What IS it about this State?

“Wisdom, Moderation and Justice“

seems 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:

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.)

                 The FIRST and ONLY Comprehensive Parenting Coordination Training Program!

The Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI) – – – –

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.}}

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.

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

“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 1974. This 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}}

GEORGIA LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.  REMIND ME TO VISIT SOMEDAY:

 

Images for Beautiful Georgia

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

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.

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).

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:

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)

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?)

Do we really need this type of Child Support Research and Demonstration Project (CFDA 93601) award?

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:

• What’s Right in the Region Award, presented by Focus St. Louis in 2001
• Courage in Action Practitioner Award, presented by the National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families in Washington, D.C. in 2002

{{“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.”

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?”  (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.” 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.” More About Craig Ransom Charles Barnes Charles Thompson Parenting Social Work 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):

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.

Jerry Regier  
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 Services, Howard 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 administrator, J. 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

Documents and Links

• Chairman Waxman’s Opening Statement

 (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