.

{{Sounds like family court already, only played larger….}}

The case, which dates back to 2009, was officially dismissed April 29, according to court documents.

The parties aren’t revealing the terms of the settlement. But the Star Tribune, citing “two people familiar with the case,” said that they secretly settled last month in Dallas for $45 million. The case was set to go to trial within a matter of days.

About one-third of the settlement—or $15 million—will go to lawyers, the sources told the Minneapolis newspaper. Most of the remaining $30 million will reportedly go to the two largest creditors in Phoenix-based Opus West’s bankruptcy case: Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank. The two banks were collectively owed more than $260 million.

Approximately $3 million will be shared by about 150 Opus West employees who lost their jobs when the subsidiary filed for bankruptcy in 2009, according to the unnamed sources.   ($3,000,000 / 150 = $300,000/15 = around $20,000 each, other things being equal (which they probably aren’t). Wonder how many lawyers were involved…

Opus West’s lawsuit claimed that Minnetonka [MN]-based Opus Corporation routinely engaged in “self-dealing transactions, blindly siphoning tens of millions of dollars that left Opus West with almost non-existent levels of working capital…”

{{Like I said, reminds me of conciliation court.}}

It went on to call the once-sterling reputation of the Rauenhorst family—which owns Opus Corporation—a “carefully-cultivated myth, an appealing veneer specifically designed to hide the true guiding ethos of the Rauenhorst business empire: to make sure the Rauenhorst family and their ultra-rich friends got rich and stayed rich.”

According to the suit, 10 percent of Opus West’s pretax income went to charity—and three-quarters of the subsidiary’s remaining income went to Opus Corporation. Opus Corporation and its executives knew that the payments were leaving Opus West “chronically undercapitalized,” according to Opus West’s complaint. 

. . . .

Opus Corporation has since shut down and reorganized under a newly restructured parent company—Opus Holding, LLC. The assets of the two remaining subsidiaries were later bought by Opus Holding.

The Opus Group now includes Opus Holding, LLC, and Opus Holding, Inc., and their operating subsidiaries—Opus Development Corporation; Opus Design Build, LLC; and architectural arm Opus AE Group, Inc.

Legal battles for Opus haven’t ended with the recent settlement. The company still faces a lawsuit filed in July 2010 by 16 former Opus West employees who claim to be collectively owed $32.4 million in deferred compensation, bonuses, and pensions.

According to the complaint, Opus Corporation transferred more than $193.8 million of former subsidiary Opus West’s assets into family trusts linked to Opus founder Gerald Rauenhorst while failing to compensate Opus West employees.

—Christa Meland

Posted in

Twin Cities Business

Thank you, Ms. Meland.  Moral: Always! look up the businesses behind the people!

1999 Feature ARticle from “American Catholic” on the “Jesuit Gang Priest” and his work in East L.A.  I’m sure he’s doing great work, but if he’s almost too busy to tell his story to the reporter here, how is he going to have time to effectively serve on this 2011 task force?

Pico Gardens and Aliso Village, sometimes called “The Projects,” is the largest tract of subsidized housing west of the Mississippi. This huge piece of social engineering hasn’t worked out so well. It’s poor, crowded and packed with gangs.

Some of Pico/Aliso overlaps Boyle Heights (different era, different Boyle). Within those 16 square miles, 60 gangs claim 10,000 members, Hispanic and black. This equals violence and plenty of action at the Hollenbeck division of the Los Angeles Police Department—if Father Greg Boyle doesn’t get there first…

Here he is giving a commencement address at Creighton U in 2009 (A Jesuit university in Omaha, NE . . . . HOW close to BoysTown is Creighton??)

And in 2011 getting the OPUS PRIZE   $100,000 Opus Prize Recipient

Sr. Beatrice Chipeta

Father Gregory Boyle, S.J.
Homeboy Industries 
Los Angeles, United States

Fr. Greg Boyle grew up in the “gang capital of the world,” Los Angeles, California, just west of where he has spent more than 25 years ministering to the families of Dolores Mission parish, and mentoring hundreds of young people whose daily lives have been dominated by membership in neighborhood gangs.  A Jesuit priest, he is the founder and Executive Director of Homeboy Industries, an organization that he created 23 years ago as a modest job training program in the east Los Angeles community of Boyle Heights that continues to be wracked by a seemingly unending cycle of gang violence and murder passed on from generation to generation.

Homeboy Industries — “Nothing Stops a Bullet Like a Job.”  (tell that to the former employees of Opus West).

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2226433 02/29/2000 ACTIVE HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES LARRY KERVIN

(EIN# 954800735, and it seems they are at least filing in CA.  I used the Charity Research Tool)

Available 990s
Year IRS Process Date Form Type Assets
2008 11/06/2009 990 Initial Return $12,635,874
2007 01/17/2009 990 Initial Return $16,009,890
2006 04/04/2008 990 Initial Return $16,070,640
2005 08/25/2006 990 Initial Return $6,567,183
2004 10/06/2005 990 Initial Return $2,982,741
2003 09/10/2004 990 Initial Return $1,940,179
2002 09/16/2003 990 Initial Return $2,148,684

WELL — with the IRS, but not with the STate.  Someone needs to tell this prospering organization that CALIFORNIA gets some of the reporting, and fees, too, please!   Status is still current, despite this pretty poor track record — as to the state level filings at least:

Related Documents
00000156 Delinquency Letter (2nd Request)(hover cursor over link to read the letter)
00000155 Delinquency Letter
1037559 RRF-1 2003
1037560 IRS Form 990 2008
1037561 IRS Form 990 2004
1049341 RRF-1 2008
00000550 CT-550 2009

**=incomplete rept, ltr Oct. 2010.  They sent in an RRF but

no accompanying IRS form, as required, and the RRF was incomplete

also.  As above, “hover cursor over link” to read ltr”

(or read on-line at the OAG”)

I’m putting it here to preserve the record in case

it changes after I start reporting on this group.

(To read these, one probably has to search the group again on the “Registry Search” page for California)  This little square, above, tells us that the 2011 winner of a $100K OPUS Prize, run by someone who just got appointed to help Defend Childhood and (see task force description), etc. — is himself running an operation which DOESN”T FILE ITS STATE TAX RETURNS, INCLUDING AFTER DELINQUENCY LETTER REQUESTS…. it is also engaging at least two professional fundraisers. . . . .

There are two Delinquency letters dating to 2009, including the 2nd one with a significant threat.  No answer is posted, and this is now the end of 2011 and the charity is marked “current.”  There has (meantime) also been a change of administration in the Office of Attorney General (which oversees), so presumably they either made peace with HomeBoy Industries, or it’s now too big to fail (note:  Assets in 2007 were $15 million, Revenues $6 million — and they get a pass?) (This was a very tough time in many people’s lives — but as a foundation, well, what the heck….)

You know the routine — I’ve posted these before on my blog.  (also posted to link in above chart.  The link is inactive, but the description is viewable if you hover cursor over it without clicking):

HOMEBOY INDUSTRIES 130 W. BRUNO ST. LOS ANGELES CA 90012

State of California DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

1300 I Street P. O. Box 903447 Sacramento, CA 94203-4470 Telephone: (916) 445-2021 Ext 6 Fax: (916) 444-3651 E-Mail Address: Delinquency@doj.ca.gov

December 16, 2009 CT FILE NUMBER: 118772

RE: SECOND NOTICE : WARNING OF ASSESSMENT OF PENALTIES AND LATE FEES, AND SUSPENSION OF REGISTERED STATUS

Unless the above-described report(s) are filed with the Registry of Charitable Trusts within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter, the following will occur:

1. The California Franchise Tax Board will be notified to disallow the tax exemption of the above-named entity. In addition, the above-named entity will be billed $800 plus interest by Franchise Tax Board, which represents the minimum tax penalty. (See Revenue and Taxation Code section 23703).

2. Late fees will be imposed by the Registry of Charitable Trusts for each month or partial month for which the report(s) are delinquent. Directors, trustees, officers and return preparers

Doc CT-451A Warning Impend Tax Assess 2nd Notresponsible for failure to timely file these reports are also personally liable for payment of all late fees.

PLEASE NOTE: Charitable assets cannot be used to pay these avoidable costs. Accordingly, directors, trustees, officers and return preparers responsible for failure to timely file the above-described report(s) are personally liable for payment of all penalties, interest and other costs incurred to restore exempt status.

3. In accordance with the provisions of Government Code section 12598, subdivision (e), the Attorney General will suspend the registration of the above-named entity.

As that is now TWO YEARS ago, either they complied — and no one has posted it yet; or the next Attorney General felt differently (and was too busy), or like I say, something else is up.  Because as you and I can see — the OAG has not followed through with its warning.  They are still marked “current.”  Assuming they still ARE current, we can safely assume that such warnings are pretty meaningless, perhaps?  They might affect a smaller group, but not one that is too closely linked with government operations, I’ll speculate.  That’s speculate, but — what do you think?  (Comments field available).

Tax returns should be looked at, and whether or not they are the finalized returns (complete with signature), etc.  For example, I just looked at an (unsighed) 2008 return stating that the organization’s main operation was formerly a bakery, formed in 1994.  That’s not what the date of incorporation shows above: it says 2000.  In which case it’s been more than – not just about 11 years — in which this L.A. business has NOT been filing its returns (?).  The 2008 return shows about $37K of “Donor Determined” vehicle donations, yet a 2010 letter shows that they omitted the “donated vehicle” question #8 on a state RRF that (for once) actually was sent in).   These are definite red flags — and we’re to expect that a LARGE Hoop-law on thhis 13- member task force, recently appointed by US Attorney General Eric Holder (If I got WHo appointed it right) is to help somehow???

QUESTION;  If they don’t notice things like this — which an amateur like myself can pick up IMMEDIATELY — out in the open (once I know enough to look) how do they plan to prevent things like abuse — where the perpetrators obviously are pretty smart and don’t want to get caught?  Unless there is collaboration somewhere along the way….

So the question becomes, what is that “something else” that acounts for why HomeBoy Industries, given its resounding success, doesn’t have to take some of its millions of revenues — or sell off some of its larger millions of assets — to pay a tax return person?  Also, it seems to me that above a certain level of funding (I DNR which) an orgnization ALSO has to hire an independent auditor for its financial statement (not that I see any financial statements here).

Why can individuals get thrown in jail for contempt of IRS (or, for that matter, a child support order), but charities — who cares?  Perhaps the share is being obtained by some other method than traceable tax returns (and, perhaps not).  All I know is, I sure don’t like it!

One more minor detail about this Homeboy Organization — it says it started the bakery operation in 1994 with the homeBOYS.   That’s fine, why not (the Oakland area also had a Bakery operation:   (Google Chauncey Bailey, Oakland, CA) you’ll read all about it).  And then finally in 2004, something for the girls — which was restaurant/cafe.  Boys create, Girls serve it up?  Not to mention a 10 year gap?

SO NOW — HOW DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE?  Since this is a DOJ task force, and clearly the person is working from Los Angeles, why wouldn’t someone run at least the 10 minute background check I just did (actually, a bit more) and figure out (which part took 2 minutes) that this organization isn’t filing?   If he can’ handle or delegate someone to correctly file — with $12 million in assets — more than like 3 times in 10 years, why should he be put over a NATIONAL issue of this significance.  Part of protecting the public has to include protecting them from public theft — which failure to file obviously puts us at risk from?

Oh — I forgot — this is in Los Angeles….

ANYHOW, here’s the Opus Prize:

And the Opus PRIZE:  $1,000,000 (writeoff) per year, plus 2X $100,000:

The Opus Prize is given annually to recognize unsung heroes of any faith tradition, anywhere in the world. This $1 million faith-based humanitarian award and two $100,000 awards are collectively one of the world’s largest faith-based, humanitarian awards for social innovation. Father Greg is one of the two $100,000 Opus Prize finalists, the other is Sister Rita Pessoa, R.S.H.M. from the Association of Small Rural Producers of Jacare in Filadelfia, Brazil. The $1,000,000 grand prize winner announced on November 2 at Loyloa Marymount University is Lyn Lusi from Heal Africa in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. A big congratulations to all three leaders —  “unsung heroes who are conquering the world’s persistent social problems, who have dedicated their lives to help tranform others.

The Prize’s Funding is the OPUS PRIZE FOUNDATION

Origins and Values
The Opus Prize Foundation is a private and independent nonprofit foundation. Established in 1994 by the founding chairman of Opus Corporation, the Opus Prize Foundation is a self-sufficient foundation independent from The Opus Group™.

The Prize has universities help with its nominations, listed here.  Note University of St. Thomas with campuses in St. Paul, MN & Rome…

The Opus Prize Foundation selects universities as partners to organize and execute the Opus Prize selection process and award ceremony. Through these partnerships, students are challenged to think globally and inspired to live lives of service.

The remaining members of the Task Force.  Every One of these associations should be checked out.  However, on the face of it — it’s celar that NOT ONE of them is reporting on the HHS fatherhood grants the Access Visitation grants (in any critical manner) or for that matter — specializing in issues relating to the family law venue.  It’s like it just does not exist!

Sharon W. Cooper, M.D., CEO of Developmental & Forensic Pediatrics, P.A.
Dr. Cooper serves as a consultant and board member of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).

Sarah Deer, Citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma
Professor Deer is an assistant professor at William Mitchell College of Law and her scholarship focuses on the intersection of tribal law and victims’ rights.

Deanne Tilton Durfee, Executive Director of the Los Angeles County Inter-Agency Council on Child Abuse and Neglect (ICAN) 
Ms. Tilton Durfee also serves as Chairperson of the National Center on Child Fatality Review.

Thea James, M.D., Director of the Boston Medical Center Massachusetts Violence Intervention Advocacy Program
Dr. James is Assistant Professor of Emergency Medicine at Boston Medical Center/Boston University School of Medicine.

Alicia Lieberman, Ph.D., Director of the Early Trauma Treatment Network
Dr. Lieberman is Irving B. Harris Endowed Chair of Infant Mental Health at UCSF Department of Psychiatry and Director of the Child Trauma Research Program, San Francisco General Hospital.

Robert Macy, Ph.D., Founder, Director, and President of the International Center for Disaster Resilience-Boston
Dr. Macy is also the founder and Executive Director of the Boston Children’s Foundation and serves as Co-Director of the Division of Disaster Resilience at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

Steven Marans, Ph.D., Director of the National Center for Children Exposed to Violence
Dr. Marans is Harris Professor of Child Psychiatry, Professor of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, and also serves as director of the Childhood Violent Trauma Center at Yale University.

The NCCEV was established in 1999 at the Yale Child Study Center by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). This occurred in response to the pioneering success of the Yale Child Study Center’s Child Development-Community Policing Program (CD-CP), a community policing model first launched in 1991 in partnership with the City of New Haven and the New Haven Department of Police Service.

Supported by:

NCCEV is supported by grants from the U.S. Departments of Justice (OJJDP grant # 2005-JW-FX-K001) and Health and Human Services (SAMHSA grant # 5 U79 SM54318-06); U.S. Department of Homeland Security; Office of Domestic Preparedness: Urban Area Security Initative (UASI) Program; Pritzker Early Childhood Foundation; Seedlings Foundation & New Alliance Foundation

Jim McDonnell, Chief of Police, Long Beach Police Department, California 
Chief McDonnell teaches public policy issues at UCLA and served with the LAPD for 28 years.

Georgina Mendoza, J.D., Senior Deputy Attorney and Community Safety Director for the City of Salinas, California
Ms. Mendoza has been involved in the California Cities Gang Prevention Network for the past four years and serves as the Salinas lead in the White House’s National Forum on Youth Violence.

Retired Major General Antonio Taguba, President of TDLS Consulting, LLC, and Chairman of Pan Pacific American Leaders and Mentors (PPALM)
General Taguba served 34 years on active duty, including serving as Deputy Commanding General for Support, Coalition Forces Land Component Command (CFLCC)/ARCENT/Third U.S. Army, forward deployed to Kuwait and Iraq during Operation Iraqi Freedom.

A Retired Major General has earned his stripes, so to speak, and I think him for his service.  However the nonprofit PPALM has NOT, yet.  Look:

Pan-Pacific American Leaders & Mentors is an all-volunteer organization comprised of Military and Civilian professionals committed to mentoring and promoting professional development, retention and the advancement of Asian American Pacific Islander leaders – Active, Reserve, Army National Guard, and DoD Civilians. Pan-Pacific American Leaders & Mentors Organization is incorporated with the Commonwealth of Virginia (April 21, 2010) and approved by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) organization.

{{just barely — their meeting notes sound like they’re still working on it (See site)}}:

At the Board of Directors meeting on November 19, 2011, we finalized the revised By Laws as required in the PPALM Strategic Plan 2011-2013, and in concert with IRS reporting requirements to maintain our tax exempt, non-profit status. This is to ensure PPALM is compliant within the established governance rules for the Board members and within the leadership, operations and fiscal functions currently and into the future.

We will announce elections of new Board members not later than January 20, 2012 and to be held not later than March 20, 2012. This will be done thru the PPALM website and other forms of notification. I will appoint new members of the nominating committee who will represent the interest of PPALM members at the national level. Written guidance will also be published to ensure we are compliant with the By Laws in electing new members of the BoD.”

{{But the ABOUT US says it was “activated” in November 2007.  In what corporate format, and in which state?}}:

Complementing the Army Strong Campaign, PPALM was activated on November 11, 2007 to mentor and counsel US Army officers and civilians in achieving their career goals.  While PPALM’s current focus in the US Army, we are expanding to include members of the other uniformed services.  Membership is open to Veterans, National Guard, Reserve, Active Duty personnel, and Department of Defense Civilians.  It is also open to spouses and supporters of PPALM’s goals and objectives.

(Virginia Corporations Search shows it incorporated (not as a nonprofit) 6/19/2007) and the Charities Search, that it hasn’t showed up yet as a Charity — although website has donation and membership collection pages already.)  Virginia requires annual filings; there is no history (showing) of efilings so let’s presume they filed elsewhere that isn’t uploaded yet.   2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, and this is year 2011.

Pan Pacific American Leaders and Mentors

SCC ID: 06792519
Business Entity Type: Corporation
Jurisdiction of Formation: VA
Date of Formation/Registration: 6/19/2007
Status: Active
Shares Authorized: 0
Filings for Corp ID: 06792519
AR Year Filing Date View Filing
2011 6/28/2011 Click Here To View Report
2010 4/21/2010 Click Here To View Report
Using the SCC ID above, it looks like my organization here has filed in 2010 and 2011, but not 2007, 2008, or 2009.
Sounds like a fine organization; I’m wondering how the consulting plus mentoring plus defending childhood goes together….
(This simply lists officers and addresses; it says nothing about income)

LIKEWISE — TDLS CONSULTING, LLC — was also formed by Retired Major General Taguba, one year ago:

SCC ID: S3454347
Business Entity Type: Limited Liability Company
Jurisdiction of Formation: VA
Date of Formation/Registration: 11/23/2010
Status: Active

AGAIN — HERE’s ANOTHER ANNOUNCEMENT OF THIS TASK FORCE.  Now it’s coming back to me; I remember protesting among on-line advocates; “Puh-LEEZ” stop begging the White House to help you.  All they are going to do is form another initiative, appoint their cronies to it, and laugh there way to more retirement income (multiple streams) and/or grants-funded evaluations.

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Serving Children, Families, and Communities

Department of Justice Announces the Defending Childhood Task Force

October 14, 2011

Defending Childhood Logo. Protect.  Heal. Thrive.On October 13, 2011, the Department of Justice issued the following press release:

WASHINGTON – Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli today announced the establishment of the Attorney General’s National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence. The task force is part of the Attorney General’s Defending Childhood initiative, a project arising from the need to respond to the epidemic levels of exposure to violence faced by our nation’s children.

“Our vision of justice must start with preventing crime before it happens, protecting our children, and ending cycles of violence and victimization. Every young person deserves the opportunity to grow and develop free from fear of violence,” said Associate Attorney General Perrelli. “The task force will develop knowledge and spread awareness about the pervasive problem of children’s exposure to violence – this will ultimately improve our homes, cities, towns and communities.”

Following the release of the compelling findings of the first National Survey on Children Exposed to Violence (2009), Attorney General Eric Holder launched the Defending Childhood initiative in September 2010. The goals of the initiative are to prevent children’s exposure to violence as victims and witnesses, reduce the negative effects experienced by children exposed to violence, and develop knowledge about and increase awareness of this issue.

The Defending Childhood Task Force is composed of 14 leading experts from diverse fields and perspectives, including practitioners, child and family advocates, academic experts and licensed clinicians. Joe Torre, Major League Baseball Executive Vice President of Baseball Operations, founder of the Joe Torre Safe at Home® Foundation, and a witness to domestic violence as a child himself, will serve as the co-chair of the task force.

 YES, Yes, Yes, now I recall.  Announce an Initiative and throw some money at it:

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder today officially unveiled Defending Childhood, a new Department of Justice initiative focused on addressing children’s exposure to violence.      The goals of the initiative are to prevent children’s exposure to violence as victims and witnesses, mitigate the negative effects experienced by children exposed to violence, and develop knowledge about and increase awareness of this issue.

What’s WiTh our society’s always figuring out we can pay someone to do our monitoring, prevention, enforcement, defence (including of Childhood), protection (including of Children), and so forth?  The more money is extracted to supposedly stop all this (see CAPTA, 1974) — the less responsibility the cash-drained individuals locally can, really, be expected to take for it. After all — they paid, right?  What are police for?   What is CPS for?  What are Judges for, what are prisons for, and all the other superstructure and infrastructure.

What makes us think that the massive infrastructure, as great as it is at wiretapping, computer hacking, monitoring who signs what books out of the library (talking more general here, obviously), and did I mention what happens when people try to get on an airplane flight?   (Like the Mom who was forced to pour out her breast milk, and punished for complaining about the process on a return trip, see courthousenews). — what makes us even THINK that this is going to change Business As Usual?

WILL EVEN FEDERAL LAWSUITS — and I HOPE this one produces some remedies — STEM THE TIDE OF HUMAN FOOLISHNESS ABOUT WHO ELSE IS GONNA DO WHAT WE OUGHT TO DO FOR OURSELVES, BY KNOWING OUR NEIGHBORS, INBETWEEN RUNNING OFF TO JOBS TO FUND THE SYSTEM THAT IS PROMISING MORE JOBS — BUT INSTEAD DELIVERING GRANTS TO JUST ABOUT ANYBODY WHO KNOWS HOW TO INCORPORATE — AND PRIZES TO GROUPS THAT DON’T FILE TAXES YEAR AFTER YEAR, EVEN THOUGH THEY HAVE LOCAL CONTRACTS (Homeboy Industries seems to have one with City of Los Angeles or County — see the tax returns) AND POSSIBLY OTHER FEDERAL GRANTS?

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
Homeboy Industries  LOS ANGELES CA 900121815 LOS ANGELES 874873987 $ 799,988

Did it occur to either of the principal investigators of this grant’s projects below to check up on the organizations tax filing status?

Grantee Class Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2011 SAMHSA Homeboy Industries Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations TI022609 PROJECT STAR (SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY) 05/19/2011 FAJIMA BEDRAN $ 0
2011 SAMHSA Homeboy Industries Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations TI022609 PROJECT STAR (SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY) 06/27/2011 FAJIMA BEDRAN $ 399,994
2010 SAMHSA Homeboy Industries Non-Profit Public Non-Government Organizations TI022609 PROJECT STAR (SUBSTANCE USE TREATMENT AND RECOVERY) 09/29/2010 MARNEY STOFFLET $ 399,994

(SAMHSA grants, 2010 and 2011 — even though the California OAG dinged this group the same year and earlier on nonfiling) for Substance Abuse Treatment and Recovery, or some such.  Take that “DUNS” # over to USASPENDING.gov and find out what else, if anything.

Well, it’s the end of my blogging day which started with concern about THIS:

PROJECT PIERRE TOUSSAINT victim’s FEDERAL LAWSUIT:

JOSEPH JEAN-CHARLES, a/k/a JEAN-CHARLES JOSEPH,

Plaintiff

v.

DOUGLAS PERLITZ; FATHER PAUL E. CARRIER, S.J.; HOPE E. CARTER; HAITI FUND, INC.; FAIRFIELD UNIVERSITY; THE SOCIETY OF JESUS OF NEW ENGLAND; JOHN DOE ONE; JOHN DOE TWO; JOHN DOE THREE; JOHN DOE FOUR; JOHN DOE FIVE; JOHN DOE SIX; JOHN DOE SEVEN; JOHN DOE EIGHT; JOHN DOE NINE; JOHN DOE TEN; JOHN DOE ELEVEN; AND JOHN DOE TWELVE,

CIVIL ACTION NO.

Defendants

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

A. INTRODUCTION

1. Defendants Douglas Perlitz, Father Paul E. Carrier, S.J., Fairfield University and other Defendants established a residential school in the Republic of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. This school, Project Pierre Toussaint, purported to provide services to the poorest children of Haiti, many of whom lacked homes and regular meals. Defendant Douglas Perlitz was the director in Haiti of Project Pierre Toussaint, which provided him with an image of substantial trust and authority. Defendant Douglas Perlitz used that trust and authority, with the assistance of other Defendants to sexually molest Plaintiff and numerous other minor boys who attended Project Pierre Toussaint. Defendant Douglas Perlitz was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §2423(b), Travel With Intent To Engage In Illicit Sexual Conduct. In molesting Plaintiff, Defendant Douglas Perlitz was aided by the intentional or negligent acts of the other Defendants. Plaintiff seeks damages for Plaintiff’s personal injuries pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §2255 and common law.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

That’s about how most abusive systems get their start, seems to me.  Anyone who is intending to get access to kids, a flow of them, to molest and abuse has to have at least enough strategic organizing ability to know where to get the vulnerable kids, how to convince some people with the money that your real intent is to HELP them, not to – – E W them (i.e., use them carnally, and allow others to).  In addition such personalities also need to have – or associate with people who have — knowledge of incorporations, how to get a nonprofit status & board together, and start fundraising.

FOR EXAMPLE TAKE DOUG PERLITZ & FRIENDS, who I see have been sued in Federal Court in New Haven, Connecticut.  My post today started here — because I browse Courthouse Forum News in general.  See my Dec. 2, 2011 post,  Outrageous Outreach Activities in Haiti //Project Pierre Toussaint.  I will be coming back to this — but it’s a long introduction.  One thing someone forgot to consider when structuring a family court system that eliminates fully-adult mothers (like me) from their primary occupation — taking care of and fighting for their kids’ welfare — and often the secondary one, called normal employment (which often is a battle casualty) — is that, if we are not homeless or dead in the process, that leaves us a lot to think about, and some time to think about it in, time which otherwise would be involved in seeing one’s own children regularly!   And in the process of this thinking, we come with some very unique analyses and creative thinking on how to make sure this type of scam is stopped, permanently, from occurring again in the U.S.

USUALLy our creative thinking — the best of it anyhow — doesn’t come up by repeating the same processes that enabled the abuse to start wtih, such as assuming someone else in the public domain is going to do their job right, or that the systems that be even allow them to actually DO what their appointed job’s title allegedly is for.  Like, for example, “Children’s Protection Services,” ethically, honestly and effectively?  (you answer that question on your spare time….don’t forget to go ask Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer, or at least what remains of her pre-murder communications on-line, said murder having happened while she was in the process of investigating and reporting on CPS abuses in her state).

ANYHOW, for those who by definition don’t have access to religiously-sanctioned normal marital relationships and a lifelong partnership for normal sexual relationships with consenting adults, other options are alas, sought.

And what better place to do such things and find such unprotected children than “the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere”??

1. Defendants Douglas Perlitz, Father Paul E. Carrier, S.J., Fairfield University and other Defendants established a residential school in the Republic of Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere. This school, Project Pierre Toussaint, purported to provide services to the poorest children of Haiti, many of whom lacked homes and regular meals. Defendant Douglas Perlitz was the director in Haiti of Project Pierre Toussaint, which provided him with an image of substantial trust and authority. . .

And what better type or organization to do this than being a priest? (exception;  Being certain types of Congressional legislators or other powerful civic leaders — see The Franklin Coverup).

HOW FEDS STOP THINGS THEY DON’T APPROVE OF, EVEN IF IT’S LEGAL IN SOME STATES:

TO CONTROL ALLEGED OR REAL ABUSE OF TRAFFICKING IN SUBSTANCES  — WHEN THE FEDS ARE ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS, WHAT DO THEY DO?  THEY GO FOR THE JUGULAR — THE CASH FLOW!

For example*, California has its fights over legalization of medical marijuana, and one dispensary is fighting the feds to stay open, apparently.  Here’s their site:   http://www.harborsidehealthcenter.com/  and here’s how the Feds are trying to stop distribution, even in states which have legalized it, as reported in July 18, 2011 MiamiHerald(.com):   “Federal medical marijuana memo stirs angst in industry

(*and don’t think that this is something I’m following closely.  I have a wide-ranging field of vision and simply happen to live in California which, unlike being a mother in the family court system, doesn’t per se make me a “criminal” to be restrained.  I actually look at the news . . . . and bring this up for a teaching point about a different topic).

By Peter Hecht The Sacramento Bee

In October 2009, medical marijuana advocates celebrated a U.S. Department of Justice memo declaring that federal authorities wouldn’t target the legal use of medicinal pot in states where it is permitted.

The memo from Deputy U.S. Attorney General David Ogden was credited with accelerating a California medical marijuana boom, including a proliferation of dispensaries that now handle more than $1 billion in pot transactions.

But last month brought a new memo from another deputy attorney general, James Cole. And this time, it is stirring industry fears of federal raids on pot dispensaries and sweeping crackdowns on large-scale medical pot cultivation. Cole asserted in the June 29 memo that state laws “are not a defense” from federal prosecution, saying, “Congress has determined that marijuana is a dangerous drug” – and that distributing it “is a serious crime.”Justice Department officials said the memo offered “guidance” for states permitting medical marijuana and didn’t mark a harsher shift in federal policy. But it was a clear signal of the government’s concern about a move toward industrial-scale operations that would generate millions of dollars in revenue.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/18/2318955/federal-medical-marijuana-memo.html#storylink=cpy

The federal government is always going to be interesting in anything that generates millions of $$ of revenue. . . . . So are City Goverments.  It’s as much about who gets to control & regulate the funding as about the harm to citizens, if you ask me.  Generally speaking:

In February, U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag in San Francisco declared that the Justice Department was “considering civil and criminal remedies” against anyone trying to set up “industrial marijuana-growing warehouses in Oakland.” The Alameda County district attorney* warned that meant public officials weren’t immune from prosecution.Oakland City Councilwoman Patricia Kernighan said the city hasn’t given up on taxing and licensing medical marijuana cultivation.
Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/07/18/2318955/federal-medical-marijuana-memo.html#storylink=cpy

*re:  “Alameda County District Attorney” — search the term “Steve Boatbrain” (investigative reporting on IndyMedia, will bring up my blogs on the One-Stop Justice Shop, and I just saw another older result from San Mateo, County (California) on greatly reduced bail for accused child molester/Child Psychiatrist Ayres — who was being fed victims (per the active comments field analysis) from the Juvenile Court.  See comments thread 21-48 for Boatbrain input — but it sure does make one think):  “Hunched over and clad in an orange jumpsuit, a prominent child psychiatrist charged with 14 counts of lewd and lascivious acts with three children under the age of 14 stood before a judge Friday . . . .” and among the comments, Blogger “Here They Go Again” April 7, 2007, writes:

It is interesting that this accused child molester was commending him for his “commitment to children” by none other than the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors and had clients (victims) referred to him by Juvenile Court Supervising Judge Marta Diaz, Chief Probation Officer Loren Buddress, and Gerry Hilliard, managing attorney for the Private Defender Program in juvenile court and now he gets a reduction in bail from $1.5 million to $250,000 by San Mateo Superior Court Judge Thomas McGinn Smith. I guess these folks stick pretty close together.

What type of people do we have running San Mateo County’s government? It appears that the reckless and grossly negligent decisions and actions by people in positions of power in San Mateo County’s government are endangering the community.

Maybe it is time for the FBI to investigate San Mateo’s County government?

AND, a little later, commenter “Happy1” writes:

The biggest problem in this case is that the judges themselves are involved because they and their associates in the juvenile justice system were feeding this guy victims. Now, they appear to be getting together and participating in a whitewash by reducing his bail to a ridiculously low level and working behind the scenes to help him.

By helping this guy, isn’t the San Mateo County judiciary making itself part and parcel of the child molestation problem?

SAN MATEO is a county south of SAN FRANCISCO which is just a little west of the East Bay’s ALAMEDA COUNTY.   In Pennsylvania, there were also some judges feeding juveniles — without due process -to institutions the same judges had a financial interest in.  You think that’s just in PA?  Follow the nonprofits ! ! !

Someone then (we’re talking 2007) called the blogger a crazy (paranoid conspiracy delusion) and got this response:

Fred-o wrote:
paranoid conspiracy delusion.

Read the papers fool. This creep’s victims were referred to him by the San Mateo County Courts and Juvenile Probation Department. 

To which conversation  “George” from Seattle, WA (a few months later — June 2007) added:

Cinque- If you read the papers, you will see that boys came forward in the 1980s shortly after they were molested. The police did nothing. That’s why they are coming forward again.

and eventually (Sept. 2007) Mr. Boatbrain:

I want to be absolutely sure on this, Judge Thomas Smith in the past referred boys directly to Dr. Ayres, and now he is not recusing himself from this case? That smells bad, doesn’t it? I am not saying he did anything wrong, but he should not be on this case.

In fact, it sounds like the Attorney General should be handling this altogehter with all these connections between people.

(ALL font changes, italics, underlining, bolding etc. added by me — not the posters).

Let’s think (briefly, here) about the role of the top of the Law Enforcement Pyramid in any state:   Attorney General.  They are over District Attorneys and a whole lot more.  I used to believe (not understanding except by unfortunate experience — see child-stealing — the supreme amount of discretion District Attorneys have in whether to prosecute or NOT prosecute.  As such they are very powerful when it comes to protecting (or not) women & children.  See Sonoma County nonprofit site “Justicewomen.org” on this one, and I’ve blogged it too.

I had had children taken on overnight visitation –completely illegally — no factual or legal justification ever given by any judge, and I had contacted District Attorneys in more than one county (who I understood to be responsible in prosecuting criminal matters, or getting someone to HELP ME recover access to the children, when it was a clear violation of existing court order).  This was somehow mixed in with very abusive treatment by their underlings, county sheriffs and police, in the matters leading up to the situation of an entirely preventable crime.  I’m starting, gradually, to comprehend that the phrase “District Attorney” includes the words “Attorney” and the word “District” simply refers to their territory, turf, and essentially fiefdom.

Regarding the Attorney General should be investigating, that term — while now in California it’s Kamala Harris, who is going to have her hands full if she seeks to ever fully follow up on unregistered or just ain’t filing with the state charities in the state continuing to do business — sometimes WITH THE COURTS & PROBATION– and seek donations.  And one of whose employees (Fay) just had a young girl kidnapped on court-ordered visitation, not returned, and discovered too late as the “murder” victim in a murder-suicide (Samaan/Fay), previously we are talking about Attorney General Bill Lockyer, whose wife Nadya was somehow shuffled to the front of the pack to take over this ONE_STOP_JUSTICE_SHOP in Alameda County, which I’ve blogged on as well.  See my blog or, as I said, google the phrase “steve boatbrain” who obviously has his brain in operation on these matters, too.  Thanks, mister!

CHARITIES THAT DON’T FILE ARE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL:

By habitually, and at some point I have to say intentionally refusing or failing to file properly with the Office of Attorney General, these groups are depriving the public, including the taxpayers, of the opportunity to review their tax returns, sometimes their articles of incorporation, or other sources to check who is on their boards, to verify if what’s said on the websites is true, or junk information, and connections between multiple organizations with similar board members.  Which is already hard enough to do on the California Secretary of State Business search site — which doesn’t enable ANY search by incorporator (i.e, person/business who set up the corp.), or even by EIN#!

FROM THE BIBLE:  “HE THAT IS FAITHFUL IN THAT WHICH IS LEAST. . .”

LET THESE FAITH-BASED GROUPS START DEMONSTRATING PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY — AND START WITH THE FINANCES.  THOSE WILL LIKELY LEAD TO FURTHER INDICATORS OF CORRUPTION, POSSIBLY INVOLVING MINORS.  HANDLE THE ONE, YOU’RE LIKELY TO HANDLE THE OTHER.  TRY AND PAY YOUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATIVE TO DO IT — YOU’LL PROBABLY JUST EXPAND THE BASE OF OPERATIONS!
AND DON’T BELIEVE EVERY TOM, DICK & HARRY (OR ESTER, JOE AND ERIC) WHO ARE PROMISING YOU ANYTHING THEY AREN’T QUALIFIED TO DELIVER — SUCH AS “FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE” OR “DEFENSE OF CHILDHOOD.”

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 26, 2011 at 9:37 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), After HE Speaks Up - Reporting Child Sexual Abuse, Business Enterprise, Who's Who (bio snapshots)

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

Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, or is it just Commerce? (Or, I’ve Got Georgia on my Mind)

with 2 comments

What IS it about this State?

Wisdom, Moderation and Justice

Great Seal of the State of Georgiaseems to be the Georgia State motto, which I just looked up,

and unlike other states, is part of the State Seal.  The other side shows:

Great Seal of the State of Georgia

Actually, that’s just an excuse to bring Georgia up — but, however, a visitor from Georgia apparently had my Michael Anthony Nelson post  on his/her/its [if a business] mind today.    Michael Anthony Nelson appears to be a talented con-man who missed his calling, possibly by circumstances of birth, and got caught.  He has nothing on some of the groups I’ve seen running to and fro around the halls of justice, government, and commerce, these days, and in the past few decades.  It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish the commerce from the justice.  But so hard to figure what (or who) is the commodity, and who is buying and selling.

Also, Georgia must produce wisdom, because I learned recently that one of its former? judges from Cobb County, Georgia now sits on the Coordinating Council of one of the top national centralized justice systems in the country. . . Judge Adele Grubbs, of the Superior Court of Cobb County Georgia.  

This council has 18 members:  9 “Ex Officio” members headed up by Attorney General Eric Holder and heads of major US Agencies within the Executive Department, and 9 Practitioner members appointed by:  Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States.  You can imagine what a powerhouse that is, and out of all 50 states and territories, a Superior Court Judge from Georgia was one of three personally chosen by the CEO of the United States of America.

This gets interesting to me, because on a recent radio show called “abusefreedom.com” listeners heard the story of (yet another) divorce/custody case where the mother was jailed for, it seems, 18 months based on something relating to bankruptcy sale of the house.  Within the first month of being jailed without cause (and obviously without a warrant, so how to defend from nonextant charges?) she obviously lost her job, and (as I recall) obviously custody, although it appears that the charges related to what happened to the family home AFTER it had been removed from both parents’ control. Perhaps check out:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/abusefreedomlive.

Maternal Nightmares in Georgia (I have heard of three cases personally so far; two court veterans who don’t feel safe from their ex in the state (after custody actions) and the other mother who did jail time.  At least one of these was in Cobb County.   I can’t give details because cases are still open.

PARENTING COORDINATION CORPORATIONs less than COORDINATED (in Georgia):

I already knew about Georgia that the entirely obnoxious (to mothers at least) field of parenting coordination (training) — run by the AFCC crowd, and coaching court professionals how to get paid to remove children from biological mothers based on alienation  — which I ran a four-post series on — has two major “practitioners” one of who was from Georgia, and I’d heard horror stories from this one as well.  The pair Susan Boyan and Anne Marie Termini are now practicing elsewhere I guess, and I sort of gave up on finding out where (in which state) they are legally incorporated:

(These two women are not the largest fish in the pond, or the biggest blip on my radar, but a persistently annoying one, in what it represents, and the principles that are being broken.  As with Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & how the Bush appointee/FRC man functions, Jeffrey Reiger (last post, bottom) I’ll figure it out one of these days.)

Parenting Coordination Training

                 The FIRST and ONLY Comprehensive Parenting Coordination Training Program!

The Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI) – – – –

WHO?  See below these paragraphs….

is an internationally recognized leader providing high quality parenting coordination training programs.  Since 1997, the CPI has dominated the field of parenting coordination by creating the only comprehensive step-by-step PC training model. The Institute offers 20-24-26 hour parenting coordination/facilitation training opportunities each year.  A 12-hour advanced training is available for the experienced parenting coordinator. The training programs meet the requirements established by state statutes.  In addition, the presenters are available for custom designed training in your local area.

Susan Boyan, LMFT and Ann Marie Termini, LPC are recognized leaders and innovative trainers.  {{and modest, too!}} As skilled parenting coordinators, since the early 1990’s, Ann Marie and Susan have facilitated many complex and highly conflictual divorce cases  {{With what results?  Highly conflictual [is that even a word?] = Probably many including domestic violence and/or child abuse, probably some with some serious money on one or both sides, too}}  They have drawn on their extensive experience, research and interactive approach to prepare professionals for the challenging {{But financially and very emotionally rewarding if you are into power over others}} role of a parenting coordinator {{a field created by AFCC for their non-judge members’ benefit, fought for in legislatures by their lobbying groups, etc.}}

(Also from the site:)

STANDARDS OF PRACTICE:  The first parenting coordination standards were written in 2003* by the Cooperative Parenting Institute as part of their training model for parenting coordination. The AFCC recognized the importance of developing their own guidelines and did so with the assistance of parenting coordinators in 2005. For more information on the AFCC standards visit http://www.afccnet.org.

(Georgia Corporations Search records:)

COOPERATIVE PARENTING INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 08010511 Non-Profit Corporation *Formed 2/6/2008, Admin. Dissolved 9/26/2010

Georgia Corporations search by “officer name” on “Boyan” shows these:
Susan Boyan BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
SUSAN BOYAN BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
  NATIONAL PARENT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION, INC.

The “National Parent Coordinators Association, Inc.” was formed in Feb. 2002 and Admin. Dissolved in May 2008, with officers Boyan & Termini (you can look yourself at Georgia’s Secretary of State site which (unlike California’s) at least allows a search by Officer or Registered agent, too.  They are doing this business in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas and have in Illinois, and apparently churning out people (on a referral list) with the label “LPC” behind them — yet, where is a single 990 tax return (if nonprofit, an EIN#) or if not a nonprofit but some sort of corporation or LLC, or LLP — in which state?  Notice the training fees.

If CPI or ParentCoordination Central is a registered name owned by a different company, which one? Reader Comment invited. They “dominated the field of parenting coordination” since 1997, which had no standards of practice til 2003?  Those standards were allegedly written up by a corporation which didn’t exist at the time.  The National Association was functional in 2008, and (like CPI) dissolved probably for not filing.  And people trained by them are paid to control the futures of kids??   But never mind – -not today’s main points.

 

 

1. The OFFICE:  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Serving Children, Families, and Communities

Serving Children, Families and Communities” — isn’t that what the local, county & state courts are already supposed to be doing, plus our legislators, governors, and county commissioners, etc.?  The motto sounds like something out of a healthy marriage grantee  playbook:

Mission:  The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families.

AMBER Alert | National Sex Offender Public Web Site

(sounds like diversionary type programs — prevent & intervene, yet hold offenders accountable, provide treatment and rehabilitative services).

LEGISLATION:  Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act (Pub. L. No. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.) in 1974This landmark legislation established OJJDP to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system.    {{Why were local and state efforts failing or in need of support?}}  On November 2, 2002, Congress reauthorized the JJDP Act. The reauthorization (the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758) supports OJJDP’s established mission while introducing important changes that streamline the Office’s operations and bring a sharper focus to its role. The provisions of the reauthorization took effect in FY 2004 (October 2003).

Not to the topic of my post except to note that the reauthorization happened during the administration of Pres. George W. Bush and a year after 9/11.

2.  The Coordinating Council of this Office:  “CJJDP”

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

The Coordinating Council—an independent body within the executive branch of the federal government—coordinates all federal programs and activities related to juvenile delinquency prevention, the care or detention of unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited children. It has a number of other mandated responsibilities and also engages in activities such as building collaborations and disseminating information. Part of the Council’s mandate is to make annual recommendations to Congress regarding juvenile justice policies, objectives, and priorities. To help shape these recommendations, the Council holds quarterly meetings open to the public that provide a forum for the exchange of information, ideas, and research findings.

The Council has nine members representing federal agencies and nine practitioner members representing disciplines that focus on youth. The Attorney General serves as chairperson and the Administrator of OJJDP as vice chairperson. For additional information, visit the Coordinating Council’s Web site.

When I hear the word “practitioner” coming from an official source any more, I just about shudder.  Is a judge a “practitioner? now?  Anyhow, here are the 3 CJJDP members

Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives

Adele L. Grubbs 
Judge
Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia

Pamela F. Rodriguez
President
TASC, Inc. (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities)

Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Associate Justice
Massachusetts Trial Court

It turns out Judge Grubbs is British and has a British law degree!  This is about half her bio, and if I had a custody case in Georgia, I’d look up every single one of these organizations:

The Honorable Adele Grubbs began serving as a Superior Court Judge for Cobb County in January 2001.

Coinciding with the inauguration of President George Bush and his signing of the first two executive orders, inviting in the Faith Based Orgs.

Prior to her election to the Superior court Judge Grubbs served as Judge of the Juvenile Court of Cobb County for 5 years. She handled delinquent and troubled juveniles, heard custody cases, and assisted the Superior Court of Cobb County. She presided over criminal and civil jury trials, including domestic, family violence, and custody cases; divorces; and civil and criminal motions. She was previously copartner in a private law practice for 26 years and served as Assistant District Attorney of Cobb County. Judge Grubbs was elected to the Board of Governors for the State Bar of Georgia, where she has served for 11 years on the Consumer Assistance Program, Children and the Courts, and Child Support Committees.

… continued:

She is past president and current trustee of the Cobb Bar Association and past president of the Cobb Division of the Georgia Association of Women Lawyers. Judge Grubbs has served as a volunteer juvenile probation officer and as an attorney for the Fraternal Order of Police. She helped establish the Guardian Ad Litem Program in Cobb County. Judge Grubbs lectures at the State Family Seminar, the Indigent Defense Seminar, and the Cobb County Guardian Ad Litem Seminar. She is founder of the Cobb Justice Foundation, in which more than 100 lawyers offer legal aid to residents of Cobb County. She has served on the boards of Cobb Children’s Centers, Inc. the Marietta High School Foundation; and the American Heart Association. She received the 1997 Cobb County Woman of Achievement award. A native of England, Judge Grubbs holds a British law degree, L.L.B. from the University of Manchester, England.

I would get — definitely — a printout from the county of payroll, statement of conflict of interest (with so many corporations and boards she’s on involved), and as a matter of fact, across the nations, GALs, though I can see the need, have been problematic for women attempting to leave abuse.  Just a minor reminder — Georgia is Bible Belt, it still has issues with racism, and no doubt sexism.  Moreover, I would like to know when this judge began to reside in Georgia, or the US — just for a little reminder, the USA was originally colonized by Great Britain and there remain certain constitutional differences, like the Bill of Rights.

Cobb Children’s Centers, Inc.  (I cannot find this name in the Corporations Search)

I looked up these three also:

Appointed by the President of the United States

Laurie Garduque –
Director, Juvenile Justice
MacArthur Foundation

Byron Johnson
Professor
Baylor University – a Texas Baptist University.

Trina Thompson
Presiding Judge
Juvenile Justice Center

GEORGIA & BRUCE & NANCY SCHAEFER:

The commodity is human lives (and the real estate and assets formerly attached to them), particularly children.  The commodity is in talk which pries loose kids from parents for a fee, which former (late) Senator Nancy Schaefer was dilligently addressing shortly before she became a murder victim.  Allegedly (I don’t believe it for a moment, and am not alone in this) of her husband.

Her report, from “fightcps.com”

Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on CPS Corruption  (posted Feb. 2008)

Links to similar reports & discussions

From Wikipedia on “Nancy Schaefer

She had also sought to wrest the Republican nomination forGeorgia’s 10th congressional district from Paul Broun in 2008, but withdrew her candidacy before the primary election.[7] Throughout her career as an activist and politician, she was a champion of Christian conservative causes, opposing abortion and gay rights and promoting the display of the Ten Commandments in public places.[3][2] Upon her death, fellow State Senator Ralph Hudgens eulogized her as “almost like a rock star of the Christian right”.[7] She was a senior official in the Baptist church, having served as a First Vice President of the Georgia Baptist Convention.[3]

Schaefer died at her home near Turnerville in Habersham County on 26 March 2010 with her husband of 52 years, Bruce Schaefer. Police concluded the deaths to have been a murder–suicide perpetrated by her husband.[8][9][2]

Not everyone buys the “murder-suicide” (which brings into question, should we buy others that show up so much?).  She had been exposing the federal incentives to the states to traffick in separating children from their parents.

The Strange Death of Nancy Schaefer (2 items), from which:

I feel led to make an exception and bring to your attention another non partisan subject: The high profile investigation that has been initiated into Friday’s death of a former Georgia state senator.

Garland

Saturday March 27, 2010

On Friday, former Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband were found dead in their home in Habersham County. Even before a GBI investigation could be initiated, media outlets began pronouncing that their death was a “murder-suicide” and shut off most public comment posting on their web sites. The “murder suicide” theory implies that Sen. Schaefer’s husband shot her and then killed himself (or vice versa). Both Habersham County and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation began investigating the case as a “murder suicide” rather than the more obvious murder made to look like suicide”. Like so many people, I have known former Sen. Nancy Schaefer for 15 years and spoken to several people who know her better than I do. They believe that the “murder suicide” theory is highly unlikely for any one of the following reasons:

I never knew this woman, nor heard any of her short, concise videos (I hope still available) on the child trafficking through DCFS topics.  Yet mothers from around the country — and yes, fathers — know that there is indeed a going business in children for sale — and more, or less, literally, depending on the circumstances, and yes, absolutely — by virtue of the courts and judicial systems as we know them.  As bribery, extortion and slavery often go together (and require a similar mentality, a “user” mentality), this is one reason I am so hot under the collar about FINANCIAL improprieties as evidence and tracks often (not always, but often) pointing to serious human rights abuses.  I mean, do people abuse others just for fun, or is there usually some profit in it?

So, now there is a one-year follow up on this death, and I believe we (meaning WE — you here?  You can tolerate my writing?  then check this out, whether you are a perp, participant, or protester) should look at it, and think about this — it was a U.S. Senator.    There have been Presidents assassinated and shot at; we have also had – this past year — another (female) Senator shot and seriously wounded.  These are not all by crackpots loners.  What was the reason for them?

This 15 minute YouTube (I haven’t watched it, but saw the first frames) and another apparently respond to “Nancy Schaefer High-Level CPS Crimes Investigation,” and are the context for what’s below:

From “POLITICAL VINE – Insider Politics in Georgia.  A dose of political caffeine   with no sugar added” (I like the banner)

One Year Follow-up on the Death of Senator Nancy Shaefer & Bruce Shaefer

by PV

Introduction

It has been one year and one day since Former State Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband Bruce were found shot to death in their Habersham County home. Now, Garland Favorito has written a report that follows-up the investigation by the GBI into the claimed “murder-suicide” causation of the Schaefers’ deaths.

NOTE: Normally, Garland Favorito covers issues of voting machines and elections in Georgia through his 501-c-3 organization called VoterGA. However, in this case, Garland knew Senator Schaefer personally. And, as he did last year, he has put together a report laying-out the GBI investigation (or, perhaps, lack thereof) into the deaths of the Shaefers.


Release Date: March 26, 2011

SCHAEFERS KILLED WITH MYSTERIOUS GUN, GBI DESTROYS EVIDENCE, CLOSES “SUICIDE” CASE

THE GBI INVESTIGATION

It has been exactly a year since former Georgia State Senator, Nancy Schaefer, and her husband Bruce, were found shot to death in their bedroom. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) completed its work in December and recently made the case file summary available under Georgia Open Records Request laws.   The conclusion was based primarily on extensive suicide notes that contained specific instructions to the family and could have only been produced by Bruce or someone with first-hand knowledge of the family. There were also no visible signs of forced entry. The hand printed notes that were found in the bedroom indicated that financial problems were a motive…

THE MURDER WEAPON

The findings in the case file would be highly convincing except for one major problem never before reported. The Schaefers were not killed with the small caliber gun that the family knew they owned. They were killed with a higher caliber, untraceable weapon that no family member had ever seen before. The weapon was originally shipped to a dealer in a remote part of southern Florida in 1982 and the ownership records have since been destroyed, possibly as a result of a natural disaster. The case file was unable to establish how the Schaefers, who lived in Georgia during the 1980s, acquired the murder weapon . . .

HE AUTOPSY REPORT

The GBI autopsy report found that the wounds of Bruce Schaefer were consistent with a suicide finding but the report was unable to rule out the possibility that he was murdered. The autopsy report and initial investigative case summary did not find any difference in the times of death for the couple. They imply that that the times of death were the same, which is a virtual impossibility. The notes show that Bruce wrote them after shooting Nancy and it would have taken hours for him to write and assemble the material for the notes before he shot himself.

THE SUICIDE NOTES

The final investigative summary cites the extensive, detailed suicide notes found at the scene as the most overwhelming evidence of suicide. But the case file shows that the GBI performed no handwriting analysis to authenticate those printed notes as originating from Bruce Schaefer. The multi-page, extensive suicide notes are also strange in the sense that there is no mention of the 13 grandchildren who Bruce loved so much.

THE ALLEGED FINANCIAL MOTIVE

The suicide notes contain a foreclosure letter and precise details for settlements involving over $25K of credit card debt, but they provide little or no information on the Schaefers’ assets and income. Although containing many other instructions there are no instructions on how to liquidate any retirement accounts, stock investments or uncollateralized property that the Schaefers owned. Only a couple of insurance policies are present but it is unclear what value, if any, that they would have in a murder-suicide. The Schaefers already had put their house on the market and showed virtually no concern about any pending foreclosure right up until the night before their death. They still had roughly $100,000 of equity in the home even after reducing the sale price. They were advised by one of their sons, who is in the real estate business, that it was unlikely they would lose the house.

In other words, the “financial motive” was on shaky ground.  Perhaps someone is projecting their own motive onto the Schaefers and hoping it would stick.  I wonder who owns their house now. (It could be looked up).

This is going to relate more to my post, below (i.e., assets transfer in Georgia circles)

THE VIDEO

Most Georgians are unaware that the metro Atlanta area has been nationally ranked as the largest center in the country for child sex trafficking. Most are also unaware that Sen. Schaefer was a national leader in the fight against related child abuse and perversion in government run, Child Protective Services (CPS). The GBI was repeatedly informed that Nancy was wrapping up a video documentary, a possible book and other supporting references on the subject. She told friends that this work would expose corruption in Georgia’s Department of Family and Child Services (DFACS) and that several high profile, powerful Georgia politicians would be implicated. These people would have the means and incentive to prevent her work from being produced. While the GBI documented case inquiries from the general public there is no documentation of the inquiries received from government officials.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, any Bureau of Investigation.  Moral? Think — and get your information into other (unknown if possible) hands before you talk.

The GBI collected little information about the work that Nancy Schaefer had done. They interviewed only one person who was involved in helping to produce the video documentary. They did not obtain a copy of the video or interview its producer, William Fain. They also did not attempt to retrieve the documentary from the producer even though the Schaefers had arranged funding for the video and the producer was not necessarily entitled to ownership rights.

THE THREATS

The GBI was aware that Mrs. Schaefer had received threats and warnings as a result of her work. She had already begun taking security precautions. The information she collected was believed to be so sensitive that she could be targeted for professional assassination. Close friends still fear that someone befriended her and committed the crime. The GBI investigation did little to rule out that possibility.

A former federal investigator I contacted told me that a double killing with an untraceable gun should have automatically triggered a normal murder investigation that would have considered all possible scenarios. But, In spite of the threats, Mrs. Schaefer’s high profile work and the mysterious gun, the GBI made an immediate initial conclusion that the couple committed a murder-suicide. . . .

DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

During the time from June to December of 2010 individuals, including myself, filed open records requests for reports but the requests were denied because the case was still open. When Special Agent Whidby wrote the Final Investigative Summary in December of 2010, t he GBI had destroyed all items that were seized or created at autopsy. They then completed closing the case in February of 2011 and made the file available.

Garland then lists 13 unanswered questions, and I’ll end with #13 and thank him for some fine work. As I say, we know that the family law system – not just the CPS — also separates children from one — or sometimes eventually both — children, and that the system which then would support them — namely the child support one — has a reputation now for huge “black holes” of expenditures and increasingly expansive (and evolving year by year) “diversionary” programs, which aren’t monitored properly.  Thank you sir (I assume it’s a he) for the work, and know that one mother I spoke with (one of those who had to pay to see her sons) called me in alarm originally at the news and wanted a nationwide day of recognition from our blogging circles; i.e., women whose children have been given to their former batterers or the children’s molesters, and are still fighting in the courts to stay housed, fed and in contact with those kids.  I would not often go all out for someone of such conservative (let alone Baptist) persuasion (see blog), but this couple seems to have been the genuine article.  I hope people read this site often and think about what their own priorities are — entertainment, or stopping child trafficking with their own taxes they provide the IRS to distribute to the states (etc.).  I wouldn’t have posted this much (today), but am moved by it, which a proper investigation or report will often do.

13. Why would the GBI be unwilling to properly investigate and rule out the possibility of a professional assassination given the circumstances and high profile nature of the case?

CONCLUSION

GBI spokesperson, John Bankhead, initially promised Fox 5 News “there will be a thorough investigation” given the high profile circumstances of the case. That thoroughness obviously never materialized. The Final Investigative Summary contains only one paragraph to summarize the findings of murder-suicide, relying on the suicide notes for that conclusion. There is no rationale in the summary to explain how the conclusion was reached, what other scenarios were considered or how other scenarios were ruled out. While the GBI may have come to the correct conclusion, the only thing consistent with a “thorough investigation” seems to be the amount of time that the case was left open.

The limited investigative scope is appalling considering the high profile circumstances surrounding the Schaefers’ deaths. Case file evidence mentioned in this report illustrates that the GBI was unwilling to investigate the case to the point where they could rule out professional assassination. They also destroyed all items seized or created at autopsy so now their actions can never be reviewed or questioned. Their conduct raises a legitimate question as to whether or not they could have been compromised or manipulated by officials implicated in former Nancy Schaefer’s documentary and materials. Their investigation may even become more questionable than the killings themselves.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED

Garland Favorito
404 664-4044

REFERENCES

Regardless of how the couple may have died, former Senator Nancy Schaefer lived the last couple of years of her life dedicated to helping children and families who were victimized by the very government agencies that were supposed to be helping them.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GEORGIA & THE PHOEBE FACTOIDS

Georgia is where the Phoebe Factoids came from — and the publication of which was used to set up two men who were exposing the corruption in “Nonprofit” hospitals which had huge offshore profits  –and overcharged uninsured customers.  I blogged this (“The Profit in Nonprofits, and 2 Men in Georgia“) , as my understanding of the word “nonprofit” and “set-up” increased in depth.   Actually — this case  just recently hit the Supreme Court:

Phoebe Factoid Suit Argued in Highest Court

(by By Jennifer Emert – bio | email posted 10/31/2011, updated 11/04)

[[a video shows here ]]

WASHINGTON, D. C. –

The U. S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Today in an Albany case that could decide whether government officials are entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits if they knowingly provide false testimony to a grand jury.

Charles Rehberg was charged with assault, burglary, and harassment for sending anonymous faxes known as Phoebe Factoids that criticized how Phoebe Putney Hospital conducted business.

Then District Attorney Ken Hodges and Chief Investigator James Paulk subpoenaed phone records to figure out who sent the faxes.  Rehberg filed suit saying they violated his constitutional rights and accusing Paulk of lying to the grand jury.

The suit against Hodges was tossed out, but the suit against Paulk is going before the nation’s highest court.

(It is offensive for any one to provide false testimony to a grand jury, but particularly offensive if a District Attorney does, as they are to prosecute criminal behavior, not engage in it!)

To bring a false indictment, people kind of think well that’s not that big of a deal, but I can assure you it’s a big deal. It costs a lot of money to defend criminal cases and we don’t have insurance for that kind of thing and in my case I spent a lot of money putting those charges aside and proving them to be false as did Rehberg, so bringing an indictment has consequences for the defendant,”  said Palmyra Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato.

Copyright 2011 WALB.  All rights reserved.  {{NOTE:  My understanding is, this is Fair use, see below link}}

These appear to me to be two VERY brave men, and honest ones — and we need to have a culture and legal climate that supports, not attacks, this.  Clearly, we don’t.

GEORGIA LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.  REMIND ME TO VISIT SOMEDAY:

 
  1.  – Report images

GEORGIA AND ITS FATHERHOOD PROGRAM:

It was created as a division with the DCSS in 1997:

(from “Redwardslaw.com“)

In 1997, the Division created its Fatherhood program to further that mission. Through this initiative, parents unable to meet their court-ordered child support obligations are provided with employment assistance.

The largest state-run program of its type in the nation, the Georgia’s Fatherhood Program has served more than 15,000 non-custodial parents {{yet, it’s called a FATHERhood program}} in the past decade. It takes three to six months to complete the program; it helps parents {{fathers, principally}} receive vocational training, obtain General Education Diplomas (GEDs), and acquire full-time employment.

The Georgia initiative is similar to other programs in sister states. District of Columbia and Rhode Island programs work with non-custodial parents, mainly fathers, to obtain job training and placement. In Alabama’s incarnation of the Fatherhood Initiative, parents are provided counseling, education and training, as well as employment opportunities.

Child support obligations can create frustration and stress for unemployed non-custodial parents. However, many states, like Georgia, have found a way to help. Initiatives like the Fatherhood Program do more than save taxpayer dollars: they help break the cycle of poverty that threatens our nation’s children.

(sure … towards end of post we look at a state auditor of another fatherhood program)

From “Fatherhood.Georgia.gov” you can get a fine description:

Where fatherhood program customers come from:  under threat of, or having been, jailed for failure to be able to pay child support:

From a Cobb County Divorce firm, “Marsh & Wolfe” posted Sept. 2011:   Georgia Fatherhood Programs Suffering Due to Budget Constraints:

A prominent Georgia-based fatherhood program will be discontinued after 15 years of operation due to decreased funding from the Department of Labor. The program was meant to help fathers obtain an education, a job and success in their career. It was originally implemented to help fathers who were delinquent on child support payments or had lost visitation rights, but the program eventually opened registration to mothers as well.

This is the eleventh such closure of a fatherhood program in Georgia due to decreased funding, including one at Chattahoochee Technical College in Marietta.

The public side:

Resources

The following links contain interesting and informative materials which are related to the efforts of the Georgia Fatherhood Program:

Child Support Enforcement
The mission of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) is to reduce the public and private burden of raising financially abandoned children to adulthood. Its goals is accomplished through the location of absent parents, the establishment of paternity, the establishment and enforcement of support obligations, and the distribution of payments. In collaboration with the Department of Technical and Adult Education, Special Services Division, CSE began the Georgia Fatherhood Program to enhance the recovery of child support from non-custodial parents by offering education and skills training to the parents.

Recent modifications to Child Support in Georgia show complex formulas, which basically show that yes — children are a commodity and a parent’s time with his/her own offspring post-separation is a marketable timeshare, pro rata (shared income model).  Then again, whatever the court says is in the best interests of the child.  Or any other number of formulas which the court may — or may not — choose to apply.

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
NPCL is a nonprofit organization created for charitable and educational purposes. The mission of NPCL is to improve the governance and administration of nonprofit organizations and strengthen community leadership through family empowerment. It assists community-based organizations in better serving young, low-income single fathers and fragile families.

Sounds nice.  The President of this Washington, D.C. nonprofit, Jeffrey M. Johnson, runs “Master Trainer Institutes” on fatherhood; such licensed trainings for proprietary curricula are all over the field.    I’m getting tired of this — fatherhood is an ideology.  Run these classes as a for-profit, and don’t engage people who prey on captive (sometimes, in the case of prisons) audiences, literally.    Make’em pay taxes!

 He is regularly invited to testify before the United States Congress on matters pertaining to low-income fathers and strengthening families. He played a principal role in passage of the first national fatherhood legislation in Congress, The Fathers Count Bill Dr. Johnson is also the author of several publications including Fatherhood Development: A Curriculum for Young Fathers.

For thirteen years Dr. Johnson was an adjunct professor of Educational Administration and Leadership at Trinity University (formerly Trinity College) in Washington, D.C.

He is also the 1999 and 2003 recipient of the President’s Award by The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families. This award annually recognizes outstanding leadership in the promotion of responsible fatherhood.  Dr. Johnson is a member of The Peoples Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland where he serves as President of the Men’s Fellowship Ministry.

This man is off the deep end — there are woman in urban neighborhoods too.  His trained trainers branch out to other states with this cult and run “Train the Trainer” things, according to doctrine.  Here’s one in Ohio — which has its own Fatherhood Commission, and its Office of Faith-Based BS as well, which began with a bang — by squandering grants money, after steering it to a Bush-associated organization “WeCare” (out of state), and as SLIGHTLY rescued in reputation by a glowing report from Byron Johnson — who turns out to be on the CJJDP (above).

Ohio recently had a horrible scandal in a supervised visitation facility at Trumbull County.  A woman whose child had already been removed into foster care AT BIRTH — and was killed by blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, by a foster mother before age 2, then was with the father of a (now 13-month old little girl) engaging in “supervised visitation” inside a public — state/county-funded facility (check details) — after having taken parenting classes for the privilege! — and used this access to the little girl to sexually assault her (including penetration), captured it on a CELL PHONE, and a relative that noticed this (no official did!) — on reporting it, lost HER 2 year old son also to the state.  Parents were naturally shocked and outrage, and I was in phone contact with some of these (as I have been watching Ohio recently, meaning, on-line).  They attempted to visit a meeting where a discussion of this (outrage) was being held — it was a public meeting, or should’ve been.  They were turned away at the door!   The group was going to self-investigate, and eventually the executive director of this outfit (Trumbull County Children’s Services, or something similar) rather than getting a reproof — got a promotion!  (Nick Kerosky).  The FCFC model which it is part of comes under “Fatherhood” commission — emphasizes “flexible funding” to get around some of the restrictive rules, and this particular facility — which got a new building shortly after the nonprofit running it? was formed — was funded:  Get this!    about 50% by a statewide “Children’s Levy” — and about 22% Federal.

In other words, the citizens of this state, and others, are participating financially (whether knowingly or willingly is another matter) in setting up situations to torture young children, sometimes have them killed, and most of the time, remove them from their biological mothers.  I don’t know what I would’ve done as a mother, if after labor someone took my child.  Who would that NOT drive insane?  The media has been notably silent on WHY these children were removed.   . . .  There’s more.  I actually looked at the mother and father’s criminal dockets in the case (not that they didn’t deserve to be in jail a long time for such crimes — and they’re in their 20s) . . . and the father had a pro-active attorney (who is paid per action, apparently) and the mothers action docket was blank.  Even in public defense, there is a gender gap.  The father, moreover, had been a juvenile sex offender.

This is the outfit, and you can look up the rest yourself:  Look at the PR piece, from the Executive Director Nick Kerosky (photo of white male):

October 31, 2010 marked the end of an era here at Trumbull County Children Services. On that day Marcia Tiger retired after 34 years with our agency and I assumed the reins as Executive Director. I have big shoes to fill certainly and change in leadership can be challenging, but change can also be energizing. It brings new ideas, a fresh perspective and opportunities for growth.

At the same time, there is change in Columbus. We have a new Governor who has made it very clear that he wants to reduce an $8 Billion budget deficit. In order to accomplish that, we know there will be major cuts in state funding. These will certainly impact all state funded agencies and the families we serve, but, there is also opportunity.

We have a great spirit of community here in Trumbull County. Our community is like a sturdy oak tree providing protection to our families and children. Children Services anchors strong roots of hard- working people and diverse traditions here. The leaves of our tree are the many community partners who we work with and who help care for our families. Our long, healthy branches are collaboration and teamwork. Compassion, energy and enthusiasm nourish our roots.

Actually, public monies do.  Lots of them.

My vision for child protection in Trumbull County is community-based, family-centered and prevention- focused. We provide quality services with compassion. We are accountable to ourselves and our community, as well as the state.

The actual story, in part:

CSB File: No reprimand given to manager after abuse cases

October 22, 2011
By ADAM FERRISE – reporter

WARREN – A department head at Trumbull County Children Services who oversaw the cases in which one child was killed by her foster parent and another child allegedly raped during a supervised visit inside the agency’s building by a known sex offender was never officially reprimanded by superiors, according to a review of her personnel file obtained by the Tribune Chronicle.

Marilyn Pape, a department manager at CSB, who answers directly to the agency’s executive director, had been promoted to a newly created position that oversaw foster care placement about a year before 21-month old Tiffany Sue Banks was killed by her foster mother that CSB placed her with.

Two calls and a message left seeking comment from Pape were not returned. Marcia Tiger, the former CSB executive director, who promoted Pape and gave her glowing performance evaluations, said she would not comment because Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins advised current CSB Director Nick Kerosky not to speak to reporters.

Kerosky defended Pape’s employment history Friday, pointing out the excellent performance evaluations done by his predecessor.

Pape works directly under Kerosky and oversees several CSB functions. She earns more than $77,000 a year plus fringe benefits. {{bringing it up to $129K, the article adds later)

”She’s been an employee here for 26 years and has received nothing but glowing recommendations,” Kerosky said.

Kerosky also responded Friday to Watkins’ call for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to determine whether any employee was criminally negligent when two relatives recorded themselves performing sexual acts on a 13-month-old girl in CSB’s care inside the agency in mid-July. Watkins made the recommendation after attorney David Engler, representing a relative of the two children who were related to one another, called for Watkins to ask for an independent criminal investigation.

Two relatives, Cody Beemer, 22, 332 Austin Ave. S.E., and Felicia Banks Beemer, 21, were charged with rape and a slew of other charges. Both pleaded not guilty to charges and are being held in the Trumbull County Jail. They were also charged with allegedly making a similar recording of them performing sexual acts on a different 18-month-old male relative. That boy was not in CSB’s care, but after police found the evidence of the video, CSB took custody of him.

…NOTICE:   “Beemer, according to court records, was serving probation after he pleaded guilty to assaulting Banks Beemer in March.

See notice for upcoming CSB meeting if you are a local resident:

Next Public Children Service Board (CSB) Meeting in Trumbull County, Warren, OH is Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm – Dear Citizens,

Please keep your eye open to any last minute changes, which MUST be published and notice given to the public in a timely manner.
This is a public meeting on 11-15-11 and the public does not have to sign in to attend.  CSB and their staff are on the Public Payroll – we pay them and the employer has all rights to attend a meeting to see what their employees are doing!  FYI – The Trumbull County Commissioners appoint the Board Members of Children Services in Trumbull County.  There is already an injunction filed against CSB for denying citizens access to a public meeting on 10-18-11, which is to be heard on Friday, 12-2-11 at the main courthouse by Judge Stuard at 9 am

What this notice tells us is that the people that showed up at the previous board were put out and/or required to sign in to attend.  Other links claim it’s systemic and not just in one county the the CSB (this outfit) is not following rules for removal of a child from the home.  These nightmare situations were facilitated by a statewide system called  fcf.ohio.gov, which leads to links (on the left) that all have lovely names:

  • *The OCTF was created in Ohio law in 1984. OCTF funds primary and secondary prevention strategies that are conducted at the local level and activities and projects of a statewide significance designed to strengthen families and prevent child abuse and neglect. The county FCFCs serve as the OCTF local advisory boards and receive funding for primary and secondary prevention strategies…
  • (More:) “Anything we do to strengthen and support families in our community helps to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect.”
  • (Grants:)”For April 2011, the Ohio Children’s Trust Fund (OCTF) is providing nearly $45,000 to twelve county Family and Children First Councils (FCFCs) to support their April Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention activities and events”
  • Trumbull County got $2,000 to hold an event reminding parents that it’s important to play with their children
  • OH Job & Family Services (which funds TANF, OCSE, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, Medicaid, Access Visitation, etc. — has a huge incentive to adopt out and get kids into foster care.   It should be looked at: here’s a link.  This centralized agency manages a LOT!):
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES  COLUMBUS OH 43215 FRANKLIN 809376072 $ 13,576,468,286

Despite all those wonderful-sounding names — “Youth, Partnership, Care, Child, Family Grow, Help Me, Trust Fund” —  bottom line is here, through some of this [at least] one child was murdered (supervisor salary — $77K, public funding) and another from the same Mom, raped, and now the same public that paid for this to happen, and the salaries of people that let it happen, will pay also for jail, and two public defenders, not to mention the foster care of a surviving young male victim (removed from another home) and so forth.  Not to mention the personal cost.  So I recommend taking a look at “flexible funding” here — because in state after state, these philosophies and initiatives are exactly that — real “flexible” when it comes to rules & laws.

Flexible Funding Pool:

The OFCF Flexible Funding Workgroup was formed in January 2010 with the purpose to identify opportunities and provide flexible funding to local public agencies in order to better meet the needs of children, families, and adults.  {{Of course that’s what its about}} The group included staff from the OFCF Cabinet agencies.

Local public agencies will now have the flexibility to transfer specific State General Revenue Funds (GRF) to the local flexible funding pool managed by the FCFCs. Although State GRF allocated to various local public agencies have requirements on what the funds can be spent on, the State GRF transferred to the flexible funding pool sheds those requirements.  Therefore, even if counties currently “pool” funds, those state funds must still meet its requirements for spending.  This new FCFC Flexible Funding Pool removes all of those requirements and can be used to meet the needs (prevention, early intervention, treatment) of children, families, and adults in the community.

To understand any association or organization, one really needs to understand its funding, its corporate structure and who pays the salaries of its staff.

END of “OHIO” SECTION

triggered by the awareness of NCPL (again) and its CEO’s agenda

(BACK TO REFERENCES FROM GEORGIA FATHERHOOD)

National Fatherhood Initiative
The National Fatherhood Initiative was created in 1994 to counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority. With the help of many notable Americans,

Just grants with the actual word “Fatherhood” in them from Georgia.  Just Grants, and just from HHS:
notice the recipients — DHR, a children’s shelter:
Program Office Grantee Name City Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ATLANTA PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants RUSSELL EASTMAN $ 310,000
ACF GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants NANCY F FRIAUF $ 474,640
HSB PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. DECATUR FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION 93600 Head Start BRENDA E TAYLOR $ 375,000
OFA GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ATLANTA PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants RUSSELL EASTMAN $ 592,367
OFA GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants JASMINE MCCOY $ 250,000
OFA GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants NANCY F FRIAUF $ 250,000
(yeah, well, this one has connections with technical colleges and relates in 2011 that their funds, which apparently were in good part ARRA funds (see my last post on the GAO report on ARRA grantees) were drying up.
Georgia Fatherhood Program Loses Money

On behalf of Hill / Macdonald, LLC posted in Child support on Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Several Georgia technical colleges have lost funding for their long-running fatherhood programs, which provide education and support services to both father and mothers with the goal of strengthening families and serving the low-income community. The colleges are working to find alternative funding for the programs, but until that happens, this underserved population may again fall through the cracks.

In Georgia, fathers and mothers who are unable to make their court-ordered child support payments have relatively few options. Most fly under the radar in order to avoid being found in contempt of court and either forced to make payments through wage garnishment or some other means, or sentenced to jail. In response to this no-win situation, the fatherhood programs were created in 1996 to help noncustodial fathers who were facing contempt charges for nonpayment of child support.

The program was later opened up to mothers, and its goals were broadened. Now, the fatherhood programs at Chattahoochee Tech in Mariette, Athens Tech, Atlanta Tech, and 9 other technical colleges throughout Georgia focus on providing support services for parents to help them achieve education and career goals. A major component of the program is increasing participants’ ability to make money so they can more easily support their children and their family. The fathers who are enrolled in the program have an average of three children each.

The last few years of the program were funded by the American Reinvestment Recovery Act.

Well, earlier they were funded through TANF:  From an ACF SITE (I’m simply referring to this, not explaining in full obviously):

Section 1115 Waiver Projects
These grants provide matching federal monies for demonstration projects that expand on current child support programs. The projects are funded using the child support formula grant matching rate of 66% Federal and 34% State or private non-IV-D funds; the projects are authorized by waiver provisions of section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Though varied, all projects emphasize the importance of healthy marriage to a child’s well-being, as well as financial stability, increased paternity establishment, and child support collection.

. . .

  • Georgia Department of Human Resources (Various Cities, GA).
    “Georgia Healthy Marriage Initiative: The Georgia Family Council is directing a project to provide marriage education integrated with child support information and motivation. The marriage curricula will vary by cities and organizations. Local coalitions will provide outreach through existing community, faith-based and public organizations. Project Period: April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010.

    Mission


    Georgia Family Council (GFC) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) research and education organization committed to fostering conditions in which individuals, families and communities thrive. Carrying out that mission is a challenging endeavor that requires a multi-faceted approach. So GFC is organized under three Centers:

    GFC Receives Grant to Curb Domestic Violence

    Georgia Family Council has been awarded a $10,000 grant from the Verizon Foundation to train teenagers about healthy relationships and avoiding domestic violence.

    GFC has been hosting marriage and relationship training classes in communities throughout Georgia for years. This grant will bolster our efforts to specifically reach young people ages 13 to 18 to help them prevent and avoid domestic violence. Classes will be held in Gwinnett and DeKalb counties and in inner-city Atlanta.

    Healthy marriages and families begin with healthy relationships. GFC is committed to helping individuals learn the best ways to form and maintain strong relationships through our training classes in local communities.

Logo2

A GEORGIAN “IP” WAS ON MY SITE TODAY

ON A POST TALKING ABOUT MAIL FRAUD AND CON MEN.

(IP means simply internet address identifier).  They spent almost an hour on the Michael Anthony Nelson post — part of which relates to yesterday’s monster post on the expansion of TANF.

I wrote then:

Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives

by Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale

February 2008

odd — wasn’t that around the time Nancy Schaefer posted her statement?  No, just shortly after, her report was November 2007

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

(Intro paragraphs:)

The role of noncustodial fathers in the lives of low-income families has received increased attention in the past decade. As welfare reform has placed time limits on cash benefits, policymakers and program administrators have become interested in increasing financial support from noncustodial parents as a way to reduce poverty among low-income children. Although child support enforcement efforts have increased dramatically in recent years, there is evidence that many low-income fathers cannot afford to meet their child support obligations without impoverishing themselves or their families. Instead, many fathers accumulate child support debts that may lead them to evade the child support system and see less of their children.

To address these complex issues, {{that rained down from the sky, and that we don’t want to directly attribute responsibility for….}} states and localities have put programs in place that focus on developing services and options to help low-income fathers find more stable and better-paying jobs, pay child support consistently, and become more involved parents. In part because of the availability of new funding sources and a growing interest in family-focused programs,

Could it BE any more evasive??? Interest in family-focused programs is, just, well, like crops, just so happening to coming up through the fertile ground of mega-farms (no one bought seed, plowed, planted seed, watered, or even conceived of the idea of farming. This interest does NOT, we repeat, does NOT have anything to do with any of the founders of the National Fatherhood Initiative, or any other visionaries who foresaw a real crop of grants with a constant stream of clients, and is not, we repeat, NOT, a backlash to feminism. It just kinda sorta, you knew, “GREW.” We here, are just dispassionately reporting on what happened. (Give me a break…. )

this area is experiencing dramatic growth, with hundreds of “fatherhood” programs developing across the country.

Coincidentally, and surely not causally, related to the fine funds that are available here, and the replicatable business model that is being taught, or their close associations with — child support agencies, attorney general’s offices, welfare offices, and so forth. Those fatherhood programs just plain out developed, like a young girl entering puberty. Entirely unpredictable. It just happened.

Under the expanded purposes of Title IVA, authorized in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193, also known as PRWORA), states have been able to use some of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to provide services to nonresident fathers, including employment-related services. PRWORA also authorized grants to states to assist noncustodial parents with access and visitation issues, and it required states, as part of their Child Support Enforcement Program, to have procedures requiring fathers who are not paying child support to participate in work activities, which may include employment and training programs. The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which contains a reauthorization of the TANF program, also authorized funding to states and public and nonprofit entities for responsible fatherhood programs.

_ _ _ _ _ __ From my above post, with red font marking points I was making on the last post.

The Deficit Reduction Act (“DRA” to us) apparently opened the door wide for applying TANF funds to non-TANF families.  HOWEVER, a February 2008 regulation (HHS regulations can restrict or focus the law further) apparently said, well, no, keep it to TANF families — EXCEPT for marriage & fatherhood activities.

Now that was a BIG Exception — and it widened the door, seems to me, for more of the same nonsense.  Have we not had ENOUGH of this yet?

Where is all this money coming from and – more to the point — where is it going?  For what identifiable REAL (not just alleged) public benefit (tie the benefit to the authorizing legislation to the distributed dollars – if you can) should we continue authorizing TANF as is – and ignore not just the amount of the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood fundings — but the consequences of them.

Should we just throw up our hands and say “oh well?”  because there are other worse emergencies and crises all around us?

Who (which specific sets of people) have just about copyrighted how to create a crisis, and take advantage of it?  I am not looking for scapegoats — (don’t like the practice) — I’m looking for where to put up the “STOP” sign, and how — the next time more of it is proposed. As it will be, pointing to past successes which have not yet (to my awareness) actually been reliably documented AS successes.  In relationship to program purpose.

The main program purpose of TANF is assistance to needy families so children can be cared for in their parents homes or homes of relatives.

The main program purpose of “Access Visitation” program (which FYI was a last-minute earmark not run by public scrutiny) is allegedly to increase noncustodial parenting time — actually as the Feds are not allowed to dominate state courts, the phrasing is “facilitate and support PROGRAM THAT” (facilitate and support, yada yada) increased noncustodial parent access and visitation.  And to do this because of the evolving nature of the child support system, and because enough Presidents felt that their interpretation of their oaths of office put “uphold and defend the Constitution” should be placed before program production for personal supporters.

Yeah, anyhow.

The publication above, “Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiative,” produced by the Urban Institute under contract (not grant, contract) from HHS — is policyspeak, quoting often times its own kind, among policymakers.   It’s also formatted as a 3-color, tri-fold mailer bearing the Urban Institute information, and is clearly PR to support this initiative from whoever is on whomever’s mailing lists.

As it says, or said in 2008

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation, under contract number 100-01-0027. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and comments provided by their project officer, Jennifer Burnszynski. Helpful comments were also provided by Linda Mellgren of ASPE and by Margot Bean,

Eileen Brooks, and Myles Schlank of the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families/HHS. The authors also benefited from comments by Burt Barnow and John Trutko and editing by Fiona Blackshaw.

Yesterday, towards the end of a long, laborious (and duplicate-pasted) post, my key discovery in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative — i.e., who jumpstarted this? — found (distressingly, from my point of view) that the HHS Cabinet member at the time, “Jeffrey Reiger” was a Bush man.  Bush 1, Bush 2, and even later (after OK), Governor Jeb Bush in Florida, where he apparently continued tearing up the place, giving contracts to cronies in appropriately (per “voice of freedom”) and making life worse, not better, for children in need of having their abuse STOPPED and poor families.

THEN, apparently by 2006, he ended up back, presiding over a glowing report of (his and others’) work at Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (as though — see above — it weren’t in some major ways, his project initially) — he shows up in the exact same office at HHS/ASPE.

If the American public (whoever that beast is) wishes to stop remaining so gullible and malleable  — we (especially those in — or rapidly exiting — the working middle class, yet not yet fully under control (through extortion — someone has your kids) as many “low-income” families become  — it’s time to judge not only who is speaking and not only what is said, but to learn better how to compare the two.

I’ve read so much, the dialects are becoming intelligible.  People from the same circles speak like each other.  ADD to this a little background on who, what, when, where, and why (or, for how much) — and you’re a lot less gullible and malleable.  ANYHOW — (the way my mind works) — the information I had on OMI (other than it was basically reprehensible) and WHERE it fit in the larger context of marriage, fatherhood, and turning America from a process-based to an out-come based, closed society — was lacking.

I didn’t have all the pieces.  But something in the picture had my attention.  What connected the dots was the key personnel in the HHS Cabinet for Governor Keating, which happened to be this person whose name I didn’t know and hadn’t noticed before, Mr Reiger.

OK, let’s break this grant contract, above, down some:

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute

under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

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

as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation,

under contract number 100-01-0027.

In looking up (for readers’ sakes) “Partners for Fragile Families” — a term which by now any noncustodial mother in a custody BATTLE should know translates to “foundation-sponsored, OCSE-enabled Fatherhood Project” — I found another report, under the same contract, which says it for me:

https://childsupport.state.co.us/siteuser/do/vfs/Read?file=/cm:Publications/cm:Reports/cm:_x0034_11567_pff_outcomes.pdf

(intereting URL, eh– Child Support.State.Co.  )

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects:

Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends

Introduction

In recent years, policymakers and programs have paid increased attention to the role of noncustodial fathers in the lives of low-income families.

You betcha– it’s been a good livelihood for some! and with no end in site, as more noncustodial fathers happen every time there’s a split-up.  Some of these will be either behind in their child support (which could be by their choice, their ability level — or I’m sure it could  and has at times been “arranged” by ridiculously unreasonable child support orders.  They do this for mothers, I’m sure it can be done as easily for fathers, depending on the desired “outcome” in a case) — or disgruntled about not “accessing” more of their children (possibly through previous restraining order of some sort) — or they may not have been actually that interested in their kids. Anyhow, they have as a group DEFINITELy hit the radar of “POLICYMAKERS AND PROGRAMS.”

And this manner of PolicySpeak (the artificial third person, I call it — because it’s a report by a program participant to a policymaker.  It’s like a kind of code they speak to each other, not expecting noncustodial fathers (and certainly not mothers) to be listening in.  However, thanks to the internet, we can and, and now do).

With welfare reform placing time limits on cash benefits, there has been a strong interest in increasing financial support from noncustodial parents as a way to reduce poverty among low-income children.

Well, I don’t agree with that either, but as it’s not the main point here, I’ll bite my tongue (this time).

Although child support enforcement efforts have been increasing dramatically in recent years, {{hard to prove of disproof, and none offered here in the intro…}} there is some evidence that many low-income fathers cannot afford to support their children financially without impoverishing themselves or their families.

Meaning, presumably their new families?

To address these complex issues, a number of initiatives have focused on developing services and options to help low-income fathers become more financially and emotionally involved with their families and to help young, low- income families become stable.

Well, this is 2007, and National Fatherhood Initiative was formed in 1994 (from whence a lot of this) so yeah, the administration has an interest in regulating the emotional involvement of “low-income fathers.”  Just as a reminder, from DRA (year, 2005) forward, it didn’t have to be actually low-income fathers to qualify, and so forth.

Sponsored by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Ford Foundation,1 …

Sponsored by US Govt HHS branch and a wealthy foundation influencing LOTS of sectors of the US, such as higher education, Media (the link is to a segment on who’s behind WOrking Assets, a private telecommunications firm in SF), and of course, most aspects of American life & business.  If you haven’t thought much about the concept of “FOUNDATION” yet, now might just be the time, let alone individual ones.   They are intentional social change agents that work through almost every facet of life you daily may be dealing with.

http://www.fordfoundation.org/#  (in its own words — click on, for example, “issues” to get a scope).

Ford Foundation

Motto:   “Working with Visionaries on the Frontlines of Social Change Worldwide

QUESTION:  Suppose you don’t share this vision or approve of the “social change”??  Does your life matter, then?

(Yep and funding them, steering study to or away from various topics according to the foundation’s overall purpose(s))  THis is just one type of support they deal with:

  • Established in 1936  (AKA BETWEEN WORLD WARS I & II.  BEFORE WOMEN IN THE US GOT THE VOTE).
  • First regional office opened in 1952 in New Delhi
  • Provide grants to organizations in the United States, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia

“To date, the foundation has committed $560 million for program-related investments, and sets aside annually an average $25 million for new investments.”

“More than $16 billion in grants distributed worldwide”  2010 Fiscal assets around $10 billion . . . .

OTHERS feel differently about the Ford Foundation.  I just found:

The Ford Foundation and the CIA:
A documented case of philanthropic collaboration
with the Secret Police
by James Petras
15 December 2001
Rebelión

This is too much to handle now, but just so we know we are not playing with small pitt bulls, but the big dogs, when something says “Ford Foundation,” here’s a chunk of that article.  In the SMALLER context of the complete disintegration of due process in the United States through the proliferation of what I write about (them grantees pushing marriage as the answer to society’s problems, and pocketing the profits in doing so)   .  here we go.  This is for my learning too, not just readers:

Introduction

The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford “The best and most plausible kind of funding cover” (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund “a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions” (p. 135). The latter included “human rights” groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important “private foundations” collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.

This essay will demonstrate that the Ford Foundation-CIA connection was a deliberate, conscious joint effort to strengthen U.S. imperial cultural hegemony and to undermine left-wing political and cultural influence. We will proceed by examining the historical links between the Ford Foundation and the CIA during the Cold War, by examining the Presidents of the Foundation, their joint projects and goals as well as their common efforts in various cultural areas.

Background: Ford Foundation and the CIA

By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington’s post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes: “At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects” (Ibid, p.139). This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a “mutual search” for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954 (Ibid, p. 139). Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the “vanguard of Cold War thinking”.

One of the FF first Cold War projects was the establishment of a publishing house, Inter-cultural Publications, and the publication of a magazine Perspectives in Europe in four languages. The FF purpose according to Bissell was not “so much to defeat the leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat (sic) as to lure them away from their positions” (Ibid, p. 140). The board of directors of the publishing house was completely dominated by cultural Cold Warriors. Given the strong leftist culture in Europe in the post-war period, Perspectives failed to attract readers and went bankrupt.

Another journal Der Monat funded by the Confidential Fund of the U.S. military and run by Melvin Lasky was taken over by the FF, to provide it with the appearance of independence (Ibid, p. 140).

In 1954 the new president of the FF was John McCloy. He epitomized imperial power. Prior to becoming president of the FF he had been Assistant Secretary of War, president of the World Bank, High Commissioner of occupied Germany, chairman of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, Wall Street attorney for the big seven oil companies and director of numerous corporations. As High Commissioner in Germany, McCloy had provided cover for scores of CIA agents (Ibid, p. 141).

McCloy integrated the FF with CIA operations. He created an administrative unit within the FF specifically to deal with the CIA. McCloy headed a three person consultation committee with the CIA to facilitate the use of the FF for a cover and conduit of funds. With these structural linkages the FF was one of those organizations the CIA was able to mobilize for political warfare against the anti-imperialist and pro-communist left

You scared yet?  Or don’t want a life responsible to think about your role as an ant (or not as an “ant”) in some of this?  OK, then….

However, after tracking and reporting (to the dismay of some fellow-bloggers) the Heritage Foundation & Unification Connection in these Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants, I happen to be right in that matter.  Yesterday, I tied one of the founders of the organization that helped support the Heritage Foundation (DeVos) to Blackwater, so I suggest y’all in the court-reform/pleading business, listen up some!  Time willing, I’ll do this again today.

Here’s another one, “Swans Commentary” by Michael Barker.  I’m putting this one out because it mentions Naomi Klein, whose work I’ve seen some of and I think makes sense, i.e., “Shock Doctrine:  the Rise of Disaster Capitalism”  and here are the opening lines of this (2010 Piece) — notice the last paragraph.  Obviously, yes, the writer is thinking progressive/leftist, but do we (who does) know what that means, where it comes from?

(Swans – January 25, 2010)   While most progressive writers have failed to document the power of liberal philanthropy to co-opt the processes of social change, Naomi Klein, in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Random House, 2007), provides a rare counter example.

This historical anomaly — for her and other radical writers — revolves around her description of the support that liberal foundations provided for training the intellectual elites that seized the reins of power in both Chile and Indonesia in the 1960s and 1970s. In Chile, she observes how this elitist co-optive project was the brainchild of Albion Patterson, who was director of the local US International Cooperation Administration (which became the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID) and Theodore Schultz, the chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago.

The University — Government Agency connection, which I found (tracking it backwards & upwards) in these fatherhood grants, obviously….

With tuition and expenses paid for by US taxpayers and US foundations, Klein notes how between 1957 and 1970 some one hundred Chilean students pursued advanced degrees at the University of Chicago in an environment “where the professors [like Milton Friedman] agitated for the near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus.” In 1965 this neoliberal project “was expanded to include students from across Latin America,” courtesy of a grant from the Ford Foundation, which “led to the creation of the Center for Latin American Economic Studies at the University of Chicago.” Yet despite the best efforts of the Chicago school’s “intellectual imperialism,” there “was, however, a problem: it wasn’t working.” (1)

By Chile’s historic 1970 elections, the country had moved so far left that all three major political parties were in favour of nationalizing the country’s largest source of revenue: the copper mines then controlled by U.S. mining giants. The Chile Project, in other words, was an expensive bust. As ideological warriors waging a peaceful battle of ideas with their left-wing foes, the Chicago Boys had failed in their mission. (p.73)

OK, so we have the Ford Foundation helping US corporate (here, mining) interests simply control another country — and undermine that country’s insistence on NOT being controlled by the US (Corporate interests) by sabotaging nationalization.  Notice:   “near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus.”

Now I love America, I was born here, and one and two (respectively) generations of my family were not.  I love the Bill of Rights and the fact that we have a First Amendment which EXPRESSLY forbids the Congress from establishing a national religion (but it will take basic, universal alertness to prevent one from being established administratively & economically, and I know its name, too).  I love the positive IDEAS in the Declaration of Independence, and how our Presidents must swear a public oath to uphold and defend it (not that the last several have. . .  ).   I also, as shoddy as local K-12 US School history tends to be (and I’m a public school grad), I do know (from later reading, and interests) something about the differences between Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke and — say, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Bishop Stallings, Bishop Eddie Long (recently a keynote speaker at an African American Healthy Marriage Institute event, or was it the National Parenting Center kickoff at Hampton U, I DNR), and former Presidents George Bush (plural), and Wade Horn & Friends.

Yes the founders were slave-owners and dominated other human beings wrongfully.  See yesterday’s link to a 1997 or so speech by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr., saying no, we will NOT go back (as some want us to), @

PROMISE KEEPERS — WATCH AS WELL AS PRAY  By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.:

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the PromiseKeepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. . . .

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally. . . .

(7) Finally, we must watch where the Promise Keepers raise the money to pull off their ambitious future plans and activities. What is its source? Promise Keepers is a $117 million operation. Where did this money come from? They said most of it came from the nearly two million people they have attracted to their past stadium rallies where they charged $60 per person to attend. But the future rallies are going to be free? Assuming future free rallies will be bigger than past paid rallies, who will be picking up this $117 million-plus price tag? Now that they have clearly established their preeminence for religiously-based mobilization, and their surveys show the rallies to be attracting overwhelmingly Republican-oriented men, look for the really big Republican supporters and political donors to ante-up.

In light of the personal exposure that many individual and corporate donors have received during the 1997 congressional campaign finance committee hearings, these contributors will have one additional advantage with the Promise Keepers over the political hard money, and some soft money, they usually give to political candidates, campaigns and parties– it will be tax-deductible soft money to a religious organization. This unlimited money — cash, checks or in-kind contributions from private individuals or corporate donors — will be eligible for politically-supported and government-supplied tax write-offs. Finally, since such contributions are in the private sector their names will not even have to be publicly revealed.

Who are the Promise Keepers? A political Trojan Horse? Genuine religious and spiritual leaders who are wise as serpents, but harmless as doves? Or wolves in sheeps clothing? Watch, as well as pray!

Here is a theologically-based warning at this spectacle and if you hover the URL, it shows he protests unity with Catholics, abortion-rights activitist and gay/lesbian elements primarily.  And also says, how can the unredeemed stand in the gap for anyone (and quotes some scripture that talks — and I happen to agree — about unity of the spirit, and not “of design by man” which is the wrong kind, wrongly applied in too many cases.  We go (USA) for LIBERTY– United States, but what we “unite” under is either those ideas of liberty, allowing for individuality — and separation of powers of government — or we are not “united” at all under anything else worthwhile (my opinion).  The entire premise of the constitution and declaration was to PREVENT exactly what is happening now — taxation with out representation, and attempts to establish a monarchy (in idea) and with it, theocracy.  i do not use those words narrowly either; I am no Tea Partier. (I’m female….)  This (doctrinally oriented person) wrote of a few questions he asked attendees, or that they were asked:

6. How important is it to you that there is little doctrinal agreement among the members of Promise Keepers?

Almost every person interviewed quickly answered that it was of no consequence to them that there was no agreement on Bible doctrine among members of the Promise Keepers. Most took great pride in the ability to ignore Bible doctrine for the cause of forging an ecumenically styled unity.** The one surprisingly pleasant answer to this question came from the only woman interviewed. {{it was a rally of MEN specifically}} She was a 27-year-old volunteer handing out some of the one million free Stand in the Gap Contemporary English Version New Testaments. She answered that she was very concerned that there was not much emphasis on doctrine.

7. What do you believe the Bible says about the importance of doctrine?

Many answered with the question, “What do you mean by doctrine?” Others said the Bible teaches that there are only essentials to which all Christians must subscribe and that there is great freedom beyond that. The female PK volunteer was the only one who answered that the Bible treats the subject of doctrine seriously

**also true in the multiple boastings about coalitions and collaborations that I blog on, specifically in TANF and COURT-related areas.

For Bible doctrine – in our case, read Constitution, Law, Bill of Rights etc. That’s OUR doctrine, or should be (Some believe otherwise, and the issue has to be decided….)  To clarify (in case you think I agree with the above writer), it goes on:  “Will God not judge those who follow a man who denied the deity of Christ, who spent his last night on earth in the same adulterous pattern he had lived through the last years of his life, and who preached not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather the gospel of social reform?”

I don’t believe in the deity of Christ (but I do in his resurrection– which is my privilege.  I also know that in the late 1600s in the Colonies, not to believe in the deity Christ and say this openly, was dangerous — although not so dangerous as having the wrong color skin).  No, Jesus Christ (as I read the record) upended the social order — with his LIFE — in part by failing to conform to it.  And I know by personal experience that any country whose residents are ONLY concerned with and wrapped up in their spiritual status do not make good neighbors, and to not stop their brethren (usually) from some heinous crimes against their wives, children, or others.  Why?  Their heads are somewhere else….  that’s why.

(OK, I just dumped off another diving board into various reactions to this 1997 Promise Keeper’s event.  Well, the water’s warm).  My disclaimer:  I don’t know all where this site is coming from.  I’m just pointing out that there shouldn’t be silence on groups like Promise Keepers, so let’s learn from some earlier alerts!

Confronting Christian Crusaders

What does Promise Keepers’ popularity mean for Jews?

By Mik Moore & Udi Ofer


The Promise Keepers, a new evangelical Christian men’s movement, follows an agenda that many Jews feel is antithetical to Jewish values and corrosive to constitutional safeguards of religious liberty. Yet the Jewish community has been relatively unresponsive to the exponential growth and mainstream embrace of this volatile young organization. During the Promise Keepers’ “Stand In The Gap” rally in Washington, DC, on October 4, 1997, Jewish organizations‹including politically active groups like the Reform Movement’s Religious Action Center‹were noticeably absent from the assorted liberal groups who showed up to protest. Other Jewish watchdog organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, have kept their usually humming faxes at bay. And while the Jewish press did cover the rally in Washington, they have largely ignored the Promise Keepers and their founder, Bill McCartney. After demonstrating a fearless approach to activism in recent decades, has the American Jewish community reverted back to 1950s era timidity? Or is an organization that many believe is mounting a ferocious attack on the wall separating church and state really just an innocuous religious movement?

(it seems that the URL it’s posted under probably doesn’t share the same views.  No matter, here’s more):

Just as Patricia Ireland {{NOW}} has been the most forceful voice speaking out against Promise Keepers, the strongest response from Jews has come from the Jewish feminist community. Susan Weidman Schneider, editor of the Jewish feminist magazine Lilith, is taking Promise Keepers seriously. “Promise Keepers represents a danger to Jews in their frequent assertion that this is a Christian nation.” Schneider also believes that the Jewish community should be aware the Promise Keepers’ “dangerous stand towards women.” Traditionally attacks on feminism become attacks of “Jewish feminists”, or on the “un-Christian” nature of feminism. Lilith is planning to run a substantial article on the Promise Keepers in an upcoming issue.

Michael S. Kimmel, a scholar of men’s studies at State University of New York at Stony Brook, agrees with Schneider’s assessment. In a recent article in Tikkun magazine, Kimmel criticized the Promise Keepers attitude toward women. Kimmel writes that, “the resurrection of responsible manhood is really the Second Coming of Patriarchy.” According to the Promise Keepers, men have abdicated their responsibility as the head of the household. At home, husbands are “not giving their wives the support they need,” and are absent from the lives of their children and friends. The Promise Keepers ‘remind’ men of the ‘power’ they are born with, and make it clear that the husband should be the head of the household.

I am going to translate that last bolded phrase (from my point of view) for the liberal, progressive, atheist, or agnostic among us.  Or, for whomever.   I know this mindset, I am a Christian who was raised “unbelieving,” by parents who have voiced their disbelief in God, Jesus, resurrection, and distrust of people who do believe in that . . . . . and I had PK BS in my marriage, not that I’d married someone with pre-existing connections to the movement, or any other like it. . ….

What this means it that the TAKE CHARGE theology — and those attracted to it for whatever reasons*  to it — is that, to have an EQUALITY-BASED (REALLY equality -based, as they actually have processed and intend to act on their own Bible verse, Galatians 3:28 (where the apostle Paul — latest convert of all the apostles — takes the legalists to task, and earlier in the chapter confronted apostle Peter’s shape-shifting according to who he was with at the time) — is to be (in their company) emasculated, and have betrayed this God.”

(*morally or intellectually, emotionally, weak — or from personal grudges or previous experiences, receptive)

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slaveg nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

And just for a chaser, the chapter begins “O foolish Galatians, WHO hath bewitched you” i.e., from their birthright, which is to stand up before God and not have to earn access to Him through fear of man (ok I won’t elaborate).  The TIKKUN person points out — correctly — that the Promise Keepers type of guys . . .

WHICH IS who THE FATHERHOOD PROMOTERS TYPE OF GUYS COUNT ON APPEALING TO, IN GOOD PART (whether or not the leadership, as leadership goes, actually believe what it preaches. We are talking mass rallies, for PK, and major social change agents including some fairly large and frequent “rallies” also, in the latter).  The theme TAKE BACK YOUR MANHOOD is a great means to also justify “take over this emasculating US government, with its institutions, and have our way with it.”  And that is how due process, transparency, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and the undermining of BALANCE in government is happened.  It virtually got raped by a domination theology.

People that do not think through even their own scriptures will not think through their own Bill of Rights, and are not even interested in doing so.  I do believe this is the mainstream “Christianity” now prevalent, and historically (like over a millennium ago) it became standard through force – -not reasoned debate.  I would love to know the entire story sometime of the years 300 – 400 but from what I can tell, the essence of any gospel Jesus was involved in (assuming the assembled canon of the NT gospels, coming out of the OT, bears a nominal relationship to him) — if it survived, survived in pockets and in the diversity of beliefs that happened until they became State Doctrine which is to say, Emperor Doctrine.  (If you have the time, A.D. 381, “Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State.” )

TRANSLATION: – the same sentiments that shut down discussion and freedom of worship (varieties of Christianity, paganism, Judaism? too), THEN (A.D. 381) when within the same century there had been an Edict of Toleration — will continue to shut down debate, discussion and start declaring dissidents “insane heretics” in our time.  And have been.  The short review I linked to says it well.

Reviewed by Israel Drazin – March 16, 2010

Charles Freeman presents an excellent, readable, and surprising history of Christianity, filled with many unknown facts, that focus around the events of the year 381 when the Roman Emperor Theodosius issued a decree mandating that all Christians believe in the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an idea not contained in the New Testament and rejected by most Christians at that time. Theodosius called those who refused to accept his view “demented and insane heretics.” . . .Freeman shows how many early Christians enjoyed a diverse spiritual life.. . .It is one of the tragedies of western thought that this approach was, in effect, suppressed as a result of Theodosius’ decrees against ‘heretics’ and pagans in” 381. As a result, countless thinking men and women lived under the continual threat of excommunication and the promise of eternal punishment in fiery hell, a concept and threat that had not existed previously. It was not until the seventeenth century that religious toleration was reinstated, and then only partially.

It closed down and lowered (and, presumably drove underground) the level of debate, for a long time…

Freeman shows how emperors and clergy with non-religious motivations brought about many Christian innovations (??). Besides the court decrees of Constantine and Theodosius and other government officials for civic reasons, to assure peace, priests pushed ideas to help their advancements and the money and freedom from taxes that accompanied it. **”The high level of religious violence (to secure higher level priestly posts) has been largely ignored by historians…almost every vacant bishopric gave rise to murder and intimidation as rival candidates fought for the position.”

I haven’t completed this book yet, but one thing seems evident — that Theodosius needed to consolidate his rule and that dealing with fighting factions wasn’t helping.  This was the stage at which there still remained some who proclaimed that Jesus was not a deity, and the argument (which seems silly to my mind, which grew up about 1700 years later) was in the finer points (let alone ramifications) of just how separate was Jesus from the Father, and did all start at the same time, or one come first.  Different names were given for the different beliefs (and none of which could probably be definitively decided anyhow), but one point I picked up on.  Those who did NOT believe Jesus was co-equal with God, and in fact divine (and incapable of feeling suffering, being humiliated, etc.) — would be naturally favorable to an interpretation of this man’s life as a social and authority-defying revolutionary who was humiliated and died on the cross.

I didn’t say that too well.  In short, it’s more politically expedient to focus the public mind on the unity of earthly authority with divine dominance in one human representative.  The more logical (at least from scriptures) concept does not include the thought, “the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,”  (the word “Trinity” isn’t in there) an idea not contained in the New Testament and rejected by most Christians at that time.”  Rather than connecting on a human level with a man like (us) — but whose sacrifice made possible access to God (and no more sacrifices!), it instead became expedient politically to instead make the object of worship more distant and demand allegiance  submission NOW (right now) to an earthly representative.

“Freeman’s book has many other insights and whether one agrees with his history or not, it is worth reading since it offers many facts and is thought provoking.”

** Sound familiar yet?  Think about churches, today, as the nonprofit corporations with religious exemptions (from publishing their 990s for the rest of us to read)!

We have to process United States history, OUR REALITY, figure out a place to stand, at least for now, anchor it somehow, and not have our dialogues turn into a moderated-from-on-high dogma with political motivations. But I wish to say — that those who will submit to authority as their chief indicator (and I have to say that — with all due respect for lives, creations, handiwork in other fields) in religious spheres — are not — not really — fit to stand up for their neighbors and fight to preserve this republic, and the ideas that go with it.  A MIND IS  A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE!  

There may be many flaws and imperfections on other ways of doing things than to let the Ford Foundation, and those in HHS, DOJ, DOE, and DOD decide how processed our information is, and which thoughts and behaviors are — or are not — acceptable (LIKE, divorce, birth control and refusal to sit through inane psychoeducational classes run by dogmatic training-oriented cultists (I refer to therapists of many kinds and particularly a certain sort) for profit.  I personally have looked at some of these — and one set is run by an outfit who literally defended the “high priestess of Satanism” in a palimony suit against the originator of the group (Anton LaVey) — or a SIMILAR SET OF PROGRAMS could be run by some mainstream Christians who really, really believe that people who divorce may be going to hell; or another set who don’t confess to any deity but are very adept at behavioral science and transformative changes through group psychology. I’ve seen just about all of them when looking up AFCC personnel (or outfits) and the TAGGS grantees.  I mean, come on, look at this one!

(that’s only 3 out of 52 grant awards with the word “DADS” in them, and a smaller one.  But even so– is this information so necessary?)

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2011 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 0
2010 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 25,000
2009 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 25,000
Results 1 to 3 of 3 matches.

Do we really need this type of Child Support Research and Demonstration Project (CFDA 93601) award?

Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 1 08/09/2005 93601 NEW HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 2 08/17/2006 93601 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 3 08/06/2007 93601 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000


Halbert Sullivan is the CEO of this group, and (it says on the site) an MSW.

Agency Profile

The Fathers Support Center St. Louis (FSC) was incorporated as a federal 501(c)3 organization on December 10, 1997.

Which is as much to say as, it knew about TANF 1996 welfare reform, access visitation grants, and that a new day was dawning . . . . .

When FSC opened its doors in May 1998, we were the first organization of our kind in the State of Missouri and remains the primary organization within St. Louis to provide a comprehensive array of services for men.  FSC is recognized nationally as an authority on father involvement and has received a number of awards including the:

{{“The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, Inc., (NPNFF), is the national individual membership organization whose mission is to build the profession of practitionersworking to increase the responsible involvement of fathers in the lives of their children}}  “Through publications, conferences, training events, technical assistance, advocacy, collaboration with other fathers and families organizations, and networking opportunities, NPNFF seeks to strengthen practitioners in their day-to-day work with fathers and fragile families.”

the “Fragile Families” wording comes from the OCSE & Ford Foundation Grant-funded project….. THe “Fathers Support Center St. Louis” got their TAGGS help, too.  I remember posting this set of misspellings — for the 2011, triple-sized grant.  (previous ones were small).  They must have been real good boys to get that reward.  Notice the apostrophe in “CENTERS'” is also misplaced — it’s a singular center and should read “CENTER’s” besides which the grantee is Fathers’ Support Center already — so why put the name in the award, and then somehow manage to misspell “Fahtergood”??

howing: 1 – 5 of 5 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90FK0052  FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD 1 00 ACF 09-26-2011 023296192 $ 1,530,190 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 1,530,190


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 3 0 ACF 08-06-2007 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 2 0 ACF 08-17-2006 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 1 0 ACF 08-09-2005 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2005 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2004 90XP0057  UNSOLICITED – SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME MAINTENANCE RESEARCH 1 0 ACF 04-26-2004 23296192 $ 99,410 
Fiscal Year 2004 Total: $ 99,410


Total of all award actions: $ 1,929,600

  

This group is EIN# 431804267.  In 2003, their one executive director — and only director listed —  (Halbert Sullivan) was paid a very reasonable $50K and it is  membership organization teaching:  “Fatherhood, Parenting, Mentoring, socialization, employment skills” (Cost $268K).

On the 2009 tax form (990), it states (page 1) the program purpose is “TO PROVIDE NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS [with] A PROGRAM THAT PREPARES THEM TO TAKE FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARENTING THEIR CHILDREN.”    Contributions & revenue include $1.18 million gifts and contributions — and $200K program service revenue.  There are 23 voting members in the governing body, 29 employees, and 54 volunteers.  The tax form (for some reason) has no “slot” to show which portion of income was government grants or contracts).

Under Part II (Program Service Accomplishments) line 4a, it reads:

FATHERHOOD TRAINING, TEACH PARENTING, OFFER MENTORING, ESTABLISH FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIALIZATION (=?), JOB DEVELOPMENT AND LEGAL SERVICES TO NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS. 

(LIKE HOW TO BECOME CUSTODIAL, OR GET CHILD SUPPORT ABATED???)     Program service EXPENSES:   $992,674; this particular program’s REVENUE:  $1,250,178.  In other words, a slight profit of about $258K (give me a break on the math, OK?).    Most of which was written off — Professional Fees, Training Consultants, Grants to individuals etc. $54K (???), Miscellaneous.

Anyone who from St. Louis area who wants to check out the Board of Directors (and if any is employed by the courts or was on your case), tax form is here.  I wonder how many noncustodial MOTHERS there are in the area these days, and where they go for any access & visitation help, if they are not having fathers cooperation with court orders, or if they wish THEIR child support arrears reduced and to tweak custody back towards some contact with Mom..  (FYI, these programs were not designed with that “outcome” in mind.  Remember, it’s fatherlessness, not motherlessness, that is the national social curse and plague that must be corrected).

More, from the Fathers Support Center site admits it gets support at the “LOCAL STATE & FEDERAL” levels.

Since its inception, FSC has served more than 8,800 fathers and their families (including 22,000 children), transitioning the nonparticipating father to a position of involvement and equity in the life of his child (over 2,300 of those served have child support orders and 65% were either ex-offenders or had long histories of incarceration – the cost per client to complete FSC program is $4,500 per year compared to $16,000 per year for incarceration).

Define “equity” and also please define “his” child — who else’s child is it?

 FSC provides a comprehensive, holistic fatherhood development project.  Adult clients participate in four programs: The Employment Development and Placement Program, Family Formation Program, the Legal Clinic and Fathers’ Rap Program.

Activities include: parenting education, child abuse prevention training, conflict resolution skills training, job placement, job retention skills training, support groups, counseling, father/child bonding activities, visitation advocacy, placement with mentors and male healthcare education and legal services.

ANYHOW — speaking of (far above) the Urban Institute & HHS/ASPE report done by a certain project from HHS which I’m going to look up (since they gave me the contract number so nicely), it goes on to explain the FRAGILE FAMILIES thing:

the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) demonstration program intended to effect systems change, deliver appropriate and effective services, and improve outcomes for both parents and children in low-income families. By making lasting changes in the way public agencies and community organizations work with unmarried families, the initiative aimed to increase the capacity of young, economically disadvantaged fathers and mothers to become financial, emotional, and nurturing resources to their children and to reduce poverty and welfare dependence. The PFF demonstration, which built upon lessons from programs and demonstrations that operated over the past two decades, was implemented over a three-year period beginning in 2000 at 13 project sites in nine states.

Someone must have had a lot of clout to start so many projects — at this time (by which time all child support agencies were suppose to have centralized their distribution units at the state level, remember?) — and nationwide.
Looking up “Halbert Sullivan” there are two press release type articles (year, July 26, 2000, both came out on the same day) in “Riverfront times.”  This one is revealing:

Support Structure

Financial woes can separate fathers from their children. One innovative program helps get the situation under control.

A A AComments ()By Wm. Stage Wednesday, Jul 26 2000

Over in a corner of the Fathers’ Support Center (FSC) classroom, at a desk behind a partition,Eleanie Campbell sits with a sheaf of forms and a legal pad, talking in low tones with Leo Taylor-Bey. Campbell is a case manager with the Missouri Department of Social Services‘ Division of Child Support Enforcement (CSE).

Part of being in the FSC program is attempting to get caught up on child-support payments, a goal that CSE hopes to facilitate with its Parents Fair Share, a program that workswith noncustodial parents having trouble making their payments. “We encourage our guys to sign up,” says the center’s Halbert Sullivan, “to sit down and negotiate a compromise between what you’re supposed to pay and what you can reasonably afford to pay.”

> > > >The MOTHERS ARE NOT INVITED INTO THIS PROCESS< PARTICULARLY IF THEY WERE ON WELFARE…. < < < <

And that is exactly what Campbell and Taylor-Bey are doing. “Our program with their program works very well,” says Campbell. “Fathers’ Support Center gives them self-esteem and parenting skills and places them in the job market, while Parents’ Fair Share gives help in shoring up the financial obligations.” * * *(SEE BELOW, MDRC site describes the scope of this project)

> > > ADMINISTRATIVELY ABATES THE ARREARS, AGAIN — ARE THEIR COURT HEARINGS TO INFORM THE CUSTODIAL PARENTS ABOUT THIS “DEAL” THEY CUT?

Donnell Whitfield, director of Prince Hall Family Services, was instrumental in getting the Family Support Act enacted, from which Parents Fair Share grew.

And the other article (which is anecdotal and long) mentions yes, these are felons trying to turn it around:

The Hard Knock That Won’t Stop

Determined to make a better life for themselves and their children, students at the Fathers’ Support Center make a go of parenthood in the ‘hood

A A AComments ()By Wm. Stage Wednesday, Jul 26 2000

Craig Ransom raps on a pretend door. Come in, says Charles Barnes Jr., a large man partial to print shirts. Ransom shuffles in. He leads with a handshake. Brief, but firm. Very good. Don’t make that mistake of the unprofessional soul-brother handshake, Barnes will later caution. Barnes sits, but Ransom still stands. He hasn’t been asked to take a seat. He addresses this point of etiquette: “May I sit, or do you prefer I stand?”

"I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter," Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. "Problem was, I didn't really know how to be a father."Prince Hall Family Support Center (Separately on web:  “Prince Hall Family Support Center”) mentioned in the story…  appears to be a “one-stop-shop” model….
Jennifer Silverbergphoto by Jennifer Silverbergpho
“I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter,” Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. “Problem was, I didn’t really know how to bea father.”

"I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter," Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. "Problem was, I didn't really know how to be a father."

Jennifer Silverberg
“I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter,” Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. “Problem was, I didn’t really know how to be a father.”

Propriety doesn’t necessarily come easy for Ransom, who has spent the last 10 of his 29 years with felons who were far more familiar with Miss January than Miss Manners. But here he is, aspiring applicant for a pretend position in the shipping department, trying to impress a pretend human-resources specialist with politeness and humility.

@@ (One of the men profiled had done 10 of 19 years for murder, but his little girl was being cared for and brought to visit by his side of the family.  It was noted, is girlfriend (the mother) didn’t come visit him.  Possibly this relates to his being a murderer, but the topic wasn’t handled in the article.  Ronald, below, is his brother …..

Additional income would help Ronald achieve a goal that at present is out of reach. Unlike the others in the program who seem content with or resigned to the role of noncustodial parent, Ronald hopes to gain full custody of his children — Tamara, 6, and Ron Jr., 8 — with whom, along with their mother, he lived for three years. For that, he’ll have to get an attorney and go to court. “I’m getting around to that,” he says, “but it’s kind of expensive.” Meanwhile, the arrangement he has with his common-law ex is out-of-court and unofficial: He gets visitation “most weekends” and contributes financially when he is able. He picks the kids up at her house in a sort of hit-and-miss fashion because, says Ronald, “her phone is off right now.”

The men are paid $75 a week to attend, and approximately 6 to 8 fathers graduate per session, it said. The other person involved is / was a police officer and operates ? Prince Hall Family Support Center.  This program also deals with “PARENTS FAIR SHARE” which is a program name I’m familiar with.

(MDRC site):

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE

An early and particularly ambitious attempt to help such men become better fathers was Parents’ Fair Share (PFS), a national demonstration project authorized by the Family Support Act of 1988. A key goal of that law was to enforce more vigorously the child support obligations of noncustodial parents, most of them fathers. Recognizing that tougher enforcement would not work for fathers who could not pay, the law allowed some states to assign such men to programs designed to help them find jobs and play a more active role in their children’s lives.

{{Translation: bargaining — with the men, not the Moms — more time with kids for lowered child support obligations.  }}

The PFS demonstration tested the effectiveness of this pathbreaking approach.

Agenda, Scope, and Goals

Targeted at underemployed or unemployed noncustodial fathers who owed child support and had children receiving welfare, PFS aimed to increase child support payments, employment and earnings, and parental involvement.

The program depended on local partnerships among child support agencies, employment and training providers, and community-based service organizations to implement its diverse set of services and features, which included:

  • Peer support groups
  • Employment and training services
  • Mediation to improve relations with custodial parents
  • Enhanced child support enforcement
  • Reduced child support obligations during the period of program participation

The program’s effects were assessed using unemployment insurance records, child support agency records, and surveys of a subset of fathers in the study and the custodial mothers of their children.

# of hotshot foundations behind this one, and the resulting publication:

Featured Publication

The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children 
Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share

FundersU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Pew Charitable TrustsW. K. Kellogg FoundationCharles Stewart Mott FoundationU.S. Department of Agriculture

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

U.S. Department of Labor

Ford Foundation

The McKnight Foundation

Northwest Area Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

How does enhancing child support enforcement go with reducing it during program participation?  Anyhow the results were less than stunning:

Some of the findings (published on this link):

Funded by the organizations listed at the front of this monograph, PFS provided employment and training services, peer support groups, voluntary mediation between parents, and modified child support enforcement.

Besides designing the PFS demonstration, MDRC evaluated it

MDRC does LOTS of business with HHS ….

 PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities.

PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children.

Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

 In other words, the profile-based assumption that those low-income fathers weren’t paying because they couldn’t, was wrong. How they planned to improve it next time around:

How to increase parental involvement: Increase fathers’ access to their children by involving custodial mothers in the programs and providing the fathers with legal services to gain visitation rights. Be aware of the potential for increased parental conflict.

How to increase child support payments: Mandate fathers’ participation in employmentrelated activities to increase payments among low-income caseloads. Encourage active partnership of fatherhood programs with the child support system.

Let alone as measured by results, there are several red flags that this 2004 Missouri State Auditor’s report of the PFS program.

REPORT# 2004-90 prepared by Claire McCaskill

Improvements are needed in the management and oversight of the Parents’ Fair Share Program

The program’s goal is to help non-custodial parents (NCPs) obtain jobs and become involved in their children’s lives, including paying child support. In order to meet eligibility requirements, the NCP must have a current child support obligation and be unemployed or under-employed. A NCP’s current child support monthly payment is temporarily lowered to an amount the NCP can pay while participating in the program. Participants may receive financial assistance from the program for three activities: training, transportation-related expenses, and work-related expenses. Training costs will be paid for up to a year.

Impediments exist in referring eligible NCPs to the program

In April 2003, the Department of Social Services (DSS) had caseworkers stop referring NCPs to the program during the transfer of program management from DSS to the Department of Economic Development – Division of Workforce Development (division). DSS restarted the referral process in July 2003; however, program referrals have not rebounded to the levels prior to the transfer for several reasons. DSS staff said high caseloads prevented caseworkers from having time to identify and refer NCPs to the program. Additionally, the DSS program coordinator said caseworkers may not refer NCPs to the program because many of the NCPs referred chose not to participate once they understood the program’s requirements and that the child support order is not eliminated. Also, child support caseworkers are no longer required to refer NCPs to the program before referring them to the Attorney General’s office or prosecuting attorneys for prosecution. (See page 4)

This audit is from Missouri — where this Fathers’ Support Center is.   NOTE:  child support caseworkers HAD to refer NCPs to the program before referring them to the attorney general’s office or prosecuting attorneys — prosecuting for child support nonpayment or arrears!  This is why some of us (moms) call the programs a form of “extortion.”  Dads could either go to the program and play by its rules — OR they could go face the D.A. (at this time anyhow) and possibly go to jail for nonsupport.  (or perhaps these NCP’s had other prosecution matters involved too?) (how did DSS get involved with the young men to start with?)

It gets more interesting:

Key provisions of agreement not met

The [Workforce Development] division has not complied with key provisions of the division’s cooperative agreement with DSS for management of the program. The division did not prepare any of the required reports because the computer software used to manage the program does not maintain the information necessary or the reports were not available in it. DSS staff has been compiling this information from manual records.   (it goes on to say they hope this was corrected by 2005).

In addition, program officials lacked data on job related training by participants because of software limitations. Division program officials said software revisions expected to be operational by spring 2005 will address these problems.

The payments to participants depend on participating in training, right?  WHICH program officials?  Sounds like a case of “blame the software” to me.  why transfer to a department which didn’t have the wherewithal to maintain enough information to report on it?

(VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF USER DATA)

Access to program information in the division’s computer tracking program was not limited to individuals associated with the program as required by the cooperative agreement. As a result, about 1,800 system users had access to confidential data on program participants. Only 24 of these users should have had access to PFS program information, according to division staff. Division officials were unaware of this problem and corrected it once we reported it to them.   {{how long between the time the auditor reported to division officials and the compromise of confidential data?}}

In the detailed section (page 5) of this same topic, it reads:

Data access not restricted

Access to program information in the division’s computer tracking program was not limited to individuals associated with the program. As a result, about 1,800 system users had access to confidential data on program participants. Only 24 of these users should have had access to PFS program information, according to division staff. The computer software storing the program information is also used by other training program staff.8 The cooperative agreement requires information maintained for the program be kept confidential and only accessible by individuals with a legitimate professional “need to know.” Our review determined all users with system access had rights to view and change PFS participant information, including authorizing payments.

Want to see who is in footnote 8?  

Other programs using the same computer software as the Parents’ Fair Share program include the Career Assistance Program, the Missouri Employment and Training Program, the Veteran’s training program, the Workforce Investment Board, the Full Employment Council and various vocational technical training programs throughout the state.

! ! !

The information in the fathers’ files probably also tied to the mothers’ information, including potentially where they lived (supposed a R.O. was on?) and what her income level was, and subjected her / them to potential harassment or even danger, or having — without their knowledge — a mis-use of social security numbers or other potential fraud.  I hate to bring this up, but we have found cases like this, repeatedly, surrounding the child support system.

! ! !

There’s more.  The whole report (not that long) is HERE and I’m not page-citing every quote:

Participants may receive financial assistance from the program for three activities: training, transportation-related expenses, and work-related expenses. Since July 2003, there is no limit to the amount that may be paid for training.3  [Under DSS there was a yearly $2,000 limit for training.]

. . .

Missing validation checks include:

• Identification of payments being authorized for overlapping time periods. This check ensures a participant is not paid for the same day more than once.

A limit to the number of days paid for transportation-related expenses to no more than the number of days in the pay period. This check ensures the pay period may not be from May 1, 2004 to May 5, 2004 when the payment is for 10 days.

Identification of payments being authorized for individuals no longer active in the program.

The payment mailing address does not have to be the address on record for the program participant. Approval or review should be required for any change of the mailing address for payments. Currently, a program workforce specialist can change the mailing address without notifying anyone of the change.

And . . . (on page 8)

Expenditure review process is needed

Division program supervisors performed limited or no review of transportation-related expenses and work-related expenses during fiscal year 2004 because division procedures did not require it. Transportation-related expenses and work-related expenses nearly tripled from $59,000 in fiscal year 2003 to $169,000 in fiscal year 2004.11     Most of the transportation-related expenditures occurred in the last seven months of fiscal year 2004.

No limit to training expenses, which includes transportation.  OK, this was taken advantage of:

OK, roughly speaking — $60K/12 months = $5K per month (for the program).   Versus $170K /7 months = +/- $24K/month in 2004.  It more than tripled, then it almost quintupled.  So much for not monitoring!

Our analysis of transportation-related expenses disclosed one program workforce specialist approved 25 percent of all transportation-related expenditures during fiscal year 2004. Our review of nine case files selected for this employee disclosed he approved transportation-related expenses12 that a program participant reported occurred on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

It’d be nice to get a name…..

This program workforce specialist said when he received work search logs, which documented transportation-related expenses, he did not review them closely and did not check the accuracy by contacting some of the businesses reported. He said he only glanced at the number of days on the log and entered the transportation-related expenses payment information into the computer system. He also said he authorized payments for the majority of his cases for the maximum transportation-related expenses possible and tried to pay as much as possible.

. . .

Division personnel have not attempted to track participant success rates.  

…Then what was the purpose of the program, if not participant success?  to pay participants as much as possible, whether or not expenses were valid?

 

CONTRAST THIS AUDIT WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE MDRC-moderated review.  Consider how many foundations went into pushing the PFS.  What does “Parents’ Fair Share” MEAN, anyhow?  

Now ask why the public should be doing this.  The purpose of the project was to get some participant success.  Money from it (and the report from MO shows how much) came from TANF.   That money might have been better spent on food for the fathers’ kids than inflated transportation expenses.  What a screwup!

Here is “Prison Talk – Parents’ Fair Share”  Listen to these women talking about how it works with their ex’s or boyfriends on the inside and knowing about PFS and trying (having power of attorney for this) to get the state to stop running up someone’s arrears while he’s incarcerated — or, knocking it down to $1 a month.   Totally different perspective… It’s in Missouri DOC, also:

Not sure what I can do besides call parents fair share and talk with them, but has anyone helped their loved one with this? I know my ex as soon as he got locked up got his child support payments dropped to $1 and he never paid me anything to begin with.My husband on the other hand has been paying child support and has incurred $2500. in back child support since he has been locked up. They havent set him up on the $1 per month like he has requested. Now they just took all the money he had on his books and will continue to do so until it is all paid. Anyone ever heard of them making the $1 per month retroactive? and returning the money. Yeah I thought that would make most of you laugh. I am so frustrated. Everythig was going so smoothly I guess satan had to find his way in and mess something up. So husband is cranky and I have to hear it (which is better than someone annoying him and him taking it out on them!!) Anyways just thought I would see if any of you wonderful ladies had some insight on this before I go calling them tomorrow!Thanks!
http://www.dss.mo.gov/cse/pfs/index.htm866-313-9960 #2 will transfer you to DFS customer service. They will require a power of attorney in order to speak with you. You will have to fax it to them then call them back in 5 business days. They are open 7am to 6pm. You do have to explain to them that his INCOME DECREASED TO $8.50 a month or whatever they have him set up with. They will tell you that prison/jail is not sufficent to reduce payments, but they will tell you that through a letter and it takes forever to go back and forth so it is best to talk about the income decrease. (They will know why without you even telling them). This is as far as I have gotten so far. And will update when something else comes to light!

Here are some more official descriptions of the PFS program over the years (not just MO and not just 2004)

http://www.researchforum.org/project_findings_35.html  I notice that Abt Associates was the subcontractor.

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE like many other “FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS” — their funding is obviously not dependent upon their effectiveness, as the Missouri Audit of Parents Fair Share shows.

ANYHOW, near the top, I mentioned a Georgia Superior Court Judge on the CJJDP, right?  (Judge Adele Grubbs of Cobb County)

As to (last post) Jeffrey Regier, Wikipedia shows that prior to his time in Oklahoma (spearheading the OMI) adn Florida (Causing Voice of Freedom to protest and speculate why Gov. Jeb Bush didn’t fire the rascal — and in which it develops that the Oklahoma Governor Keating just happened to have sat on the board of a group getting a work contract which Regier had some influence on, and then back to HQ, on the board of the HHS ASPE (where a glowing report on the OMI was written, with Regier as the main HHS official on the document) — he too had a connection with this DJJDP:

He is named by Bill Coffin (then “Special Assistant for Marriage Education,” now apparently getting more help to sell HIS curriculum package, as well as referring business to former grantees, like Dennis Stoica, etc.) — as instrumental in the “Healthy Marriage Initiative”

MARRIAGE.GOV -a PROMISING PUBLIC POLICY

Bill Coffin Special Assistant for Marriage Education, US HHS/ACF (undated; we can guess at least post-2006….)

This paper will summarize the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI). The HMI was begun in 2002 to help couples who have chosen marriage for themselves gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative/public policy has been run by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

This 2001 declaration by then-HHS man, Wade Horn, is dishonest:

Often when discussing the HMI, Wade Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Chil- dren and Families, would add that this initiative is not about coercing anyone to marry or remain in unhealthy relationships; withdrawing supports from single parents, or diminishing, either directly or indirectly, the important work of single parents; stigmatizing those who choose divorce; limiting access to divorce; promoting the initiative as a panacea for achieving positive outcomes for child and family well-being; running a federal dating service; or an immediate solution to lifting all families out of poverty.

It is doing most of the above, especially the first two!

Just in case we are unclear, yes, it is taking from TANF– The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act specifically and intentionally exempted marriage & fatherhood promotion from TANF requirements (i.e. the services are actually for needy families)

What are the “allowable activities” in the 2005 legislation that reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program?

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), amends Title IV, Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) and authorizes competitive funding for demon- stration projects that promote healthy marriages through any of the following programs or allowable activities  (and, see at this link, chart showing which parts of HHS jumped on this exception):

Mr. Coffin cites CHMC (which got its corporate status suspended) as a stellar example of marriage education:  ”

In 2006 The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received $11.9 million, the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.

2nd up for congratulations is the OMI:

The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative began approximately eight years ago and serves as a national program model of programmatic design and delivery. The OMI currently offers training in two curricula: the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), which targets couples in a workshop setting; and Within My Reach (WMR), which targets singles. The OMI designed and completed the first comprehensive statewide survey on marriage, and has been featured in The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, the Houston Chronicle, and The New York Times

and thanks are due to — here’s a nice Who’s Who of the list of (cronies). By now, we should recognize many of these names.

In addition to benefiting from a supportive President, this initiative was possible in 2002 because of an accumulated body of work, writings, conferences and websites contributed by policy makers, researchers and practitioners, including: Wade Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of ACF; Chris Gersten, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of ACF; Diane Sollee, Founder and Director of The Coalition of Marriage, Family and Couples Education (“CMFCE,” SMARTMARRIAGES.COM in other words); David Blankenhorn, Founder and President of The Institute for American Values; David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Co-Directors of The National Marriage Project; Governor Keating, Jerry Regier, Howard Hendrick and Mary Myrick [PSI] in Oklahoma; Robert Rector and Pat Fagan of the Heritage Foundation; Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite, co-authors of The Case for Marriage**; Ron Haskins, Brookings Institution; Theodora Ooms, CLASP; Bob Lerman, Urban Institute; Scott Stanley and Howard Markman of PREP; Mike McManus, Co-Founder of Marriage Savers; the work of Fragile Family researchers**; the early work of The National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Network; David and Vera Mace, Founders of The Association for Couples in Marriage Enrichment (ACME); Julie Baumgardner, Executive Director of First Things First (TN) ; Jeff Kemp, President of Families Northwest; Ron Mincy at Columbia University; and others.

**funded by the Ford Foundation, and others….

Good Grief!!  Linda Waite’s group in Colorado is/began as an abstinence promotion group, has a scandalous incorporation record (which I tracked), and was at one time called “WAIT” training (pun on the name, much?), had partial association with a kill-the-gays movement in Uganda, and just happens to be in on the in crowd, evidently.  They got grants in 2011, under “Center for Relationship Education” which name change, I can’t find actually happened legally in Colorado.

If the Marriage Initiative couldn’t happen right without these individuals, then we should be aware of who they are, how they act, and what they are doing, to this day.

. . .I just found out that former Gov. Keating of Oklahoma is Roman Catholic, went to a Tulsa Prep School, Georgetown, was an FBI employee and is a member of a duckhunters group which has many politicians on it (including former Pres. Bush).  The last may be less than relevant, the first three items, in this context, are.

High School: Cascia Hall Preparatory School, Tulsa, OK (1962)
University: BA History, Georgetown University (1966)
Law School: JD, University of Oklahoma College of Law (1969)

Cascia Hall (when he attended) was all-male accepting boarders (til 1986); it is Augustinian and located on a 40-acre campus in the Middle of Tulsa.  It began admitting females in 1986.  Not that most readers aren’t aware of Georgetown, but a few unique facts (from wikipedia, where else):     Founded in 1751, the city of Georgetown substantially predated the establishment of the city of Washington and the District of Columbia. Georgetown retained its separatemunicipal status until 1871, when its city charter was revoked by the United States Congress.

The area reached the height of fashionability when Georgetown resident John F. Kennedy was elected president. Kennedy lived in Georgetown in the 1950s as both a Congressman and a Senator. Parties hosted by his wife, Jackie, and many other Georgetown hostesses drew political elites away from downtown clubs and hotels or the upper 16th Street corridor. Kennedy went to his presidential inauguration from his townhouse at 3307 N Street in January 1961.

Georgetown is now one of the most affluent neighborhoods in Washington and home to many of the city’s politicians and lobbyists. Current inhabitants include Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, past Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee, Washington Post Watergate reporter and current assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Montana Senator Max Baucus, among others. High-end developments and gentrification have revitalized Georgetown’s formerly blighted industrial waterfront. The District’s old refuse incinerator and smokestack, preserved for years as an abandoned but historic landmark, was redeveloped in 2003 to become the most pronounced feature of a new Ritz-Carlton Hotel.[30] Georgetown is home to a variety of luxury retailers and boutiques.

The Governor had a fine education, no doubt, and a very privileged and male-centric one in a male-centric religion from Prep School (all-male) through the completion of of a B.A.  Georgetown is  Jesuit University right in Washington, D.C., (and an excellent one, obviously):

Aerial Shot of Campus

Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States. Jesuits have played a significant role in the growth and evolution of Georgetown into a global research university deeply rooted in the Catholic faith. Georgetown’s Jesuit tradition also promotes the university’s commitment to spiritual inquiry, civic engagement, and religious and cultural pluralism. The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, an international religious community which was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century. Today, Jesuits continue to enrich the university through their work as scholars, researchers, administrators, chaplains and counselors.

This absolutely has to be taken into account when considering a man who became Governor and decided that it was all right to skip the legislature to push for marriage (odd, given the celibacy that Catholic priests still are supposed to maintain, and over which major schisms have happened (see Archbishop Stallings .. .. !)

Given the religious makeup of Oklahoma, it seems interesting to have a Catholic Governor — here’s a breakdown, showing the Southern Baptists have the Catholics about 9 to 1, and Jews can forget it (they’re outnumbered — among people who claim any religion) 10 to 1.  This also is revealing in why OK might just be a GREAT place to force a marriage initiative statewide.  (It also makes me wonder whether the high divorce rate, the predominance of “women submit” Southern Baptists (in fact most Evangelical Protestants qualify  as such), and high poverty rate just might be related.  That’s just speculation:

Evangelical Protestant groups predominate in Oklahoma with adherents representing about 41.4% of the total population in 2000. This group was influential in keeping the state “dry”—that is, banning the sale of all alcoholic beverages—until 1959 and resisting legalization of public drinking until 29 counties voted to permit the sale of liquor by the drink in 1985.

The leading Protestant group in 2000 was the Southern Baptist Convention with 967,223 adherents. Other leading Evangelical Protestant denominations include the Assemblies of God, 88,301 adherents; the Churches of Christ, 83,047; the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), 53,729; . . .

(extremely controlling denominations, I’ve had experience with the second & third listed and known a middle-aged single adult male who felt he had to ask permission to switch churches from the pastors of both old and new.  From my acquaintance with the guy, he probably knew more Bible than either one of them, too.  One thing about “walking by the spirit” groups — there’s hardly a appeal to law or scripture outside of leadership choices….  The Southern Baptists (just a reminder) was the convention that former President Jimmy Carter and his wife felt they had to leave – based on their views towards women.

Which apparently Jeffrey Regier — who’d obtained high (cabinet) authority in the state government — shared…

and the Christian Churches, 42,708. Free Will Baptists, Nazarenes, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and those of various other Pentecostal traditions are also fairly well represented. The largest Mainline Protestant denominations are the United Methodist Church, with 322,794 adherents, and the Presbyterian Church USA, with 35,211 adherents. In 2000, there were 168,625 Roman Catholics, 6,145 Muslims, and about 5,050 Jews throughout the state. About 39.2% of the population did not claim any religious affiliation.

Oral Roberts, a popular minister, has established a college and faith-healing hospital in Tulsa, and his “Tower of Faith” broadcasts by radio and television have made him a well-known preacher throughout the United States.

HERE’s a 2002 blog (posting a news article) on the pivotal influence of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, referencing many of the above people, and Regier, and acknowledging that Wade Horn was indeed present at the 1999 Governor and First Lady’s Conference launching this statewide initiative.  The article is written pretty well:

The Ross News – February 28, 2002:  The Oklahoman

. . .In the White House budget plan sent to Congress last week, the Bush administration offered no new money to encourage job advancement. However, it proposed more than $100 million for experimental programs aimed at encouraging women on welfare to get married, The Associated Press reported.

Two years ago, Keating became the first governor in the nation to set aside Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to strengthen marriages and reduce the divorce rate. Those funds are block grants provided to each state through the 1996 welfare reform act.

Fortifying marriages was a major goal of welfare reform, but few states have acted on it, said Ron Haskins, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former staff director of the U.S. House Ways and Means welfare subcommittee.

Nobody has done as much as publicly and conspicuously as Oklahoma has,” Haskins said.

Diane Sollee, founder of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education in Washington, said, “All eyes are on Oklahoma, that’s for sure.”

FYI, many healthy marriage grantees incorporate and then going to a conference run by Sollee becomes a deductible expense.  The money and information circulates around as to how to mass-market curricula presented at the conference.  Those profiting the most are those who run the trainings and most of all, probably, any for-profit that gets to — unlike most of us regular people who may be targeted for taking such classes, or our kids may be — utilize pre-existing pubic institutions (such as welfare, child support, and the Department of HHS) + some new institutions they or similarly minded people pushed for or ran (such as Governor’s Offices of Faith-Based Organizations — and there are several — or statewide Fatherhood Commissions, or etc.) to also do, basically similar activities.

Praise for Oklahoma

Now, it appears that President Bush would like other states to follow Oklahoma’s lead.

“I think it’s quite exciting,” administration official Wade Horn said of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. “I think Governor Keating has shown real leadership and creativity on this issue, and we’re looking forward to seeing the results.”

Some Leadership.  He followed HHS directives and his Cabinet Member and NFI advocates, and (as prompted strongly by them, it seems) “Creatively” stole TANF moneys directed towards children in needy households in one of the lowest-income states in the union and pushed it towards marriage promotion instead.  It already mentioned that one potential reason for the high divorce rate was Oklahomans marrying too early!  So, to solve this, — marry them off MORE?

Testifying last year before a congressional subcommittee (the link in my last post I think), Jerry Regier, Keating’s former health and human services secretary, said Oklahoma spends millions on foster care, child abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, out-of-wedlock births, juvenile delinquency and many other problems. Regier characterized those problems as “primarily… the result of either families not forming through marriage in the first place or because of absent parents due to divorce.”

And not of course of lack of viable options outside welfare for single mothers.  Regier was formerly President of the very, very conservative Family Research Council, too, one of whose board members (as I said) includes the mother of the man behind the notorious Blackwater (militia, Iraq, etc.)

Horn, former president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, spoke at the Oklahoma conference on marriage hosted by the governor and First Lady CathyKeating in March 1999. As assistant secretary for children and families in the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, he’s a key figure in efforts . . . . (etc.)

And pushing for covenant marriages, too….

Since 1997, three states – Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas – have passed covenant marriage laws.

Under such laws, couples can choose a covenant marriage license or a standard marriage license.

A covenant marriage license requires premarital classes, mandates counseling for marital problems and makes it more difficult for a couple to divorce. On the other hand, a couple with a standard marriage license can skip the counseling and divorce for virtually any reason.

This is starting to remind me of problems in Coptic Ethiopia  . . .  .

MEANWHILE, “The Democratic Underground” gave Jerry Regier (now in Florida) spot #1 in the Top 10:

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 81)
August 26, 2002
Biblical Spanking Edition

Some top quality shenanigans in the world of conservative idiocy force Dubya from his number one position this week, although the Chump-in-Charge does manage two more entries this week at numbers 4 and 10. But this week’s top slot is reserved for Jerry “Biblical Spanking” Regier, Florida’s new head of the Department of Children and Families. Nice. Nudging up against Jerry Regier’s mudflaps we find Bob Barr (2) to whom we can only say, “You lost! Get over it!” And man, does it feel good to say that. Elsewhere, Judy Woodruff (5) is now having her TelePrompTer fed directly from the White House – no, she really is – and the head of Miami-Dade’s Christian Coalition, Antonio Verdugo (8), is just a big ol’ fraud (allegedly). Enjoy, and as usual, here’s the key.

1Jerry Regier religious nut religious nut
Florida’s Department of Children and Families managed to get on the list last week (see Idiots 80), and now their new boss has made it on – in his first week on the job. Last week Jeb Bush named Jerry Regier to be the new head of the DCF. Hours later it was revealed that Mr. Regier had previously made some, shall we say, “insane” comments. See if you can guess which ones they are!

A) ”biblical spanking [that leads to] temporary and superficial bruises or welts do not constitute child abuse.”

B) Christians should not marry non-Christians.

C) Wives should view working outside the home as ”bondage.”

D) The ”radical feminist movement has damaged the morale of many women and convinced men to relinquish their biblical authority in the home.” The answer? Yep – it’s all of them of course. The man who is to be charged with the welfare of Florida’s children and families thinks that keeping your woman indoors and beating your kids is just the right thing to do.  

 

 

Wikipedia on Jerry Regier (of Oklahoma) a vis a vis the composition of the current Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (see top of this page) can get a little frightening, almost:

 

Gerald P. “Jerry” Regier (born 1945) is an American businessman and politician from Oklahoma who is best known as first President of the Family Research Council.

Regier has previsously served in numerous positions within the Administration of Governor of Oklahoma Frank Keating, including Keating’s Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services (1997–2002). In addition to his service as Secretary, Regier served concurrently as the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

[edit]Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

In 1992, President Bush appointed Regier as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and as Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Regier served in both of those positions until the end of Bush’s term in 1993.

[edit]Keating Administration

[edit]Office of Juvenile Affairs

When RepublicanFrank Keating, a former Reagan Administration official, was elected Governor of Oklahoma in 1995, Keating appointed Regier to serve as the Deputy Director of the newly created Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) under Executive Director Ken Lackey. Regier served as Lackey’s principal juvenile justice advisor to Lackey in his position as Keating’s Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services. When Lackey resigned as Executive Director of OJA, Keating appointed Regier as his successor.

[edit]Health Secretary

Lackey served as Health and Human Services Secretary until 1997, when Keating appointed him as his Chief of Staff. Keating appointed Regier to succeed Lackey as Secretary. As Health and Human Services Secretary, Lackey served as Keating’s top health policy advisor and provided oversight to theOklahoma State Department of Health, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services, and the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.[1]

Regier resigned as Secretary in 2002 to pursue a campaign to succeed the term-limited Keating as Governor of Oklahoma. Keating appointed the head of the Oklahoma Department of Human ServicesHoward Hendrick, to succeed Regier as Secretary.[2][3]

Jeb Bush Administration

When Regier dropped out of the Governor’s race, Keating recommended that Governor of FloridaJeb Bush appoint him the head of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Bush acted on Keating’s recommendation and made Regier his Secretary of Children and Families. He remained in that position until the end of Bush’s term in 2007.[5]

 

 

Don’t mock Wikipedia.  For example, through it I learned of this OJJDP, that:  

The office is headed by an administratorJ. Robert Flores, since April 2002.

As of May 2008, Flores and the OJJDP were under congressional investigation for how $8.6 million was awarded to programs combating juvenile delinquency. The controversy involves money granted to programs with ties to George W. Bush. 10 grants were awarded. The organization, Best Friends Foundation, run by founder and president, Elayne Bennett, wife of William Bennett, ranked 51st out of 104 applications, was awarded $1.1 million over a three year period. The organization promotes self-respect, abstinence and rejection of illegal drug and alcohol use.

Similarly, The World Golf Association, with George H. W. Bush speaking at one of hat group’s functions, was awarded grant money because it was the highest ranked applicant with sports as their primary function. Of the 104 applicants, only one other applicant had a sports bid. A one-year grant of $500,000 was awarded for the organization’s “First Tee” program. The World Golf Association was ranked 47th among all the bids.

Henry Waxman (D-CA) sitting on the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform leads the congressional investigation into wrongdoing.

From the Site of this Committee:

HERE is a copy of his March 2008 letter to the then-Attorney General soliciting information on the Grantmaking processes and stating why:

Responding to concerns raised by Rep. Timothy Walz about questionable practices by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in awarding grants, Chairman Waxman wrote to Attorney General Mukasey to request documents detailing the grantmaking process at OJJDP:

According to a recent article in the trade publication, Youth Today, recent OJJDP grants have been awarded in a noncompetitive m¿rrner, in some cases with highly ranked applicants rejected in favor of lower ranked competitors.’ In one example described by Youth Today, the OJJDP awarded $500,000 to the World Golf Association, even while its grant proposal was scored lower than that of 38 other applicants in the technical review.

In order to examine these allegations, I request that you provide the Committee the following information :  (etc.)

 

A Congressional Hearing was held (the next June, 2008) on this, and I’ve linked to some documents.  The opening letter by Sen. Waxman is eloquent and speaks clearly to Mr. Flores’ behavior in ignoring recommendations (scoring of applicants) by his own staff to grant certain organizations, and detaling of their connections to the (Bush) administration and personal contacts between applicants and Administration prior to getting them.

he Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing titled, “Examining Grantmaking Practices at the Department of Justice” on Thursday, June 19, 2008, in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing examined how the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded grants in fiscal year 2007. A preliminary transcript of this hearing is now available.

The following witness testified:

    • Mr. J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention


 (excerpts and better viewed on-line):

  • This Committee has held many hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse in federal contracting. We’ve also held hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse in other types ofprograms, such as crop insurance and workers’ compensation insurance.But we have held few hearings on abuses in federal grants. In 2006, the federal government spent $419 billion on federal contracts. It spent even more – $488 billion – on federal grants. So examination of waste, fraud, and abuse in grant programs is a high priority.
  • Instead, Mr. Flores chose to give the majority ofthe grant funding to five programs that his staffhad not recommended for funding. One was an abstinence-only program. Two were faith-basedprograms. Anotherwasagolfprogram. What’smore,theyappearedtohavespecial access to Mr. Flores that other applicants were denied.
  • Mr. Flores awarded a $1.1 million grant to the Best Friends Foundation, an abstinence- onlyorganization,thatranked53outof104applications. Thecareerstaffwhoreviewedthis application said it was “poorly written,” “had no focus,” “was illogical,” and “made no sense.” Documents provided to the Committee show that while the grant was being developed and competed, Mr. Flores had multiple contacts with Elayne Bennett, the founder and chairman of Best Friends and the wife of Bill Bennett, who worked in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
  • And Mr. Flores awarded a $1.2 million grant to Urban Strategies LLC, a consulting firm, and Victory Outreach, a “church-oriented Christian ministry called to the task of evangelizing.” This grant application also received a low ranking: 44 out of 104 applications. But the head of Urban Strategies was Lisa Cummins, who formerly worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Documents provided to the Committee show that Ms. Cummins had several high-level meetings with Mr. Flores and other Justice Department officials before and after receiving the grant.
  • On the other hand, the Justice Research and Statistics Association was the top scoring group out of the 104 applicants. It scored a 98 and was universally praised by career employees for its effectiveness and good work. It provides training and technical assistance to state juvenile corrections workers. But it was not selected or funded.
  • There is no question that Mr. Flores had discretion to award grants. He is entitled to use hisexperienceandjudgmentindeterminingwhichgrantapplicationstofund. Buthehasan obligation to make these decisions based on merit, facts, and fairness. And the reasoning for his decision must be transparent and available to the public.
  • Nearly every official the Committee spoke with, including the Justice Department peer reviewers, the civilservice program managers, and the career official in charge ofthe solicitation, told us that Mr. Flores’s approach was neither fair nor transparent. Mr. Flores’s superior, the Assistant Attorney General, told the Committee: “I am for candor and clarity, especially when dealing with the people’s money. And that did not happen. And I am upset that it did not happen
This blog article JUVIENATION  (3/31/2008), commenting on the investigative article that finally got some Congressmen’s attention — and eventually Waxman’s is a good read.
While I mostly research HHS cronyism, this shows that at the top of the heap appointing grants (Flores, in position 2002-2006), was a Bush lackey.
That has not been done, and has no appearance of so being done.

Special Report: OJJDP Grant Making Scandal

July 03, 2008 by Patrick Boyle(Includes related documents) Youth Today’s ongoing coverage of questionable grant making by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Detention and Delinquency Prevention.

Flores’ Chief of Staff pleaded the Fifth Amendment during the Oversight Hearing!
NOW — if someone will do a similar series for the HHS as well
We may just have another shot a real justice in this country!