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 ‘The Moynihan Report (1965)

Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands + Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 ‘Consolidated Control of DV Orgs’ Page].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Major Transform/Reform Campaigns [Regardless of Cause] Involve Branded, On-line Media Platforms. Keep an Eye on Who Owns Which Brands & Platforms: Do Periodic Drill-downs.. [Publ. Feb. 12, 2020, but Media Drill-Downs from my Feb. 2018 Page ‘Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy’]. (shortlink ends “-c9y, about 12,800 words; expect some post-publication edits, to add tags and for more fluency between sections.  Last revised Feb. 14th).

Blogger’s note: I wrote this post in sections some of which are marked by repetition of the post title.  Writing in sections is a function of the technology (laptop field of view is limited; I don’t write from home, etc.). As ever, I tend to add to the top, not the bottom, of any post.  Here, you’ll see the above title twice more mid-way and a fourth time at the bottom simply as a quick way to go back to the top.  Thought content within each section probably holds together more tightly than the order of sections.

About half (the top half of) the material is new. The newer part is more spontaneous and broad-view summaries, but also has specific details of interest on two media platforms from one current events story line out of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

To comprehend the context of the domestic violence organizations in the USA — which entails unacknowledged, built-in conflicts with marriage/fatherhood promotions and characterizing single-mother households as a social scourge to be handled in the name of public welfare by a national policy promoting fathers’ rights — is beyond urgent and I believe just not optional, even if one’s home country is not the United States of America.


(This section has many points of reference, but being summary, just a few links to them.  Generally, I’ve already provided the links on earlier posts or pages, many of them, several times.  

Because it’s written by my recall from prior research, there may be some (minor) inaccuracies in labeling, any of which could be corrected by looking up the points of reference, and about which I’m not particularly concerned for the purpose of summary here).

The foundation of “fatherhood.gov” as it operates now goes back identifiably and through the present to the mid-1960s in Daniel Moynihan’s call for action and a National Policy towards “The Negro Family,” featuring female-headed households as “pathology” because we were (this country was), essentially, it said, a patriarchy.

It’s been said that the organization “NOW” was formed in 1966 in response to the Moynihan report.  

I’ve summarized many things about the situation in the “Opening Spiel” of this post but am providing these links to prior write-ups for some further reading.

My prior posts on The Moynihan Report include one from Dec., 2017 and another from July, 2016.  There are more, but here below are quotations (their introductions, in all their colorful, gory fine-print detail, in two separate text boxes).  Recommended, not necessarily easy, reading, to comprehend what’s up with the domestic violence prevention business these days — key things most so-called feminist leaders of well-known nonprofits DON’T want to bring up in their academic writings, or with you.  Once you grasp the situation, try bringing it up (for example, to nonprofit domestic violence leadership, or front-line staff, in person or on-line/in writing, or other places) and see what responses, if any, you get… I already have…. I’m convinced these individuals have no shame, remorse, or conscience about the types and extent of information they routinely withhold from the public, and their clients, warm-body pre-requisites to ongoing existence as nonprofits.  



Do You Know Your Social Science PolicySpeak? Can You Name Some University Centers|Key Professionals |BIG Foundation Sponsors|Related Networked Nonprofits| and A Basic Timeline Since at least The Moynihan Report? [First Publ. July 26, 2016; revs.2017 & (minor)2019. SeeAlso its tags] (WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink to the post title ends in “-42K“).**  (“The Moynihan Report:” 1965, i.e., it just turned “50” in 2016…//LGH 2019).

…If you don’t, this post shows several of the terms, the centers and associated professionals, the foundations (coordinating with each other), at least a few of the associated nonprofits, and where HHS funding fits in….

This 11,700 word post is is well worth reading; if you do not agree on my connections between the various organizations and personnel, at least become aware of themthey are still influential today, as are the programs they’ve initiated and/or administered.  Call it the “Dewey Decimal System” (at least a labeling system by time, and some of the lingo) for Federal Family Design, the public/private-funded way. Call it what you like — it’s a good start at a historical roadmap. [Other than adding this post title & link, a habit I adopted later, and this paragraph, I haven’t changed the post from it’s July 26, 2016 details.  LGH/June 21, 2017] [**Shortlink ending originally mis-labeled “-42P,”  Finally discovering this (3+yrs later, ℅ my Twitter thread referencing it) I corrected it to “-42K“.//LGH, Oct. 8, 2019 ]

It’s Show-and-Tell time, we’ll start with the “Ford Foundation’s influence in sponsoring the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” ….

Moving on….

Judging by when Ivy League/East Coast universities (Harvard, Yale, Brown, etc.) and the “almost-Ivy” Bowdoin (Maine)** began admitting women as undergraduates, and by how much later than men (including freed slaves) women got suffrage in the US, that’s probably a fair assessment, functionally speaking.

**The Bowdoin situation gets to me particularly when, in writing this blog, I run across profiles of both men and women about my age, whose adopted policies (focusing on correcting “fatherlessness” and racism, not sexism) has impacted options for my children’s futures, as it’s clear 1996 Welfare Reform policies did.   “To Be Continued…,” it supports my point that the USA has been in many ways a “patriarchy.”  The “Bowdoin” discussion, however, involves key figures in education, finance and politics of the last fifty years; I’ll not burden this post with those details.

Don’t hold your breath on this one getting published, however, for the record, its holding pen is: Bowdoin College, Influential Alumni My Age (Founded, 1794; admitted women, 1971). So in 1965, WAS Daniel Moynihan Right, that the U.S. of A. was a Patriarchy? And Is it Still? (started Feb. 12, 2020, short-link ending “–caV”)

But while the late (and while alive, powerful on Capitol Hill) Senator Daniel Moynihan did come from a father-abandoned family, grow up poor, and was raised Catholic, he was not a conservative, or Republican, nor was his report phrased in religious terms.

It was phrased in sociological terms.

If fatherlessness was the scourge, his life seems to have missed the lashes…

Nevertheless the genealogy of The Moynihan Report, as I’ve mentioned so much on this blog, continues through today in the “Moynihan Award” to “bipartisan” co-editors (?) and co-directors (at Brookings) Ronald Haskins and Isabelle Sawhill, of Brookings Institution, functioning for many years now in partnership with a center at Princeton University featuring publication “The Future of Children” and working internationally, so its “Partners” site says, with the University of Cambridge (i.e., England), the Jacobs Foundation (Swiss, but care/of a German coffee-chocolate dynasty).

The director of the particular (Bendheim-Thoman) Center for Child Well-Being at Princeton University (Sara McLanahan), married to Columbia University (NYC) Irwin Garfinkel, I was reminded recently (i.e., I looked at her  c.v. again) is a sociologist from the University of Texas-Austin, which MAY explain why a Center there, under direction of a woman probably mentored in part by her (Cynthia Osborne, Ph.D. from Princeton, about 2005 as I recall) has continued “carrying the (fatherhood) torch under the “Children and Families” Banner  — University of Texas-Austin. (Cynthia Osborne bio also seen at FRPN.org (below) as “Chair of the Responsible Fatherhood WorkGroup” (first one of four listed there), whatever that signifies. I’ve publicized this often on Twitter also, from the University of Texas perspective).

You can also read about the U Texas connection to FRPN (and Cynthia Osborne) under the “Supporting Organizations” (not that the federal government, listed first, is an “organization,” nor is a website an “organization” either: very sloppy labeling pads the apparent number of supporters.  Sort these into entity vs. non-entity, and you’ll get some (trackable) nonprofits, and the US DHHS, basically.  Sample (the link is from FRPN.org):

Child and Family Research Partnership

The Child and Family Research Partnership (CFRP) is an independent, nonpartisan research group at the Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public Affairs at The University of Texas at Austin, specializing in issues related to young children, teens and their parents. Cynthia Osborne, director of CFRP, serves…Read more
“The partnership… is a …research group…”  [“independent” from what?  Independently funded? Self-funded?]
  • At the University of Texas, Austin, the “CFRP” is not a school,  but a research group AT a school at a university.
  • At Princeton University, there are several centers; this one seems named (as often happens) after alumni benefactors, but the reporting entity is the university itself.  What money actually goes to the Center, and how it’s accounted for is unclear. Internally, by the university, it may have its own account code/s, but what about the public?
  • At Brookings Institution (also a nonprofit), if you read its tax returns, are the “Centers” accounted for separately somehow accessible to the public?

By definition, this type of focus on “Centers” [and/or university-based “partnerships”] clouds the financial accountability / money trails.  What, if anything, guards against special interests taking over public universities and using their established reputation to promote less than reputable causes?  Like setting up a virtual sociological religion within the USA by means of interstate networks taking public resources and (because so hard to track, how much private money is un-knowable, to most people) probably private, too, while publicizing through the on-line websites created and inter-linked?

I say this having seen many of them in the course of investigating nonprofits and professionals in these fields for this blog. It’s stunning, the proliferation of “Children and family”-named centers which on closer examination, turn out to be father-focused, especially non-resident fathers.

Meanwhile, Columbia University (with Irwin Garfinkel) also features, and has for MANY years, another fatherhood [Fathers and Children] center directed by Ronald D. Mincy, with former (or perhaps still current) backing by both the Ford Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.  It’s got enough initials I continue to forget in which order, but, (looking them up now), they are:  CRFCFW:  “Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being.”  Mincy is Maurice V. Russell Professor of Social Policy and Social Work Practice at (naturally) the university’s School of Social Work. A basic search of his name also brings up other fatherhood organizations, and the one I mention in the next paragraph:  FRPN.org.  He also presented, I’ve mentioned repeatedly, at an AFCC conference in about 2000, alongside key domestic violence organization backers (the late Senator Paul Wellstone and his wife Sheila, from Minnesota).  There’s nothing ‘conservative’ or Republican about the Wellstones or, that I can see, Professor Mincy, but somehow it still translates to fatherhood as national policy under the label of “Families” (Fragile or otherwise).

Among the featured members (sic) of that University of Texas Consortium [and/or CFRP Partnership: visit and explore the website and their referral links] is a (non-entity, see links added above Feb. 13), which I’ve also featured on this blog, whose website “FRPN.org” (Fathers Research and Practice Network) turns out to be an HHS-funded project at Temple University in Philadelphia, with co-directors (how does one “direct” a non-entity project at a major university?) Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. (Princeton) of — get this — the Colorado-based and historically (as to Pearson at least) “AFCC”-connected “Center for Policy Research,” and

Temple University Professor Jay Fagan (who’s been at Temple, after his 1988 Columbia Univ. PhD, nonstop since about 1990)… He has articles published in a magazine (‘Fathering”) he co-founded, and a key association on the c.v. (also listed at FRPN.org under “Other Organizations”) seems to be the ‘National Council on Family Relations’ (19 references in 15pp c.v.: [Click twice to read the pdf: Jay Fagan,Prof~BA Psych (TrinityCollege, CT 1973), MSW (UPA, SchlSocialWk SW,1977), PhD (in__??)Columbia SSW 1988) |Temple Univ Philadelphia (+ FRPN.org), 15-pg CV Oct 2019 (see 19occ ‘NCFR,’ ref to the HHS grant (for FRPN) + only 2books (@ 2020Feb13)] The c.v. says “School of Social Administration” not “School of Social Work.”

…He is currently conducting studies on nonresidential fathers’ coparenting relationships and the effects of mother-father co-parenting relationships on at-risk fathers’ involvement with children… (https://cph.temple.edu/about/directory/jay-fagan)

Nancy Thoennes, like Jessica Pearson, long-time at CPR (whom I’d listed by recall; checking back the next day to verify) IS listed there, but her exact role isn’t quite clear.  The co-directors of FRPN are clearly Fagan & Pearson.

Images from FRPN.org; the “about” information is repetitive (circular phrases) and still vague.  See annotated image (as well as classic-looking main page, and footer citing one HHS grant only for 2013-2019, rectangular image):

FRPN.org basic screenshots ~~Screen Shot 2020-02-13 [Page footer, annotated]

Once you even start to look …**

**at this father-focused, Welfare Reform-based, HHS-grants (and contracts-) supported landscape

a few logical questions come to mind (they certainly have for me):

~>At what point should the also vast (but less extensive and well-funded) “domestic violence network” (USA) [See Roadmap on my Feb. 2018 page, and prior posts on it] completely lose credibility for not examining the connections between federally-funded “fatherhood.gov” and outcomes in the family court venues?

~>Does this domestic violence network in fact exist instead to distract us from that reality with false assurances [or hope] of safety nationwide? BOTH networks are federally and privately funded. Nor is the coverup unique to either political party.

~>Why should we even continue to listen in on the scholarly debates or expect /hope for good things to come out of this level of systemic (“you don’t really need to know about federally-funded fatherhood, the AFCC and other interconnected private [conflicts-of-interest] personal interests in keeping the conflict going…”) coverup?

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 12, 2020 at 6:01 pm

Despite Truly Funky Tax Returns, HHS Remains Loyal (2010-2015) to One Faith-Based (under Two Diff’t EIN#s, ONE of which the IRS acknowledges#) in Stone Mountain–or is it Conyers?– Georgia

leave a comment »

#”…IRS acknowledges” in the title refers to being qualified to accept tax-deductible contributions, explained below, right underneath the tax return tables showing those two different EIN#’s.  As this business entity (or is it two entities?) is mostly government-funded anyhow, it’s kind of a moot point.  Still, having HHS describe this on its grants database as ONE organization which suddenly (2015) changes its EIN# — and leadership — and type of formation (Private Foundation / Public Charity) — and leadership — and location (without checking “New Address”) is a little disconcerting.

This post sprang (so to speak, actually it was extracted by me and didn’t move on its own) out of one dated May 2, 2016 and which I eventually posted as “Red Herring Alert’s “Conversation with Dakota County Commissioner/HMRF funds,” and about those funds…

Post-publication post update:  Based on some of these findings, I added a PAGE (to right sidebar) on May 14, 2016, called HHS Grantees, Just Georgia, Just HMRF (CFDA 93086), May 13, 2016, Report Run.  Take a look! Will also be posting to publicize that page later today.  The Page displays grants tables; they take long to compile and have a lot to say, I didn’t want this information disappearing beneath a succession of posts, but to be visible on the sidebar. Georgia is “Below the Bible Belt” and “Faith-Based” goes over well, obviously.  It also has among the larger Violence-Prevention grantees, a “Criminal Justice Coordinating Council” which I believe bears more looking into.

The Page also demonstrates beyond argument the relative size of HMRF versus “Violence Prevention” grants — and that State agencies are getting both types (!!).  While the Page doesn’t discuss this (due to size limits), I also noticed again “University of Georgia Research Foundation” who I’d noticed years earlier running the social science R&D programming, including targeting African-American families, and using “PREP,” i.e., a curriculum developed by professors at the University of Denver and also heavily promoted within the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” which, famously around the turn of this century, and under a Catholic Governor (Frank Keating) and religious protestant evangelical high up in the state-level “HHS” responsibility, “Jerry Regier.”  In that scenario, a public relations firm received a real helping-hand for managing the resulting “Healthy Marriage Resource Center” (also propped up by HHS grants).

As a sample, obviously “FBO” (“Faith-based Organization,”), I took a look at this organization, as it says below, and could only say,

Oh my goodness, this organization (website “WWW.MTCIGA.ORG” per the 2014 return, …) is “something else…”

This draft began on May 2, 2016.  I’ve published three others since, and am currently studying and about to continue posting on some of the Focus on the Family Statewide Policy (501©4) and Family (501©3) organizations.  This MTCIGA has shown up to be either part of this circle, or closely associated with it.

That is a large topic.  There will be more than one post, I have not finished getting some outstanding questions answered, and may not, but what I do have to show is enough to raise red flags on WHY groups which fill out tax returns in some crazy-ass ways, and then have executive directors forming some of the curricula they are promoting — but said curriculum nonprofit doesn’t stay incorporated — and a number of other simply “funky” behaviors should say, WHERE’s HHS Accountability in all this?  Do they give a damn?

  • Check out TAGGS.hhs.gov report of “93010” CBAE (Community Based Abstinence Education) Grantees in Georgia; this is one.  Any column title can be sorted by clicking on it, active links are also clickable; which for any organization should show what other types of grants they may have gotten.  Only 25 results per page show — suggest try different sorts, including the Sum of Awards ($$, rightmost) column to see largest versus smallest amounts.   Notice the variety of types of organizations which obtained abstinence education grants. For example, in addition to what would appear to be other FBOs (“Crowned for Victory,” “Metro Atlanta Youth for Christ, Inc.” — looks like several million dollars, etc.) there is a Housing Authority, a Board of Education, a “Wholistic (sic) Stress Control Institute” called a “Research Institution, Foundation and Laboratory” (also drawing funds for Teenage Pregnancy Prevention, Drug-Free Communities, Preventing HIV/SA, etc.)

Wholistic Stress Control Institute (not the topic of this post) I notice in passing and is also “something else” in similar ways…although rather more on the “new age” spirituality than conservative Christian side, Apparently.

[“Wholistic Stress Institute” section marked by light-blue background and “Arial Narrow” font. Below that, more discussion on the “Faith-Based Organization” referenced in post title.]

The name of its Abstinence Education Award:  “THE GOAL OF THE 2 HYPE “A” CLUB IS TO TEACH AN ABSTINENCE EDUCATION TO 300 AFRICAN AMERICAN YOUTH (12-18) IN METRO ATLANTA”Basic search for HHS grants from this organization (Not its only stated source of gov’t grants, though) — click here to see it’s about $6.0M, that is, those recorded on TAGGs database which only goes back to 1991 (mostly about 1995) -for an organization formed in 1988.  The DUNS identifier is “620828681” if you want to do other searches:

I plunked down this new (to me) section near the top of this post not actually about this group.

Wholistic Stress Control Institute GA 2014 990 23 $367,459.00 58-1786170
Wholistic Stress Control Institute GA 2013 990 27 $344,171.00 58-1786170
Wholistic Stress Control Institute GA 2012 990 27 $268,068.00 58-1786170

YearEnd 2014 – Page 2 (Program Service Accomplishments) for some reason is blacked out.

YearEnd 2013 — brief description provided on page 2 shows that they have confused grants distributed with grants received.  And, as Part I (Summary) and Part VIII (Revenues) also show — the majority, in fact nearly all, grants received are government grants.  This organization does not provide enough program service revenues to survive off the government dole — and having been founded in 1988, they have not yet, apparently, figured out the difference (despite the IRS form explaining this on Page 1, and Page 2) between money they RECEIVED and money they Re-DISTRIBUTE to others, which was, none.  They also failed to identify on details (Pt. III page 3) what would certainly appear (Part VIII, Line 2) as revenues, but DID on Summary, Pt. I, Line 6

They are not redistributing anything to others; their charitable services seems to consist of programmings run, mostly for nothing, but some fees (See Part VIII) are being charged, as “Program Service Revenues” it says.  However in Year End 2011, this amount was $103K — but not shown on Part III at all)…

From “Wholistic Stress Institute,” Fiscal Yr. 2012 Form 990 (middle row above), Page 2, Part III:

4a (Code: )(Expenses $ 934, 565. including grants of $ 934, 565. )(Revenue $ 0. )


There are no grants distributed. There were, however, some (minimal, but some) Program service revenues, which are not showing up here (compare to Part VIII).   The grants shown, that year, were a total of $944K, and are organization revenues, not organization expenses.

That yellow quote above is a transcription, verbatim of the only description in this section of “Program Service Accomplishments.”

It obviously is not a description of what they did that year, but of a mission statement.  It also, notably — has obvious errors in:  spelling (“varity”), grammar/usage [“a varity of …education.” The word “variety” followed by “of” should refer to a plural, not singular noun.  What they probably mean — and what the website makes it clear they are offering –is classes.  Plural.], and punctuation [in a list of only four items, they begin with a comma, then add a semi-colon preceded by a space.  Commas would do just fine there].  The single paragraph as a short description lacks any identifiable detail traceable to the organization (such as names of classes offered — this would be the typical place to list them on a tax return].  It’s a failure to name things, i.e., in labeling. 
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: