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

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

Posts Tagged ‘Policy Studies Inc.

Psst! “PSI” (Policy Studies Inc.) in its own words…. plus ….

with one comment

Blogger note, 2015 — Policy Studies, Inc. now redirects to “Maximus” another well-known (if not universally respected) child support and other government services contractor.  “Global Expertise at the Local Level.”   

Actually, Maximus’ home page has its services split into:

  • Health
  • Federal
  • Child Support
  • Education
  • Workforce
  • Consulting
  • Business and Tax Credit

Recent meeting, seminar, or webinar Sept. 14, 2015:


Maximus, despite is size, scope, purpose and some stains in the past (which it earned enough to at least pay settlements on, and continue receiving contracts — it’s nice to be “too big to fail,” eh?”), is a good “Corporate Citizen” too and wants readers to know that this (and not reducing corporate tax rates) was why in 2000 it set up a Foundation:

MAXIMUS Foundation

At MAXIMUS, we hold a strong sense of corporate citizenship and responsibility. We recognize the importance of giving back to the communities in which we live and work. In response, the MAXIMUS Board of Directors created the MAXIMUS Foundation in 2000.

The MAXIMUS Foundation is committed to supporting organizations and programs that promote personal growth and self-sufficiency through improved health, augmented child and family development, and community development. We provide financial support for non-profit organizations and charities that share our commitment in helping disadvantaged populations and underserved communities.

The MAXIMUS Foundation is funded by charitable gifts from the employees of MAXIMUS and supplemented by grants from the Company. It is a non-profit charitable organization incorporated in the Commonwealth of Virginia and is exempt from tax under Title 26 U.S.C. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code…

View a list of organizations that received financial support in our most recent grant cycle. (by state, doesn’t show, however amounts, or for previous years.  For that, you have to actually go to their tax return declarations, at least).

I see a Spring 2015 grantee for NY is a major (and not in need of grants, either) foundation involved in transforming the NYS justice system (and others, internationally) through a cooperative project with the Courts.  The cooperative project is “the Center” but the actual 501(c)3 is “Fund for the City of New York,” started in 1968 by Ford Foundation, as its tax return says:

Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities THE FUND FOR THE CITY OF NEWYORK WAS CREATED BY THE FORD FOUNDATION IN 1968 WITH THE MANDATE TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR ALL NEW YORKERS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, NONPROFIT INSTITUTIONS AND FOUNDATIONS, THE FUND WORKS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT INNOVATIONS IN POLICY, PROGRAMS AND TECHNOLOGY TO ADVANCE THE FUNCTIONING OF GOVERNMENT AND NONPROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.

They’re just trying to systems-change, continually, for a better world…. better particularly for nonprofits (what about taxpayers who don’t organize themselves into nonprofits, or working for them or government — what about that sector?).  Well, this organization (the Ford-founded Fund for the City of New York), oddly, is licensed to solicit in mostly East Coast states — and California.  It also runs two other nonprofits (Schedule-R/”Related Tax-Exempt Organizations”):

(1) NATIONAL CENTER FOR CIVIC INNOVATION INC   to “FACILITATE FCNY’S MISSION TO OTHER CITIES IN THE U S” and

(2) INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR COMMUNITY SOLUTIONS INC for “IMPROVING THE PERFORMANCE OF GOVERMENT AND NONPROFIT ORG WORLDWIDE”

“CT, NY, NJ, FL, CA, MA” (tax return below next quote, see Schedule G, Part I)

New York

Abraham House
CASES
Center for Court Innovation/Fund for the City of New York
Coalition for the Homeless, Inc.
Common Ground Communities, Inc. d/b/a Community Solutions**
Community-Word Project, Inc.
Harlem Educational Activities Fund, Inc.
Move This World
New York Common Pantry
Odyssey House Inc.
The Children’s Village, Inc.
The New York Foundling Hospital
Women’s Prison Association

Fund for the City of New York is clearly doing “poorly” and Maximus — a lot of whose business comes before, and relates to business being handled by the NYS Unified Court System with which this Fund works, influentially — clearly ought to step in the funding gap.  After all, it’s not even within range of a billion dollar assets yet, although it did increase by about $25M  in the past two years:

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Fund for the City of New York NY 2013 990 105 $86,222,421.00 13-2612524
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2012 990 51 $71,729,914.00 13-2612524
Fund for the City of New York, Inc. NY 2011 990 90 $60,361,290.00 13-2612524

I don’t know that I’d make such a big fuss about this foundation — it’s not that large.  It’s also registered as a “PF” (Private Foundation), not public charity, although both are 501(c)3s…

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
MAXIMUS Foundation, Inc. VA 2013 990PF 34 $285,511.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2012 990PF 31 $218,121.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2011 990PF 22 $167,190.00 54-1993677
MAXIMUS Foundation VA 2011 990PR 6 $0.00 54-1993677

(Click on Org. name to view return).  For example — Year “2013” above — the form says, it RECEIVED contributions of $665,818 (of this, $562,181 from Maximus itself) and CONTRIBUTED $682,930 to others, which are listed in very fine print at the back.  These are mostly in small amounts, from $250 — $500 – $1,000 – $1,500 and $2,000, with just a few organizations getting more.  In that year (note:  Tax return 2015 not viewable yet — so it’s easy to tell about grants which the public can’t, yet, fact-check on a tax return..) “Community-Word Project, Inc.” got $1,500.  “The Fund for Public Schools” (NY) got $50K, an American Red Cross in the National Capital Area $40K, One Fund Boston, Inc. (whoever they are), $25K.


 

One Fund Boston, Inc. was formed in 2013 for Victims of the Boston Marathon Bombings “and related events.”  It has a board of 3 people, 1 employees, 25 volunteers, and the first year shown here, received $76M of private (non-government) donations.  Of these it gave out $58+M in the US, and $2.195M overseas (East Asia/Pacific) — and not to organizations, but to individuals.

ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
One Fund Boston MA 2013 990 32 $18,727,756.00 46-2547157

(Code, )(Expenses$ 60,607,308. includinggrantsof$ 60,504,000 )(Revenue$ DISTRIBUTION OF CASH GIFTS TO VICTIMS OF THE BOSTON MARATHON BOMBINGS AND RELATED EVENTS OF 4/18/13 AND 4/19/13 TO HELP MEET THE SIGNIFICANT ONGOING NEEDS OF THE SURVIVOR COMMUNITY. IN ADDITION TO THE PROGRAM SERVICE EXPENSES NOTED ABOVE, THE ORGANIZATION ALSO INCURRED $895,960 OF ADDITIONAL PROGRAM-RELATED EXPENSES, ALL OF WHICH REPRESENTS SERVICES THAT WERE GRACIOUSLY DONATED BY MANY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS.

Entity Name ID Number Old ID Number Address
ONE FUND BOSTON, INC. 001105027 53 STATE ST.
BOSTON, MA 02109 USA

While it’s commendable to donate a nice chunk  ($0.025 Million) out of the $76million that came in,  I should also note that the likelihood of the funds being traceable as actually received and distributed by One Fund Boston, when its recipients are individuals, not organizations, is minimal.


Common Ground Communities dba “Community Solutions” has this EIN# 27-3523909, and this website (in addition to a blog): 

Web URL: www.cmtysolutions.org
Blog URL: cmtysolutions.org/blog

 

Guidestar says that in 2011 its main funding was from HUD and a certain foundation:

  • U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development – $450,000
  • The Jacob & Valeria Langeloth Foundation – $400,000

The name “Common Ground” is so “common” around town, at first I thought that the above, more recent nonprofit might be unrelated to the series of HFDC (housing development fund corporations) found below — but I think they are the same, based on this description of the 2011ff group:

Rosanne Haggerty is the President and Chief Executive Officer of Community Solutions. She is an internationally recognized leader in developing innovative strategies to end homelessness and strengthen communities.

I have recently been studying HUD programming in more detail.  It came up in the context of other blogging, although I’ve been aware of it since about 2012 in connection with writings by someone formerly near the top of FHA who quipped that HUD was being run like a sewer (criminal operation) and explained how some of that went.  Her times of working there, late 1980s; contracting with it, mid-1990s, and after she was almost put out of business for her software (LLC?) having exposed that the federal government was — deliberately — investing with a negative ROI into communities, when it didn’t have to (i.e., fees for RE developer friends took precedence over revamping useable single-family homes in the same areas, and which were already on the books, i.e. FHA books), she was just about ruined and essentially driven out of the USA.  (Catherine Austin Fitts).  I knew less about real estate than about HHS grants, which I could also see were being run, well, “crooked” at least in significant PRWORA (1996ff) categories, namely promoting marriage and fatherhood.   Some of the HHS grantees were already involved in real estate development and community financing actions dating from the “CDBG” (Community Development Block Grant) era.  Hard to explain in one paragraph, but…

The HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 (a public law) encouraged the strengthening of CDOs (Community Development Organizations) and CDHOs (Community Development Housing Organizations) nationwide.  FIVE and ONLY FIVE “intermediary” agencies were receiving HUD funds under this program — currently those five are:

  • Living Cities
  • Local Initiative Support Corporation
  • Enterprise Community Partners  (For this, see also The Rouse Company  [<=a very interesting history, taken ca. 2004/2006]/ James W. Rouse, planned communities, shopping malls, “ending poverty” — the real estate/community development way:
    • In the 1960s, he focused on the development of Columbia, the planned community in Maryland. In the 1970s, The Rouse Company developed the festival marketplace concept and opened Faneuil Hall in Boston. Jim retired as CEO of The Rouse Company in 1979 and in 1982 he and wife Patty launched The Enterprise Foundation, now known as Enterprise.He was a member of President Eisenhower’s Task Force on Housing in 1953 and of President Reagan’s Task Force on Private Sector Initiatives in 1982. …

Note — he’d already formed Enterprise Community Partners (originally, “Foundation”) in 1982...

The Rouse Company (from Encyclopedia.com, date is ca. 2006.  Note, in 2004, I learned, another group, Growth General Partners” (an even larger shopping mall developer/owner nationwide) bought the Rouse Company.  However, in 2009, it filed for bankruptcy — not nice for shareholders, but nice for those who got some of the assets for lower price — including the former subsidiary company, Howard Research Development (?) as in Howard Hughes, Jr. heirs.

Public Company
Incorporated: 1954 as James W. Rouse & Company, Inc.
Employees: 3,169
Sales: $1.17 billion (2003)
Stock Exchanges:New York
Ticker Symbol: RSE
NAIC: 236220 Commercial and Institutional Building Construction; 531120 Lessors of Nonresidential Buildings (Except Miniwarehouses); 531190 Lessors of Other Real Estate Property; 721110 Hotels (Except Casino Hotels) and Motels (pt)

One of the largest publicly held real estate development and management firms in the United States, The Rouse Company has a reputation for innovation. Under the direction of founder and “industry prophet” James W. Rouse, the company was in the vanguard of suburban enclosed-mall construction in the 1950s, the planned community movement in the 1960s, and the proliferation of urban “festival marketplaces” in the 1970s and early 1980s. The saturation of the retail development market in the early 1990s led the company into the construction and management of more office and mixed-use projects. By the early 21st century, The Rouse Company—now operating as a Real Estate Investment Trust (REIT)—owned and/or operated more than 150 retail, residential, and office properties nationwide.

Timeline — James W. Rouse died in 1996, his (second, but long-term) wife Pattie, in, I think, 2012. See also the Wikipedia article for more details.

{{PLANNED COMMUNITIES — Columbia, between Baltimore and Washington, D.C., first}}

Rouse assembled a coterie of planners, sociologists, educators, religious groups, and cultural and medical institutions to advise and support the creation of the new city. When it was launched in 1967, Columbia featured 11,000 residences (including low-cost housing jointly sponsored by the three primary religious denominations); schools within walking distance of elementary and junior high students; Howard County’s first hospital; public transportation; and a shopping center. By 1975, when the city boasted 38,000 residents, it had become “suburban Baltimore,” and within a decade it would be, according to Financial World (1986), “one of the hottest developing territories in the country.”

Rouse’s stock soared from $2 per share in the early 1960s to $30 by 1972. But during the 1974–75 real estate slowdown, the company lost Housing and Urban Development funding for a major low-income housing project. This, in turn, effected a $7 million loss and compelled Rouse to pull out of two engineered communities in Tennessee and Maryland, resulting in additional losses of $4.2 million. Connecticut General {{Life Insurance}} even had to purchase most of Rouse’s share of the Columbia project during this difficult time. Short-term debt stood at $80 million, while equity was at $6 million. From 1974 to 1976, the company retrenched by selling 50 percent stakes in 7 of 24 retail centers, reaping a total of $24 million cash. It also eliminated half the headquarters staff and wrote off $30 million in bad investments.

Thus we see for all the development, it was heavily underwritten by HUD, which public funds are “underwritten,” so to speak, by people who pay tax revenues, a.k.a., work jobs.  On  given year, the primary government revenues, per a pie chart at FMS.Treasury.gov (and posted on my blog — see table of contents post, at the top of the website; you can find this one), of all federal receipts. On the 6/29/2014 post “My Challenge:  Talk Sense or become an OxyMORON (And Someone Else’s Dinner“) there’s a section titled, with a somewhat frustrated commentary right underneath it:

HOW WELL DO YOU KNOW THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA?

(FOR EXAMPLE, ITS BALANCE SHEET)

If across the US, our independent, and species-survival alertness and thinking has been either disabled, or is being culled [and by personality types, sorted and sifted] for use in the administrative population control professions (the “behavioral change modification” professions which are funded from “on high” (corporations, universities, the US government), and/or the science and technology for yet BETTER population control (and, when it comes to military, systematic decimation of other countries’ populations, while increasing the incarceration rates of our own by the various wars), then I will forget the consciousness-raising herein, and just look for a better place (and that means country) to inhabit.

 

…and then links to Federal Receipts piechart (for 2013).  Look at the two largest sectors in the piechart, and remember, it ain’t corporate taxes (which were only 10%)!   Social Insurance and Retirement Receipts (that must include for federal employees also, I think) — 35%.  Individual Income Taxes — 46%, with some commentary right after the link:

FMS-TREASURY-GOV piechart + legend, 2013 Federal receipts 10% Corp, 46% Income Taxes, 30+% SocSec-Retiremt Contributions-2

“Total receipts [YEAR 2013] increased by $324.9 billion, totaling $2,774.0 billion in fiscal 2013. The graph below shows receipts by source. “Translation of “$2,774.0 billion,” other than “a lot” is:   $2,774,000,000,000.  Hundreds, Thousands, Millions, Billions, and another way of putting this would be $2.774 Trillion — that is, for 2013 only, and that’s the federal government of the US, only.  Anyhow click to see what the largest piece of the pie, and the second-largest, is.”

Government tends to get reorganized, regularly, in small or large ways, so the former link now reads tells us that, if you were looking for those “Consolidated Statements of Receipts, Outlays and Balances,”  the Treasury Department’s “Fiscal Management Services” (FMS) and Bureau of the Public Debt have been consolidated:

The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances
Current Report Page Has Moved

The Financial Management Service (FMS) and the Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD) have consolidated into the Bureau of the Fiscal Service. You will now be redirected to the The Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays, and Balances Current Report, Bureau of the Fiscal Service Web site. If you are not redirected in 15 seconds, you can continue to this site by visiting
Current Report.

Please remember to update your bookmarks.

ANYHOW, a look at the page for 2015 reminds us just how large the Executive Branch is:
Combined Statement of Receipts, Outlays and Balances (2015)

 

These are not yet available to view (haven’t been uploaded — obviously, I’m typing in Fall 2015 (on a much older post, 2011, true…) but the headings are there to view.  This is what to expect — but look under the last heading to see just how many “Departments of” are listed — those are Executive Branch of the US Government departments.  You can see that “Legislative” is a single link, as is “Judiciary” — but when it comes to “Department of Justice” — that’s an Executive Department.  Notice also there’s an “Executive Office of the President” on the list.  See also (sidebar) the two articles about social sciencification of America, and abolishment of representative government by executive orders.  Think it’s not still going on ???  I wonder how far we are in the process of making Congress (and laws) all but vestigial organs kept there for show, or simply basic operations, while decisions are simply made elsewhere… as there is always SOME crisis, SOME emergency, SOME global problems and of course a shortage of funds for all of the above.

We’ll post files on this page as they become available.

Note: Text Files will be available in Portable Document Format (PDF), and data files will be available in PDF and Excel 3.0. Excel files do not contain footnotes or Table 1.

Part One | Part Two | Part Three | Part Four

  • Commissioner’s Letter
  • Preface
  • Description of Accounts Relating to Cash Operations
  • Explanation of Transactions and Basis of Figures
  • Part One Fiscal Year 2015 Summary
  • Financial Highlights
  • Receipts by Source <= <= <=  (would have another pie chart, I’m sure).
  • Outlays by Function
  • United States Summary General Ledger Balances
  • Part Two Fiscal Year 2015 Details of Receipts
  • Table A – Receipts by Source Categories
  • Part Three Fiscal Year 2015 Detail of Appropriations, Outlays, and Balances <=<=<(View long List of Departments under here.)

THAT LIST:  Legislative Branch, The Judiciary, [[and then all these other:]] Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of Defense-Military, Department of Education, Department of Energy, Department of Health and Human Services [= Largest grantmaking agency], Department of Homeland Security, Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD, HOUSING; pretty influential, would you say?], Department of Interior, Department of Justice, Department of Labor, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Treasury, , Department of Veterans Affairs, Corps of Engineers, Other Defense-Civil, Environmental Protection Agency,  Executive Office of the President,*** General Services Administration, International Assistance Programs, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, Office of Personnel Management, Small Business Administration, Social Security Administration, Independent Agencies

 


 

During the company’s difficult years, Rouse invented his own method of accounting. He pioneered a new accounting figure dubbed “current value.”

 

    • In 1987, he became chairman of the National Housing Task Force, which made proposals to Congress in March 1988 for a new housing program. The report formed the basis for comprehensive housing legislation signed into law by President Bush in November 1990. Jim was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, by President Clinton in September 1995. He passed away at the age of 81 at his home in Columbia, Md. – See more at: http://www.enterprisecommunity.com/about/history/about-our-founders#sthash.6FBLOQ3P.dpuf

  • Habitat for Humanity
  • YouthBuild USA

Here a link at Thomas.gov to H.R. 2517, which later became that Act; see the CRS Summary.  The timing is, early 1990s, beginning of Clinton Administration.  Keep in mind that with the passage of 1996 Personal Right to Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (“PRWORA”), which has also been phrased as “privatizing government” and with its “Block grants to States” for TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) instead of the help actually being directed to only needy families, we then go the “Family Values Factor” an open door into proselytizing about marrying and staying married.  In the 1990s, I WAS married — and being battered in front of my children; which “might” have been why the passage of 1996 and its future impact on mothers dealing with domestic violence and abuse in the decades (1980s, 1990s at least) where single mothers were being alternately scapegoated or patronized, but still subject to media campaigns at how our children were — by virtue of being “fatherless” households — at risk for juvenile delinquency, a life of crime, promiscuity, failure, and ending up on welfare or in foster care, etc. etc….

So Title IV-A and Title IV-D of this Social Security Act were already priming the pump to continue causing, actually, more trouble for working single mothers, by encouraging lawsuits for sole legal and physical custody from their former abusers, where abuse had been a factor, or where child support arrears had been run up, and would be compromised if these custody battles –which FOR THE RECORD, tend to interfere with sustainable work, increase poverty, and drive finances and resources (including TIME) which might otherwise go to the next generation — to the problem-solving courts and their professionals, para-professionals, and proselytes/acolytes and hangers-on. {{for further information, follow “AFCC” “CRC’ and friends, including their nice, “don’t ask, adn we won’t tell (about marriage/fatherhood funding or access/visitation funding) friends in the DV industry…)

Oops..  Got a little expressive there…

Here’s that HUD Demonstration act of 1993, summarized.  Try to pick up on the details:

H.R.2517
Latest Title: HUD Demonstration Act of 1993
Sponsor: Rep Gonzalez, Henry B. [TX-20] (introduced 6/24/1993)      Cosponsors (1)
Latest Major Action: 10/27/1993 Became Public Law No: 103-120.


SUMMARY AS OF:
9/23/1993–Passed Senate amended.    (There are 2 other summaries)

HUD Demonstration Act of 1993 – Directs the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (Secretary) to carry out an innovative homeless initiatives demonstration program through FY 1994. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992 to increase funding for the moving to opportunity for fair housing demonstration program.

(Sec. 4) Authorizes the Secretary to provide assistance to the National Community Development Initiative** for grants to local community development organizations for: (1) training and capacity building; (2) technical assistance; and (3) community development and housing assistance. Authorizes FY 1994 appropriations.

**The other name for this nonprofit is “Living Cities.”  It was initiated by “Rockefeller” and several private foundations and currently has a member list of 22 significant (wealth) tax-exempt foundations in combination with bank / financial institutions.

(Sec. 5) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to increase the authorization of appropriations for community housing partnership activities.

(Sec. 6) Directs the Secretary to carry out a demonstration program through FY 1998 to attract pension fund investment in affordable housing through the use of project-based rental assistance under section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937. Requires that at least half of appropriated funds be used in the disposition of multifamily properties. Requires a General Accounting Office program evaluation report. Authorizes FY 1994 program appropriations.

(Sec. 7) Amends the Cranston-Gonzalez National Affordable Housing Act to extend: (1) the termination date for the National Commission on Manufactured Housing; (2) the deadline for the Commission’s final report (after an interim report); and (3) authorization of appropriations for the Commission.

(Sec. 8) Amends the Housing Act of 1949 to: (1) extend authority for Federal agency housing subdivision approval reciprocity; (2) increase Federal Housing Administration (FHA) insured mortgage authority; and (3) increase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) guarantee authority.

(Sec. 11) Sets forth an administrative fee formula for the section 8 certificate and voucher programs. Directs the Secretary to assess public housing agency costs in administering such programs.

(Sec. 12) Amends Federal law to: (1) extend the commencement deadline for a specified Massachusetts housing project; and (2) permit rental units in a specified Texas project to be project-based.

 

 

 

In 1990, Rosanne founded Common Ground Community, a pioneer in the development of supportive housing and research-based practices that end homelessness. To have greater impact, Ms. Haggerty and her senior team launched Community Solutions in 2011 to help communities solve the problems that create and sustain homelessness. Ms. Haggerty is a MacArthur Foundation Fellow, Ashoka Senior Fellow and Hunt Alternative Fund Prime Mover. In 2012, she was awarded the Jane Jacobs medal for New Ideas and Activism from the Rockefeller Foundation. She serves on the boards of the Alliance for Veterans, Citizens Housing and Planning Council and Iraq-Afghanistan Veterans of America. She is a Life Trustee of Amherst College.



  •  **This Delaware Corporation only registered in NY 4/29/2012 as a Foreign Not For Profit.  This one shows no “d/b/a” however on its NYS registration (click to see, or repeat the search, google “NYS Corporation Search” or for the charitable registrations, charitiesnys.com

    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITIES, INC.

    By street address search, I see from NYU Furman Center for Real Estate and Urban Policy)  its purpose is:

    Common Ground CommunityHOMELESSNESS PREVENTION, SUPPORTIVE HOUSING AND SOCIAL SERVICES

    Email: info@commonground.org 14 East, 28th Street  New York, NY 10016 Phone: (212) 471-0815  Fax: (212) 471-0825

    Common Ground Community is a non-profit housing and community development organization whose mission is to solve homelessness. Common Ground provides comprehensive support services, including access to medical and mental health care and job training and placement, designed to help people regain lives of stability and independence

     

    It will be taking then, probably grants from both HUD and HHS as well as probably private sources.  As the site “commonground.org” says:

    Our buildings combine affordable housing with on-site social services.

     

    The money is project-based.   There are nonprofits with the words “Common Ground” in them throughout the country (NY, TX, LA, OH, CA, etc.), but as we can see the HDFC (Housing Development Fund Corp) ones in New York come “I, II, III and IV” and of varying sizes. A change in EIN# means a change in Entity — however, they are probably, if one looks through individual returns for “Schedule R – Related organizations” — with overlapping board members, or otherwise related:  common in real estate development…

    ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2013 990 35 $159,877,710.00 11-3048002
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2012 990 33 $151,961,518.00 11-3048002
    Common Ground Community Housing Development Fund Corporation NY 2011 990 41 $141,259,282.00 11-3048002
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY II HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $39,882,573.00 13-3846708
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY II HDFC NY 2012 990 32 $39,055,076.00 13-3846708
    Common Ground Community II HDFC NY 2011 990 36 $37,452,569.00 13-3846708
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY III HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $64,935.00 13-4138205
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY III HDFC NY 2012 990 29 $901,304.00 13-4138205
    Common Ground Community III HDFC NY 2011 990 35 $750,850.00 13-4138205
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY IV HDFC NY 2013 990 32 $15,652,447.00 13-4196931
    COMMON GROUND COMMUNITY IV HDFC NY 2012 990 30 $17,056,703.00 13-4196931
    Common Ground Community Iv HDFC NY 2011 990 36 $17,764,773.00 13-4196931

     



     

    Plus:  “Preventing Violence by Promoting Fatherhood (Discretionary Grants)”

    A lot of posts, I don’t think were my best.  Yesterday’s, however, I felt was a good one.  There is information on it that is GOOD to be aware of.

    Imagine what vision, some strategic planning, good target market (the U.S. Government, one of largest purchasers in the world, I heard) and TECHNOLOGY can do.

    This report from 2004? comes from  “Encyclopedia.com”

    Policy Studies, Inc.
    1899 Wynkoop Street
    Denver, Colorado 90202
    U.S.A.
    Telephone: (303) 863-0900
    Toll Free: (800) 217-5004
    Fax: (303) 295-0244
    Web site: http://www.policy-studies.com

    Private Company
    Incorporated: 1984
    Employees: 1,030
    Sales: $128 million (2002)
    NAIC: 541611 Administration Management and General Management Consulting Services

    Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI) provides administration outsourcing, research, and consulting services to local, state and federal agencies in the areas of child support enforcement, health benefits administration, and judicial systems organization. The bulk of the company’s business involves consulting and administration of child support enforcement, including payment collection and redisbursement, voluntary paternity establishment, backlog collections, review and adjustment, and other aspects of case management. In addition to providing research and consultation for specific aspects of case management for government agencies in all 50 states and administration outsourcing for specific programs in 21 states, PSI provides full-service child support enforcement administration for counties in Arizona, Colorado, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

    Trade names (i.e., I gather Fictitious Business names)– at least those registered in Colorado under this corporate name  include:

    # ID Number Document Number Name Status Form Effective Date Comment
    1 19951078593  19951078593 COLORADO CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES Effective DPC 06/16/1995 12:00 AM
    2 19961012292  19961012292 PRIVATIZATION PARTNERSHIPS, INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    3 19961012293  19961012293 PSIBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. Effective DPC 01/29/1996 12:00 AM
    4 20001166186  20001166186 CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES OF COLORADO Effective DPC 08/25/2000 12:00 AM
    5 20001209751  20001209751 TELLER COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    6 20001209752  20001209752 EL PASO COUNTY CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT UNIT Effective DPC 10/27/2000 12:00 AM
    7 20011022445  20011022445 PSI INTERNATIONAL PEACE AND JUSTICE CENTER Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    8 20011022446  20011022446 PSI HEALTH Effective DPC 01/31/2001 12:00 AM
    9 20021117260  20021117260 CHILD HEALTH ADVOCATES Effective DPC 05/03/2002 12:00 AM
    10 20021159702  20021159702 PSI ARISTA Effective DPC 06/12/2002 12:00 AM

     

    And  just because I feel like it, I”m also posting one (of many) projects another corporation, “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.” worked on, via Grants from the HHS.  Basically this is what anyone in the “domestic violence prevention” field AND the “marriage fatherhood” field (the major grantees) really like to do:

    Set up a “resource center” and train someone (via the web, in great part)…

    From Taggs.hhs.gov (This post published 6/22/2011)

    AWARD INFORMATION

    Award Number: 90EV0375
    Award Title: FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
    OPDIV: ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
    Organization: FAMILY AND YOUTH SERVICES BUREAU (FYSB)
    Award Class: DISCRETIONARY

    Award Abstract

    Title Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance 
    Project Start/End  /
    Abstract Four Special Issue Resource Centers for Information & Technical Assistance
    PI Name/Title Denise Gamache  Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project
    Institution
    Department NONE

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 5 0 ACF 09-15-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    Fiscal Year 2010 Total: $ 1,178,812
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 4 0 ACF 08-27-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 4 1 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 50,000 
    Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $ 1,228,812
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2008 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 3 0 ACF 07-22-2008 $ 1,178,811 
    Fiscal Year 2008 Total: $ 1,178,811
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2007 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,810 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,178,810
    FY Recipient City State Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2006 MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 1 0 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,811 
    Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 1,178,811
    Total of all award actions: $ 5,944,056

    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions


     

    The “Battered Women’s Justice Project” has been working alongside the wonderful “AFCC” to Explicate what Domestic Violence is (gee, I didn’t have a clue!) and what is going on when it comes to custody decisions.   The head of this project is working with BWJP:  Denise Gamache  Director, Battered Women’s Justice Project

    The award 90EV0377 was taken by Family Violence Prevention Fund (ExCU u u u se me, “Futures Without Violence” is its new name – at least on some links).  Please notice the similar $$ amounts — $1,178,811 or 812:

    Recipient: FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION FUND
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94103-5177

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 5 93.592 ACF 07-01-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    2010 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 12-22-2009 $ 0 
    2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 08-28-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 4 93.592 ACF 09-17-2009 $ 175,000 
    2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 07-28-2008 $ 1,178,812 
    2008 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 3 93.592 ACF 09-27-2008 $ 145,000 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 08-13-2007 $ 1,178,812 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 01-26-2007 $ 32,940 
    2007 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 2 93.592 ACF 09-20-2007 $ 182,375 
    2006 90EV0377 SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 1 93.592 ACF 09-19-2006 $ 1,145,872 
    Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 6,396,435
    Page Award Actions Count: 10 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 6,396,435
    Total of 10 Award Actions for 1 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 6,396,435

    Total FVPF funding from HHS (this doesn’t count additional funding from the DOJ, or contracts, vs. grants):

    Total of all award actions: $ 19,368,114

    Showing: 1 – 35 of 35 Award Actions

     

    SO…..  MPDI got HHS Award #90EV0375, and FVPF got #90EV0377;

    Gee, who got award # 90FE0376?  Another special issue resource center, probably — right?

    Recipient: CANGLESKA, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 57752-0638

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2010 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 5 93.592 ACF 09-09-2010 $ 1,178,812 
    2009 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 4 93.592 ACF 09-02-2009 $ 1,178,812 
    2008 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 3 93.592 ACF 08-01-2008 $ 1,178,812 
    2007 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 93.592 ACF 08-27-2007 $ 1,178,812 
    2006 90EV0376 FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.592 ACF 09-21-2006 $ 1,178,812 
    Award Actions Count: 5 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 5,894,060

    Whoever CANGLESKA, INC. is (actually, I do have an idea, have read before) . . . . . Always click on the name and see what other goodies they got:

    Total HHS awards:   $15,650,167.

    Total of all award actions: $ 15,650,167

     

     

    Which includes (go figure) “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood”:

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
    2007 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 
    2006 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 0 ACF 09-25-2006 110316478 $ 400,000 

    (DUNS# 110316478 will also work on USASPending.gov.  Now, there are obviously some discrepancies — because TAGGS, which reports grants only (not contracts — work for pay) is about twice as large as what USASpending.gov — which is to report both grants and contracts — comes up with.  One would think that the USASpending.gov# would always be larger for any group that got both contracts and grants.  However, it comes up with instead (for Cangleska, all of the work in South Dakota, per the map):

     

    • Total Dollars:$7,822,150
    • Transactions:1 – 13 of 13
    • This includes several from the Justice, VAW and/or Agriculture Depts ,not just HHS.  (Whassup with that?)

    Transaction Number # 8

    Federal Award ID: 90FR0074: 0 (Grants)
    Recipient: CANGLESKA
    P.O. BOX 638 , KYLE
    Reason for Modification:
    Program Source: 75-1552:Temporary Assistance for Needy Families
    Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families
    CFDA Program : 93.086 : Healthy Marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants
    Description:
    PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD
    Date Signed:
    September 21 , 2007Obligation Amount: 
    $400,000

     

    PROMOTING FATHERHOOD = PREVENTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE???

    Yes, the way to prevent family violence is to promote fatherhood.  This is although the fatherhood movement originated in great part as a complaint against feminism.  I’m so glad that the federally -funded groups have got their act together and just take funding from both sides of the same question, and do webinars, trainings, etc. (to both target clientele):

    2007 90FR0074  PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD  2 0 ACF 09-21-2007 110316478 $ 400,000 
    2007 90EV0376  FAMILY VIOLENCE AND PREVENTION PROGRAM 2 0 ACF 08-27-2007 110316478 $ 1,178,812 
    Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 1,578,812

    (The grants are “discretionary” anyhow….)

    Meanwhile PSI cleans up on the technological end…..

    Here’s another big-bucks resource center group:

    Most Recent Tax Period EIN Name State Rule Date IRS Sub- section Total Revenue Total Assets 990 Image
    2009  362486896 National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges NV 1975 03 13,620,813 2,742,133 990

     Our government is still offering grants to make more and more resources available to explicate and analyze (rather than, say, STOP) Violence Against Women (now called “Family Violence”) for purposes of research.  Very Discretionary, I imagine.  here are some:
    Funding Opportunity Title Funding Opportunity Number CFDA# App Due Date Post Date Program
    Early Care and Education Research Scholars: Head Start Graduate Student Research Grants HHS-2011-ACF-OPRE-YR-0150 93.600 06/01/2011 03/29/2011 OPRE
    Early Care and Education Research Scholars: Child Care Research Scholars HHS-2011-ACF-OPRE-YE-0159 93.575 06/14/2011 04/08/2011 OPRE
    Modified: Street Outreach Program HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-YO-0168 93.557 06/24/2011 05/03/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Modified: Basic Center Program HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CY-0166 93.623 06/24/2011 05/03/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Project to Test a Predesigned Data Warehouse Model HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0154 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Partnership to Strengthen Families: Child Support Enforcement and University Partnerships HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0155 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Partnership with Child Support Services to Develop Workforce Strategies and Economic Sustainability HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FD-0152 93.564 06/27/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Modified: Infant Adoption Awareness Training Grants HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CG-0170 93.254 06/27/2011 06/02/2011 ACYF/CB
    Special Improvement Project (SIP) — Projects to Address the Economic Downturn on IV-D Operations HHS-2011-ACF-OCSE-FI-0151 93.601 06/29/2011 04/28/2011 OCSE
    Modified: Discretionary Funds for Refugee Childcare Microenterprise Development Project HHS-2011-ACF-ORR-RG-0160 93.576 07/05/2011 06/03/2011 ORR
    Modified: Discretionary Targeted Assistance Grant Program HHS-2011-ACF-ORR-RT-0161 93.576 07/06/2011 06/01/2011 ORR
    National Center on Health HHS-2011-ACF-OHS-HC-0190 93.600 07/06/2011 05/06/2011 OHS
    Modified: Grants to Tribes, Tribal Organizations and Migrant Programs for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Programs HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CA-0147 93.590 07/07/2011 05/25/2011 ACYF/CB
    Modified: Tribal Title IV-E Plan Development Grants HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-CS-0174 93.658 07/07/2011 05/27/2011 ACYF/CB
    Community Economic Development (CED) Projects HHS-2011-ACF-OCS-EE-0178 93.570 07/11/2011 05/10/2011 OCS
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0213 93.592 07/15/2011 05/17/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – Culturally Specific Special Issue Resource Center (CSIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0210 93.592 07/15/2011 05/18/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Modified: Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – National Indian Resource Center Addressing Domestic Violence and Safety for Indian Women (NIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0211 93.592 07/15/2011 05/23/2011 ACYF/FYSB
    Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants: National and Special Issue Resource Centers – Special Issue Resource Center (SIRC) HHS-2011-ACF-ACYF-EV-0212 93.592 07/15/2011 05/17/2011 ACYF/FYSB

    The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Administration on Children, Youth and Families (ACYF), Family and Youth Services Bureau (FYSB) announces the solicitation of applications for one cooperative agreement under the Family Violence Prevention and Services Discretionary Grants program to support a National Resource Center on Domestic Violence (NRCDV).  The NRCDV will maintain a clearinghouse library in order to collect, prepare, analyze, and disseminate information and statistics related to the incidence, intervention, and prevention of family violence, domestic violence and dating violence; and the provision of shelter, supportive services, and prevention services to adult and youth victims of family violence, domestic violence, and dating violence which includes services to prevent repeated incidents of violence.  The NRC is part of a network of National and Special Issue Resource Centers providing leadership and support to the existing programs serving victims of domestic violence and their children.

    The will do the same thing on the fatherhood end, just as large.  What good is all this research doing when it comes to the next custody decision?

    Re:  THE Battered Women’s Justice Project and MPDI grants, I searched only on the principle investigator last name, and in MN, to come up with 15 years of grants.  if you’re IN, I guess you’re IN.  So — how do these activities tie to reduced homicides, femicides, infanticides, battery, molestation, rape or any other forms of violence (or having the family law system ignore these when making a custody decision)?  Or is that even required?

    Results 1 to 20 of 20 matches.
    Excel Icon
    Page 1 of 1
      1
    Grantee Name City Award Number Award Title Action Issue Date CFDA Number Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 09/13/1995 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 385,541
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0011 P.A. FV-03-93 – SIRC 04/19/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/23/1996 93671 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 589,908
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 07/17/1997 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 800,000
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 09/19/1998 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 988,119
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/19/1999 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,016,010
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0104 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES – SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTER 08/10/2000 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,121,852
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2001 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,275,852
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/14/2002 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,331,291
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,350,730
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 09/06/2003 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES OTHER REVISION DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 07/27/2004 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 03/11/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS DENISE GAMACHE $ 0
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0248 FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION & SERVICES 08/29/2005 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,343,183
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/21/2006 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NEW DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2007 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,810
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 07/22/2008 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,811
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 08/27/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/17/2009 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS) DENISE GAMACHE $ 50,000
    MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC DULUTH 90EV0375 FOUR SPECIAL ISSUE RESOURCE CENTERS FOR INFORMATION & TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE 09/15/2010 93592 DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SERVICES NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION DENISE GAMACHE $ 1,178,812
    Technical assistance is one thing — it set ups a infrastructure and enables conferences.  now, what, precisely else does it do?  ESPECIALLY because at this point restraining orders aren’t even legally enforceable.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales — and hush, don’t tell the people getting those RO’s and justifying more funding to violence prevention trainings…and supervised visitation expansions….
    I gotta run.  Just some food for thought…

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

leave a comment »

INTRO (added 07/17)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

=======

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

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

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

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

THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MARRIAGE/FATHERHOOD COIN – –

SUSPENDING CIVIL RIGHTS MAKES NO $$SENSE$

This dates back 5 years.

2005

(DOLLARS and SENSE logo here)

29 Winter Street, Boston, MA 02108 USA
T:(617)447-2177

F:(617)447-217

Copyright © 2010 Economic Affairs Bureau, Inc.

Dollars and Sense logo

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

BY SARAH OLSON

(1/05/2005)

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

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

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

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

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

Married Good, Single Bad

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diverting Dollars

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reproductive Straitjacket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the findings, in brief:

Recent Findings in Brief

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

Final Descriptive/Analytical Findings

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

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

This is how many links came up:

Search Results

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

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

They do things like this:

Multi-Site Responsible Fatherhood Programs

Subcontract with Policy Studies Inc.

Contract with Office of Child Support Enforcement

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

1999 – 2001

Close Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

Promising Practices Home

Operated by the RAND Corporation

http://www.promisingpractices.net/program.asp?programid=43

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

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

In fact, kind of the contrary:

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

Back to topTop

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

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

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

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

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

Policies That Strengthen Fatherhood and Family Relationships

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RON HASKINS SOUNDED FAMILIAR TO ME. HERE HE IS:

Ron Haskins

Ron Haskins

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

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

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

Encouraging Marriage Helps Everyone

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

Ron Haskins, Senior Fellow, Economic Studies

Business Week

Higher marriage rates among the poor would benefit poor adults themselves, their children, and the nation. Although I do not support coercive policies to achieve higher marriage rates, I do favor marriage promotion programs conducted by community-based organizations such as churches and other nonprofit civic groups. The activities these groups should sponsor include counseling, marriage education, job assistance, parenting, anger control, avoiding domestic violence, and money management.
The LAST PLACE I WOULD GO TO GET SOME HELP AVOIDING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE WOULD BE NEAR A CHURCH GROUP. ALMOST GOT MY FAMILY KILLED . . ., . . AT LEAST IT BEARS A TOKEN MENTION, NEXT TO LAST, IN MARRIAGE PROMOTION. I DON’T THINK MR. HASKINS PERHAPS MET RENITA PITTS (See top of blog), HE WAS PROBABLY TOO BUSY AT THE LATEST EVENT.
I also notice that creative solutions to making ends meet are not necessarily on the agenda here. For example, instead of funneling the “poor” in to poor jobs, low-wage jobs, how’s about helping THEM to start businesses and run them?
Or to get grants and pursue some of their dreams, possibly filling in a gap that someone from Harvard, MIT, or a sociologist might not see?
Does anyone besides me see the irony in having someone IN government coach someone else about money management ?? ?????
%d bloggers like this: