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 ‘Wingspread Conference on Domestic Violence and Family Courts (2007)

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

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

Smoking Cessation/Tobacco Control Litigation I See Is By Design Guaranteed, (Like Domestic Violence Prevention and Services) To Continue Incessantly. Meanwhile, a Wide Swath of Northern California Is Smoke-Filled and Lit Up, But Not by Tobacco. (October Local News and Blog Updates)

leave a comment »

__

Smoking Cessation/Tobacco Control Litigation I See Is By Design Guaranteed, (Like Domestic Violence Prevention and Services) To Continue Incessantly. Meanwhile, a Wide Swath of Northern Cali fornia Is Smoke-Filled and Lit Up, But Not by Tobacco. (October Local News and Blog Updates) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7Lp”)


Post Technicalities: Tags may be added later. After over a week reviewing and supplementing this post, I’ve decided to “punt” (publish). It MIGHT also be split later, but the sections on exploring national DV networking over the years (from key organizations’ narratives) and “Health as an Asset,” an academy (“ABIS”) globally networking under the “Chatham House Rule” (basically, anonymity)(which brings the topic to the RIIA / Royal Institute of International Affairs in London and its historic intentions, as expressed in its founding documents) towards the bottom, which has a sequel, actually belong together. And this still IS “Domestic Violence Awareness Month,” for what that’s worth, in the USA..so I took a closer look at how certain organizations like to collaborate for a unified voice, and consequences of that collaboration, down the road a few decades….//LGH, Oct. 20, 2017


Or, you could call this “October Local & Posts-in-the-Pipeline Update” which is how it started out, attached to another post started earlier I’d hoped to publish with just a brief update.

As my About Holidays / Personal Backdrop” (posted Oct. 10)** says, I took a brief, about half-month, pause while handling (different kind of writing required) personal things and am now catching up on some of the posts already in the “pipeline” referencing, basically and most recently the themes of (a) Big Tobacco Litigation/Smoking Cessation Control (Public policy) Efforts and (b) The Problems with Problem-solving Courts (“Collaborative Justice”), which includes the development and implementation nationwide of family courts, too.  [** after next few reminder images…]


I wrote about an East Coast/West Coast connection involving one government sub-sector (Administrative Office of the Courts, under the Judicial Council of California, the ruling body of the Judicial Branch in the state) with an improperly named non-entity (it’s not its own legal business OR government entity) — the “Center for Court Innovation” in New York.  You will not find it registered under that name on CharitiesNYS.com or Business Entity search, and so far as I know, it’s not a trade name of some registered entity — because the EIN# associated with it, generally speaking, belongs to a private foundation, “Fund for the City of New York.”

Four logos show sponsorship (not membership) of the Executive Session for State Court Leaders” (click image to enlarge, for fine-print commentary) as I recall. Only 1 logo represents part of government (BJA is under the USDOJ) directly; the other 3 (including Harvard) count as “tax-exempt, privately controlled entities” even though the NCSC Board will have public officials on it. 

I talked about how organizations like the NCSC got involved and discovered yet two more (subsequent to “The California Story” published in 2005) 501©3s promoting the same “collaborative justice” concept, keying off the concept of drug courts:

Fund for City of New York is one-half (the Private) half of the Public/Private (agreement, project, collaboration — whoever it’s defined) comprising the “Center for Court Innovation”. Look at the affiliations of the Board members — former NY Attorney General, Designer of the World Trade Center, Adm. Judge of the City of NY…!

(There’s also a foundation to go with this one).

**(The rest of that title, the same link as just given above: “….Speaking Personally (Personal Backdrop to Post-PRWORA Social Policy towards Women Who ~Just Say No!~ to Abuse and Proceed in Misplaced Belief They can actually Exit it) [started Sept. 18, Publ. Oct. 9, 2017, see also Collaborative Justice post/page].”(ends “-7AD”)

The other “Collaborative Justice” non-profit showing clear judicial membership and sponsorship, as well as an MSW involved in “Children and Family Futures.”  I won’t say more on that in this post, just pointing out that the process seems never-ending:

CCJCF-related, image series labeled: “Search for CCJCF President turned up EARLY Annual Rpt (Final Draft) WITH EIN# attached and its Significant Others (Judge Lynn Duryees, Peggy Hora)”

[Image may be added here post-publication, can’t locate a certain annotated one just now. It may be on the bottom of the related page]

One post in the pipeline taken from part (b) above again (“Governance, the Final Frontier,” now in draft, full title further below) reminded me of how early (how long ago) I’d realized that the “powers that be” within the domestic violence field obtained, and maintained, control over the field with an agenda to “therapize” the nation’s language of crime and consequences under the health, social science, and behavioral modification treatment [“therapeutic jurisprudence” and other concepts] paradigm — while still claiming to be tough on crime and domestic violence. And that one of the ways of doing this to mimic popular, grassroots demand from multiple seemingly diverse platforms (organizations) was having already-established tax-exempt foundations first internally sponsor projects, then spin off the projects off into more 501©3s (nonprofits) which, while the names may be new, the world view, personnel, response to the problems and practice of letting philanthropists run government or organize with intent to run it, is not. In other words, by setting up interconnected nonprofits collectively run by people of, except perhaps subject/topic focus area, the same general persuasion, having been so persuaded possibly in part because alternate viewpoints or alternate solutions to the problem were out-funded, and out-maneuvered.    

[Phrases above in this color were added long after the original paragraph; it this is too much overexplaining, read around them.]


Both this post and the one whose title shows next, linked from the “Collaborative Justice/Problem-solving Courts” page, should be published today, Oct. 20, 2017, or within 48 hours of each other.  (That “today” date kept getting moved back as I continued adding to the top part of this post!) The one you’re reading now will be published first.

I’ll repeat that link near the bottom of this post.


VERY early on, assumptions about WHICH are the KEY POINTS IN (foundational to) any new field or regime (for the DV field, that treatments and interventions, such as batterers’ intervention, or supervised visitation, mandatory mediation, parent education, etc.) become foundational, basic for that new field or regime’s claims to even BEING a field of practice or a new profession or area of professional practice (example:  “fatherhood” or “domestic violence PREVENTION”). Assumptions and omissions of relevant information which might speak against that selection of points get “baked-into the infrastructure and system” (including to its literature and downloadable curricula, webinars, etc.) as entrenched positions, and continually a part of whatever solution is chosen.

This proprietary, linguistic control makes later protest by people harmed by such policies, even if among the classes the policies are allegedly representing in the first place — for example, survivors of domestic violence, and/or child abuse who, with full information up front might have made different choices in picking their court battles, or how and how hard to fight back once they were dragged into one — an even heavier burden and uphill battle.  The public is fed information leading (or at least encouraging) readers/viewers to believe (until personally involved) that “the experts are on it,” so where there’s evidence to the contrary, maybe it was just the family’s problem, or one of the family members.’  Or a rogue judge, or a local problem..

After all, don’t we hear about domestic violence on TV shows, sometimes in a movie, in ads, and after headlines involving recent roadkill, perhaps from experts on one of the major organizations’ comments?

A SHORT SECTION ON THIS, FOLLOWED BY MORE ON THE NETWORKS:

Who can even find the long-standing/oft-quoted SF Domestic Violence Consortium?  What does its spokesperson do for a living? Take tax-free donations (It’s not an incorporated entity, but its “Executive Director” maintains apparently a speed-dial on some local news media with each new domestic violence vitality — year after year — or otherwise disaster that has potential for making national news too.

Looking at this one, I also took a quick re-view of California’s registered and still active known major DV organizations, including (but not posted here) the “NNEDV.”  I also added a section in which one of the networked entities did us (belatedly) a courtesy summary of the networks themselves, nationally, that is. Recommendation?  Pretend this is a conversation, and just deal with its about 15,000 words as they come up.  When you see a new section coming up, so be it, and remember that some of the material that inspired a post may (in my writing style) still end up closer to the bottom, while what’s in between is, to say the least, “illuminating.”….
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 20, 2017 at 7:47 pm

Posted in Checking Out a Nonprofit (HowTo), Domestic Violence vs Family Law, Fatal Assumptions, Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood (cat added 11/2011), Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Train-the-Trainers Technical Assistance Grantees, warfare: strategic, Where (and why) DV Prevention meets Fatherhood Promotion

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

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]

with 3 comments

Post Title with shortlink and enclosed comments added June, 2019. Post written eight years earlier.

(This post came up in a search and I needed to add a “Read-More” link anyway).

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]  [WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link here ends in just two characters, probably because it’s so early in this blog:  “-K7”].  As first published, about 10,800 words, incl. any & all quotes, image captions, tables, etc. //LGH June 23, 2019


On review of this post, I see that perhaps the final ⅓ is quoting (at length) three sources on Irish Slavery, including “Tangled Roots’ “Barbadosed: Africans and Irish in Barbados” from GLC.Yale.Edu, a center originally inspired when businessmen/history buffs G&L heard lectures by a Yale history professor David Brion Davis, who I now see just died this past April after a long, productive life:”Prizewinning Historian of Slavery Dies at 92” NYT April, 2019.

Professor Davis wrote or edited 16 books, but paramount were the three that examined the moral challenges and contradictions of slavery and their centrality in American and Atlantic history. ~~|~~The first, “The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture” (1966), won a Pulitzer Prize and was a National Book Award finalist. The second, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823” (1975), won the National Book Award as well as the Bancroft Prize, one of the most prestigious in the study of American history. ~~|~~The last book of the trilogy, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation,” was published in 2014 as Professor Davis approached 90. It won the National Book Critics Circle Award…~~|~~President Barack Obama presented Professor Davis with a National Humanities Medal in 2014 for “reshaping our understanding of history,” as the citation said. ~~|~~The fundamental problem of slavery, Professor Davis wrote, “lay not in its cruelty or exploitation, but in the underlying conception of man as a conveyable possession with no more autonomy of will and consciousness than a domestic animal.”                                                          [ “~~|~~” = para. break omitted]


I was (and still am) pretty irritated at the exclusionary practices of the above-named groups in deciding how to solve “family” problems involving abuse; see concluding paragraph.  And there are many parallels between abuse and slavery.


Understandably, this torrent of text with missing paragraph breaks can be very irritating to read.  But for those who do read, or skim, I believe I have made the point that AFCC members flock together, consult together, and set policy together.  Generally speaking any policy that comes out will  somehow, somewhere, contain the words “Parental Alienation” “High-Conflict” and  usually to go with it, “treatment” or “solutions” etc.

The solution is generally going to require counseling or the services of a psychologist, counselor, mediator, psychiatrist, therapist or other mental health expert.

  • First, positioning member (this is long done, and ongoing) high in government, particularly in the court system.
  • Programs are pretty much pushed from the Top Down while proclaiming they are actually grassroots demand . . . .
  • Running conferences — all over the place, but noticeably in real nice places that most of the people they are talking about (in the conferences, i.e., parents) have little chance of reaching (or affording hotel & airfare for)– such as Honolulu, with an after-trip to Cuba, or other cool places.  As well as the Contiguous US conference circuit, ongoing.
  • Pushing the services of psychologists and psychiatrists, including Ph.D.s in the same to remedy the majority of life’s problems.
  • This of course is easier to push when you also have judges in the mix willing to sign a few court orders forcing treatment.
PsyD Ph.D.+ JD = AFCC tactical lobbying unit.  
  • Taking advantage of Federal Grants and teaching membership how to do the same, whether from HHS or DOJ.
  • Strategically forming nonprofit corporations to contract, or subcontract with whatever the grants are for.
  • Skillful involvement of Child Support Service (OCSE) weaponry** to target participants in certain programs, like parental education, in particular.
  • Co-opting the Battered Women’s Movement and diluting it through “collaboration.”  (HHS grants system helps motivate this behavior).  For example, when Battered Women’s Justice Project combines with Association of Family & Conciliation Courts to study the problems with Custody.
(I have to pause to post this one, just for the sheer joy of the language and the confidence it inspires in me, personally, to know that it’s a Canadian sociologist ethnographer who is going to be heavily involved in a projected funded by US Taxpayers about significant problems they have encountered with criminal behavior (battering) and the failure of the LEGAL system to address this.  When in doubt, call in a sociologist, right?):

CUSTODY PROJECT

Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

BWJP and its project partner, Praxis International, are expanding recent multidisciplinary efforts to more effectively protect the safety and wellbeing of children and their parents in the family court system by crafting a more practical framework for identifying, understanding and accounting for the contexts and implications of domestic violence in custody arrangements and parenting plans.

Read that one aloud nonstop, three times (one quick breath only per time) and try to deduce the meaning.   Separate and examine each phrase and try to locate in time & space, and clearly label what they are referring to.

BWJP and Praxis staff  have formed a National Workgroup with representatives from the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (NCJFCJ) and theAssociation of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC).  In consultation with leading researchers and practitioners, they have begun to examine the institutional processes by which family courts commonly reach and/or facilitate crucial parenting decisions, including the use of auxiliary advisors such as custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and court appointed special advocates.  The intent is to identify the ways in which current institutional practices produce both problematic and helpful results for children and their parents. 

The goal of this analysis, which draws heavily from the Praxis Audit Process of institutional ethnography, is to develop concrete recommendations for producing safer, healthier outcomes for children and their battered and battering parents.**

Commentary:

Yes — rather than, say, accountability, let’s go for making sure the battering parents as well as the parents and children battered are safe.   This is equally important, right?, to protecting both perpetrators and their victims, whether the other parent, or children.

Since when did the safety of a person who beats on or abuses another person rise in equality to the safety of the person attacked?  Does this happen throughout the criminal law system as well?  Is battering no longer a criminal matter, but a “family” matter?  After all, the name of BWJP is “Battered Womens Justice Project.”

Any project to “produce an outcome” should be most concerned about the processes involved to get there — which is where the “Justice” part supposedly enters in!

TO figure out how to do this, assemble experts from BWJP — a group that has so far not reported (at all) on the AFCC– and the AFCC, and another family court oriented group, NCJFCJ.

AFCC judicial members and others are notorious for switching custody to batterers on the basis of parental alienation, a theory derivative of some incest-friendly psychologists (Gardner et al.) and promoted by an organization founded by them.  This sad/bad custody-switching habit spawned by AFCC (it wasn’t battering; it was parental alienation, and your mind needs adjustment, Mom; GREAT idea. . . .) has itself spawned another set of nonprofit groups who like to complain about it (but not address AFCC’s role or the fatherhood grants system’s role, or for that matter, the role of the child support system in funding the operation).

There already IS a framework — and these organizations are IT!  So the same organizations are going to “frame” (or rather REframe) the problems they have helped create?  — AFCC, as a primary agent, and BWJP at this point, I’ll have to call a decoy.   Who, really is being “framed” here?

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: