How Much Mileage Can DV Advocates get out of the press on San Francisco’s Ross Mirkarimi/Eliana Lopez case?

This has been headline news for how long?  It definitely brings up mixed feelings on my part — knowing how many women are receiving far more severe battery, false imprisonment, endangering children and intimidating witnesses throughout the Bay Area, and have been for years — many years.  While each time there is some press, someone from one of the organizations gets quoted.

March 31, 2012, last Saturday, Section “C,”* an article laid out at top of the page, full width, and by Columnist C.W. Nevius), reads:

(*Bay Area section of the SF Chronicle)

“Wife’s anger misdirected in Mirkarimi case.”

Eliana Lopez is furious at the way her domestic violence dispute with her husband, suspended Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, has been handled.

Too bad. Because the process worked perfectly.

Was it messy and painful? Absolutely. But it is also important and worthwhile.

This week, Myrna Melgar, a survivor of domestic violence,**  wrote a passionate account – with Lopez’s blessing – of her friend’s devastation and anger in how the case was handled. While the opinion piece in the Bay Guardian had some fascinating details, it missed the main point.

Neither Lopez nor Mirkarimi seems able to get beyond the anger toward neighbor Ivory Madison, who called attention to the alleged abuse and then provided the damning video of Lopez crying and pointing to a bruise.

Melgar wrote that the process empowers people “to make decisions on this woman’s behalf, against her consistent and fervently expressed wishes.”

That’s right. It does. And that’s what it should do.

“This is why domestic violence advocates have been seen as evildoers,” said Kathy Black, executive director of La Casa de las Madres. “They say we are breaking up families. The helper becomes the one who is blamed.”
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BANI1NSJ36.DTL#ixzz1quHv5VFi

**not sure this is the same “Myrna Melgar, just included the LinkedIn profile which shows her professional/civic leadership in the area.  It probably is)

This is the Bay Guardian article, and it seems well written enough.  I’m glad someone filled in a few of these details, including a factor that until 5 Mr. Mirkarimi was raised in a bi-cultural family (Russian Jewish mother/ Iranian Muslim father), and then was separated from his father.  There seems to be a sense of father-absence here:

(The bulk of my post is addressing topics raised in this article, particularly a certain reference to a Canadian sociologist for insight into this Californian incident).

Guardian Op-Ed: Domestic violence, a Latina feminist perspective

03.27.12 – 3:01 pm |

(255)

• 

Share1069

By Myrna Melgar

Myrna Melgar is a Latina survivor of childhood domestic violence, a feminist, and the mother of three girls. She is a former legislative aide to Sup. Eric Mar.

Eliana Lopez is my friend. I have asked for her permission to put into words, in English, some observations, thoughts and insights reached during our many conversations these past few weeks about her experience with San Francisco’s response to the allegation of domestic violence by her husband, Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi  . . .  (Please read the article).

. . .According to Eliana, the context of what happened between them on December 31 actually started much earlier. Ross grew up as the only son of a single teenage mother of Russian Jewish descent and an absent Iranian immigrant father. Pressured by the opposition of her family to her relationship with an Iranian Muslim, Ross’s mother divorced his father by the time he was five. Ross was raised on a small, nearly all-white island in New England, with no connection to his father. When he had the opportunity, Ross traveled to Chicago, where his father had remarried and built a new family with two sons. Ross’s father turned him away. In Eliana’s analysis, Ross’s greatest fear is that his painful story with his father will be replayed again with Theo.

I can just see the fathers’ rights groups (which are mens’ rights groups) spinning this one to blame Mr. Mirkarimi’s abuse of his wife on his lack of a father (and not perhaps some of the standards that might have been learned in the first five years of his life, or anything else).

Eliana Lopez came to San Francisco from Venezuela with hope in her head and love in her heart. She decided to leave behind her beautiful city of Caracas, a successful career as an actress, and her family and friends, following the dream of creating a family and a life with a man she had fallen in love with but barely knew, Ross Mirkarimi.

Whirlwind romance, charmer?  Another article (reporting on this one) adds:

Friend of Mirkarimi’s wife: family ‘destroyed‘ Heather Knight Thursday, March 29, 2012

Melgar’s piece describes how Lopez came to San Francisco after she and then-Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi became pregnant on one of his visits to her native Venezuela

(He got his girlfriend knocked up in the course of leisure? or business?  Not mentioned — were they married at the time?

(Michael Macor/The Chronicle)

Eliana Lopez, wife of San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi, speaks to the news media about the three misdemeanor charges against her husband, on Friday Jan. 13, 2012, in San Francisco, Ca

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/28/BAS31NRKL3.DTL#ixzz1qv1dHpDm

Bay Guardian Op-Ed, cont’d.:

Well-educated, progressive, charismatic, and artistic, she made friends easily. She and Ross seemed like a great match. Both were committed environmentalists, articulate and successful. They had a son, Theo. {{see above…}} As they settled into domestic life, however, problems began to surface. The notoriously workaholic politician did not find his family role an easy fit. A bachelor into his late forties, Ross had trouble with the quiet demands of playing a puzzle on the floor with his toddler or having an agenda-less breakfast with his wife. Ross would not make time for Eliana’s request for marriage counseling, blaming the demands of job and campaign.

Now, about prosecuting the low-level domestic violence against the wife’s wishes:

How did it come to be that a system that was intended to empower women has evolved into a system that disempowers them so completely?

I don’t know Ms. Melgar’s life story (or whether she’s currently married — sounds like not).  However, there are TWO ways the District Attorney’s Office can disempower women — if this is correct, prosecuting against the woman’s wishes when it’s supposedly a “minor” event.  Or (and this was my situation and MANY other women’s) NOT prosecuting them despite severe domestic violence, when prosecuting them  might save a life, or save ongoing destruction of life.  See

And in this politically charged event — MADE TO ORDER for anyone who didn’t want Mirkarimi’s Progressive Politics disrupting the city (notice — nothing to do with domestic violence in that phrase) — because the events had some validity.

INTERJECTION — information from Purpleberets.org — and the topic is well-covered at the Sonoma County (Northern CA, not too far from SF) “Women’s Justice Center.”  This is talking about much, MUCH more severe cases where DA refused to prosecute.   (And if you know my blog, the case underlying it — and which eventually led to my blogging habit — was when district attorneys in TWO Counties refused to stop a child-stealing in action, or to prosecute it — ever.  The general practice over a number of years (by law enforcement, specifically — I’m talking police in a number of cities, county sheriffs in more than one, and the district attorney’s office.  As it turns out later, the person in charge of the “Alameda County Family Justice Center” (a hybrid creation by DA’s office and others modeled on San Diego’s one which came out of the City Attorneys’ Office — I’ve blogged this plenty elsewhere), Ms. Nadia Lockyer, then went on to win the position of County Supervisor (with help of a $1 million campaign funding and  very, very, very  well connected spouse 30 years her senior) — had a substance abuse problem, started an affair with someone (closer to her age) she met in rehab — himself getting off ‘meth’ — and had an incident requiring 911 assistance in a Newark (California) motel early a.m.   This is the Bay Area leadership . . . . . it’s typically about politics and careers — and NOT about preventing violence against women and services to them.  In the larger scope.

So, re: the immense power of the District Attorney’s Office: Written, I believe, around the year 2000:

California Passes Tough New Domestic Violence Laws — by Maria DeSantis, director Women’s Justice Center

In effect since January 1, 2000, a patchwork of new California domestic violence laws is already providing added help for domestic violence victims. The laws, however, still leave untouched some of the biggest obstacles victims face. . . . . District Attorney Power Still Unfettered A critical area for victims of rape, domestic violence, and child abuse that has been left ignored by legislators this year and in years past is the district attorney’s absolute power to refuse to file charges no matter how solid the evidence. Even if a district attorney refuses to file charges on a whole crime category, there is no legal remedy for victims. This unrestricted prosecutorial discretion is particularly dangerous for women in Sonoma County where D.A. Mike Mullins’ rate of conviction on domestic violence is one of the lowest in the state, and where he systematically under-charges cases of violence against women and children. For example, at this writing, we at Women’s Justice Center have a case of three days of spousal rape, sodomy and beatings which the district attorney has filed only as misdemeanor domestic violence. The detective in the case states there is ample evidence to file multiple felonies. In another case of a woman beaten to the point of a fractured skull, the D. A. refused to file at all for five months until one day the perpetrator went out and committed another assault with a deadly weapon on another victim. In yet another case of spousal rape, the district attorney and Cloverdale Police have been fighting for six months over who should pay for translating key evidence. Sadly, those are just a few of many examples. Not only are all women put in direct and great danger by the absence of any legislative check on the district attorney’s denial of justice to women, but the D.A.’s refusal to file proper charges on these cases also suffocates and discourages police efforts. We need to work with our legislators to give them the fortitude to put restrictions on district attorney discretion now. (For Spanish translation of this and other violence against women information, see the WJC website:www.justicewomen.com )

© Marie De Santis Women’s Justice Center

You can copy and distribute this information at will if you include credit and don’t edit.

Back to Myrna Melgar’s article, minimizing the incident:

Unquestionably, there are women in deeply abusive relationships who need assistance getting out, who may not be able to initiate an escape on their own. Eliana’s relationship with Ross did not even come close to that standard.

It seems Myrna is oblivious to the fact that, through the family court, if Eliana did decide (later) to go to Venezuela without her husband’s assent, he could — in a moment, and don’t think such a person is unaware of this — charge her (or find someone to charge her) with parental kidnapping, put an arrest warrant out for her, and in the meantime get practically ANY family law judge in San Francisco — unless they had a personal grudge or other political reason to not do this — to switch sole custody to him, demand some sort or extradition, and/or have her thrown in jail if she came back to work things out.  And don’t think that this isn’t a possibility.  Maybe they would’ve worked it out — or maybe not.  But one thing’s for sure — I read a LOT of material put out by domestic violence groups, and have networked with hundreds, literally, of mothers over the years, and most of them were completely ambushed by the concept that appealing to domestic violence laws to protect themselves and kids, even if they were IN a battered womens’ shelter — was no shield at all for later transfer of their children to their abusers.  This is literally a third line of advocacy, now — “protective parents.”  So, while it did not NOW rise to that abusive level, it certainly could’ve later.

Yet in the eyes of Ivory Madison, Phil Bronstein, District Attorney George Gascon, and even the Director of La Casa de las Madres, once her husband had grabbed her arm, Eliana was simply no longer competent and her wishes were irrelevant.

In other words, an action done by a man, over which a woman has no control whatsoever, renders the woman incompetent and irrelevant, and empowers a long list of people — most of whom are male — to make decisions on this woman’s behalf, against her consistent and fervently expressed wishes. No one in the entire chain of people who made decisions on Eliana’s behalf offered her any help — besides prosecuting her husband

 How ironic — because it is literally true, and how I WISH someone would’ve intervened in this manner during the abusive years, while our kids were growing up, in a Bay Area County.   The most dangerous place for ME to be in that county was in my home, which was one reason I became an excellent networker and made sure to get those children into a variety of activities (“healthy,” they’d be called now) in nonabusive environments and connected with other kids their age and families, too.   Police came after incidents more violent than this one (I think — I wasn’t a witness to Eliana’s case) and didn’t arrest — ever.  So they left, and the violence continued, until finally I got out, before the “fatherhood”movement was in full swing — although it was definitly operational and almost prevented me from getting a restraining order at the time.  I hadn’t been assaulted recently enough (in part, because over time one learns how to avert, avoid, dodge and diffuse situations, i.e., live like a near-fugitive in one’s own home).  This man NEVER spent a night in jail on my behalf — but it’s quite likely that if he had, earlier on, he might have woken up and mended his ways.  Maybe.

My kids and I will never know, because no officer ever arrested him.  And now that he’s been very well informed that there will be NO prosecution beyond the initial restraining order with kickout type of even (apparently the DV organizations’ funding is tied to some sort of head count on “clients served”??) — my and my kids’ lives afterwards — though there was a noticeable improvement — no one could assault me IN my house — there has been stalking, serious, harassment around (times right before and right after) my work, repeated job losses surrounding this, and long-term litigation in the family law system, which utterly drained my resources, and finally stolen, then abandoned by their father, children.

So in light of that, I am in favor of more aggressive early intervention — although it’s not quite cldear to me how to label this high-profile case, except it highlights the hypocrisy of who is, and who is not, prosecuted.

Consider, however, if there’d been a subsequent argument around the same issue after Mirkarimi had been installed as sheriff and was still in that role.  How endangered might Eliana be at that time?  I have, literally, taken a phone call from a terrified women form a (DV) support group who had just learned that her (police officer) husband had been released.  She was headed off to a shelter.  Yes, law enforcement can be abusive –and plenty abusive.

From the same article, I want to address these two paragraphs, by Eliana’s friend Ms. Melgar, which make me wonder about her other professional connections in the area:

So here is the challenge to domestic violence advocates and progressive folks who care about women: A more progressive approach to Eliana and Ross’s particular situation, and to domestic violence in general, would be to work on emphasizing early, non-law enforcement intervention and the prevention of violence against women in addition to the necessary work of extricating women from dangerous situations

I.e., she is 100% unaware of one of the largest groups in the nation doing EXACTLY this — and based in San Francisco?  (the Family Violence Prevention Fund, formerly) — and yet has this Op-Ed in the Bay Guardian, a well-respected (progressive) publication?

Professor Laureen Snider at Queens University in Ontario has argued that criminalization is a flawed strategy for dealing with violence against women.

So what? if this person argued so?  And the one anecdote (ms. Melgar’s own life) which would indicate the re-socialization of men (in particular) to not assault family members actually worked in her case.  Perhaps along with the education cited in her case, her father was also aware that criminalization would get them all deported, and that was a factor in his change?   Meanwhile, in this particular area alone (and California, even moreso) we have ample evidence that this policy is a failure — women are still being shot, attacked, stabbed, beaten, burned, stalked, and sometimes put homeless — and what’s more, bystanders are now getting increasingly shot in the process too.  Seal Beach, California.  This has happened, moreover, around the arena of the family law and custody matters, and AFTER separation from violence!!

For the record, we are in the USA, and not Canada, and under a different system of law?  Got it?  They don’t have the Bill of Rights, to my understanding.  They have closer ties (i THINK – am beginning to wonder) to a country with a monarch!  And Dr. (Ph.D.) Snider is a sociologist.  Why would this writer bring in this viewpoint – are there no adequate viewpoints on this matter of an inbound sheriff violating domestic violence laws in the USA?

Laureen Snider

Department of Sociology, Queen’s University, Canada

Laureen Snider, a Professor of Sociology at Queen’s University, has published numerous studies on corporate crime, regulation and governance including Bad Business: Corporate Crime in Canada (Nelson: 1993) and Corporate Crime: Contemporary Debates (University of Toronto Press, 1995, co-edited with Dr. Frank Pearce). Her present research centres on the asymmetries of surveillance, comparing the monitoring of employees versus that of employers (“theft of time”); and the surveillance capabilities of traditional police forces against traditional criminality (“crime in the streets”, versus those of regulatory agencies against corporate criminality (“crime in the suites”). Recent publications include: “But They’re Not Real Criminals”: Downsizing Corporate Crime” (in B. Schissel & C. Brooks, eds., Critical Criminology in Canada . Halifax: Fernwood, 2008: 263-86); “Economic Crimes”, (in J. Minkes and L. Minkes, eds.,Corporate and White-Collar Crime. London: Sage, 2008: 39-60), “Safety Through Punishment?”, (in M. Beare, ed., Honouring Social Justice, Honouring Dianne Martin. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2008) and “Accommodating Power: The “Common Sense” of Regulators”, Social and Legal Studies 18(2), 2008 (forthcoming).

Faculty website: http://www.queensu.ca/sociology/?q=people/faculty/full-time/sniderl

Queens University, Ontario, Canada, is also a known hangout of some serious AFCC propaganda — In looking up Ms. Snider (who may or may not be involved in such things), the same brochure has a large inset designed to honoring Nicholas Bala (search my blog) in association with AFCC.  He is a definite supporter of PAS theory — i.e., minimizing child & wife abuse, or reframing it as NOT a criminal, but a “relationship” issue, as much as possible.  “Coincidentally” the international organization AFCC has a wide membership among relationship counselors and another psychological sorts, plus a clos connection to the fathers’ rights (= mens’ rights) movement in general, no matter what they “say” about how it’s all about the children…

http://law.queensu.ca/alumni/queensLawReports/lawReports2008.pdf  Here he is in this brochure, being honored (photo visible at the link):

Professor Nicholas Bala is introduced as the recipient of the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award by Bill Howe, a board member of the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts, at its 45th Annual Conference in Vancouver on May 29, 2008.

BALA RECOGNIZED FOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO FAMILY AND DIVORCE LAW

On May 29, 2008, Bala received the Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award from the Association of Family and Conciliatory Courts (AFCC) in recognition of his outstanding work in family and divorce law. “I am deeply honoured by this recognition,” Bala said, “particularly in light of noteworthy contributions from previous winners.”

Bala became the first Canadian to win the award from the AFCC, an international organization of professionals involved in the family court system striving to empower families and promote healthier futures for children. Most of the award’s previous recipients were leading American researchers in the mental health field, including such scholars as Sanford Braver, Joan Kelly and Janet Johnston, whose work focused primarily on the effects of divorce on parents and children. . . .

In contradiction to the concept of “no-fault” divorce law…

As one of Canada’s leading family and children’s law scholars, Bala has a distinguished reputation for his innovative and traditional research methods and his diverse range of publications. Scholars in Canada and abroad frequently cite Bala, and Canadian lawyers and judges frequently quote his research. In its recent decision in R. v. D.B., the Supreme Court of Canada cited Bala’s work for the 25th time.

In addition to Bala’s traditional legal scholarship, much of his research draws from a variety of disciplines: he collaborates with psychologists, criminologists and social workers to address the problems children and families encounter within the justice system.

“I have not only been involved in consuming the research of social scientists about the justice system; I’ve helped to produce it,” Bala says. “My collaboration with mental health professionals and social scientists has allowed me to appreciate both the value—and the limitations—of their work for the justice system.”

Besides his interdisciplinary work with the Child Witness Project, Bala has been taking a closer look at how domestic violence is handled in the family-law arena. He has been working with three mental-health professionals {{Want to bet $100 they’re all AFCC members?  I could use a little extra cash to upgrade some of the blog….!}}} to produce a series of papers on this issue, and the group recently created a model to address the effects of family violence on the determination of child custody and access. **

**Jargon translation:   wife-beating is no reason to restrict a child who witnessed this having access to their biological father.  Let us do supervised visitation, etc.  — hence (in the US) HHS “Access/Visitation” funding, with help from the (also international) Children’s Rights Council, which developed the term “access” to replace the term “visitation.”   This model will be ADMINSTRATIVELY or PRACTICALLY begun (or has been already) and then other highly placed individuals (state by state in the US) will suggest — hey, why not make it a law?  (Example:  PA:  Commission on Justice Initiatives:  Changing the Culture of Custody).

The team’s article about their family-violence-assessment model, which was published in the most recent issue of the international journal Family Court Review, {{Co-produced with AFCC & Hofstra Univ. School of Law in NY}} is already being cited in a number of countries.

The Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Award (Stanley Cohen being a principal in the development of AFCC) is Bala’s second major award in three years for his valuable research contributions. He won the Queen’s Prize for Excellence in Research in 2006 during an annual university-wide competition. For more information about this award, see “Nicholas Bala Wins Top University Research Prize” on page 2 of the 2007 issue of Queen’s Law Reports at http://law.queensu.ca/alumni/publications/lawReports2007.pdf

Last I heard, United State of America claims to be somewhat of a unique country, based on its Constitution, Bill of Rights, and reputation for freedom, right to trial by jury, protections of due process, etc. — people immigrate here for a better life.  We are labeled (or maybe were, not too long ago) the “leadership of the free world.”

So why this urgency to bring all our legal institutions — especially one dealing with families, and raising the next generations of children — into consonance with international standards, including socialist countries, countries such as the UK, which still maintain a Queen, a national religion, and until about 100 years ago, were about as imperialistic, colonizing and enslaving a country as could be found on the globe?  HUH?

And why is Ms. Melgar quoting someone who hangs out at a University which is known (at least as to family law) as an “AFCC safe harbor”?  Because she’s a feminist? California doesn’t have enough feminists to reference?    (The New Transparency group) (the Conversation:   Snider blurg:)

My major research interests lie in the intersection between knowledge, punishment and law. I have applied this in several substantive areas, in studies examining the poisoned water disaster in Walkerton, Ontario, the reception of knowledge claims on corporate crime, and the constitution of the punishable woman.

Experience

• Professor of Sociology, Queen’s University – present

Education

• Toronto University, B.A., M.A., Ph.D

Site “The Conversation” (Obviously I am just looking up Laureen Snider and wondering why she’s quoted in re: prosecution of a SF inbound sheriff):

“OUR CHARTER“

• Give experts a greater voice in shaping scientific, cultural and intellectual agendas by providing a trusted platform that values and promotes new thinking and evidence-based research.
• Unlock the knowledge and expertise of researchers and academics to provide the public with clarity and insight into society’s biggest problems.
• Create an open site for people around the world to share best practices and collaborate on developing smart, sustainable solutions.

Not that it may be enforceable at this point, but I happen to live in a country where the underlying concept was NOT an “aristocracy of the experts” to solve social problems, but a government of “We the People” through institutions that limited any resurgence of the tyranny of religion, individual interests (including royalty from other countries), and, to the extent we have taxation, and pass laws, they are to come from our elected representatives, who are accountable to the people living here (i.e. ,citizens) — and are not to be imported laced with concepts NOT innate to the US, and for which it fought a serious “war for independence” — from Great Britain — in the 1770s!  ! !! (not a topic to be developed in this post, but there’s a lot more depth I’m learning these days about HOW we became a country of collective debt to an international banking cartel, etc. etc.)

 The matter at hand here has to do with an  official — appointed Sheriff – a government employee of the USA — not Canada.  have the discussion, but the prosecution, leadership and the dialogue around domestic violence advocacy groups here (mostly nonprofits which take some HHS funding, I’m fairly sure) is not an international matter — as pertains to should or should not it have been prosecuted…

 CONTINUING. . . . .  Bay Guardian article:

Snider argues that feminists and progressives have misidentified social control with police/governmental control. In other words, we are substituting one oppressor for another — and glossing over the fact that in the judicial system, poor people of color fare worse than white middle-class people. We have punted on (forward) the hard work education, and of shaping and reshaping men’s definitions of masculinity and violence, of the social acceptance of the subjugation of women, of violence against children. We have chosen to define success in the fight against domestic violence by women saved from horrible situations and incarceration rates for their abusers — rather than doing the difficult work of community and individual change necessary to prevent violence from happening in the first place

Perhaps Dr. Snider (who operates and was educated in Canada — exclusively — it seems, but shares through internet and other means (I don’t know) an international dialogue on certain issues of interest to her and them) is completely unaware of the heavily subsidized ‘Minnesota Program Development Fund,” the “Duluth Model,” the prevalence of the term “CCR” (COORDINATED COMMUNITY RESPONSE) in this country, thanks in great part to Ellen Pence, who, I note was college-educated also in Toronto:

Ellen Pence

Ellen Pence (1948 – January 6, 2012) was a scholar and a social activist. She co-founded the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project^[1], an inter-agency collaboration model used in all 50 states in the U.S. and over 17 countries.^[2] A leader in both the battered women’s movement and the emerging field of institutional ethnography, she was the recipient of numerous awards including the Society for the Study of Social Problems Dorothy E. Smith Scholar Activist Award (2008) for significant contributions in a career of activist research. . .

Born in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A. She was active in institutional change work for battered womensince 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980.

She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse.^{[citation needed]}

She earned her Ph.D in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 and was the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.^{[citation needed]} Ellen pence died [RECENTLY] at the age of 63 , from breast cancer .

PRAXIS means “practices.”   Who is practiced upon?  (Sorry, this wasn’t brought before our voters — except it went through the US Reps House Appropriations Committee,  I guess. . . ..

Not before endorsing and propagating a system of educational institutions — taking public funding — based on social theory, and which have attracted a host of inappropriate misappropriations of public employees times, and which set up a built-in HIERARCHY — the exact OPPOSITE of what women, particularly mothers, leaving abuse need.  This hierarchy is a lose/lose situation for any person imagining he/she has enforceable, legal rights in the USA — as an INDIVIDUAL.   It sets up the hierarchy of the TEACHERS (for hire // mercenaries) versus the “TAUGHT.”

The social science THEORY that one can educate or train men out of violence is just taht — a theory.  It is also contrary to the american (USA) form of government, which is to expect people to keep an identifiable law, and maintain a fair process of assigning punishments for those who choose not to.  This means all people can be informed of WHAT their laws are — and leaves no room for speculations on the social  impact of father-absence, single-parenthood, or even violence against women — and then millions of $$ which the public (and private interests) fund to tinker with the demonstration projects each time they get it wrong.

Back to the C.W.Nevius article (top of post), which continues:

Witnesses save lives

“Most cases are not this public,” said Beverly Upton, executive director of San Francisco Domestic Violence Consortium. “But if anyone made this more difficult, it was Ross Mirkarimi. There was a lot of activity trying to silence the witness, and that doesn’t usually happen. What we know is that witnesses coming forward saves lives.”

Mirkarimi was initially charged with three misdemeanors related to domestic violence and eventually reached an agreement to plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of false imprisonment. Mayor Ed Lee also filed charges to permanently remove him from office.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BANI1NSJ36.DTL#ixzz1quqyOPjT

FYI, I do not live in San Francisco (some may wonder), but have lived in the area for over two decades, and worked frequently in the city and in surrounding counties — both during and after my “domestic violence” marriage.  I notice that whenver there’s a high-profile event, here is this SF DVConsortium and Beverly Upton being consulted for help.  I never got any help from them, nor did I get ANY help from the Family Violence Prevention Fund, although, they do throw a great conference, and how validating to know that domestic violence is a health risk (like, I didn’t know that?).  It did NOTHING to address the ongoing violence enabled by the family law system to any and all mothers who, after doing the right thing, but having for some reasons, very persistent Exes — are thereafter psychologically, economically, legally and in other ways tortured (if not extorted) — in the custody realm.

This group apparently could care less, so long as they get their funds and keep up the reputation for protecting women from violence – without addressing the land mines ahead of them.   SEE MY BLOG!  no one gave me a federal fund to publicize this, and apparently the more other groups immunize themselves from DV rhetoric, the better it is for BOTH pro and con grantseekers.  So, here — for a quick update — this “Consortium” consorts in getting public grants to continue their agenda.  I gather this is a progressive agenda because it’s under the umbrella of the (very large) TIDES Foundation, which also sponsored the nonprofit “Stop Family Violence” — which appears (best I can tell) to consist of a website, and one or two professionals who got to fly around to conferences nationwide (Irene Weiser, i forget who the other person was) and now is perhaps inactive, although the website is still up there.

Members of this agency

aka SFDVC and/or DVC) founded in 1982, is a network of seventeen domestic violence service agencies that come together with the goal of providing high quality, coordinated and comprehensive services to San Francisco’s victims of domestic abuse. {{ABUSE?  or VIOLENCE?  Make up your mind!!}}

The services of the individual agencies include emergency shelter, transitional housing, crisis lines, counseling, prevention programs, education and legal assistance. Services are available in the many different languages of San Francisco’s diverse populations. One of the main activities of the SFDVC is networking. SFDVC agencies share information, learn about issues that impact their work and coordinate their services and activities with a particular focus on public funding, specifically coordinating grant proposals and conducting advocacy/lobbying of government departments as to the importance of funding domestic violence services.

The SFDVC is a nonprofit organization and a project of the Tides Center. The SFDVC is led by its co-chairs and committees. The SFDVC recognizes that San Francisco is a diverse city and domestic violence is a problem in all communities regardless of ethnicity, race, class, physical ability, religion, age, immigration and economic status, sexual orientation and gender identity. 

Obviously this is important work — HOWEVER — notice the collective grants-obtaining clout they have?  That must be HOW there has been such coordinated and collective silence on the fathers’ rights grants and movement I report, and so have other UNsponsored INDIVIDUALS.  Do they teach women about to file a kickout order about the upcoming Access/Visitation grants (in place, $10 million a year since 1996), how the Federal Incentives to the Child SUpport Enforcement system include running demonstration grants on how to increase noncustodial (father) time with the children, and how if they go on welfare, they are quite likely to be ex-parte consolidated into a divorce action, and thrown to the family court wolves, whose funding is MUCH larger?

NO — not last I heard.

Do they say anything about the organization AFCC, which practically runs the local Family Courts, let alone the Family Court Facilitators’ offices where people NOT as well-off financially (probably) than Ms. Lopez will end up seeking remedies?  AFCC publishes most of the brochures available there — and (I checked in recent years) the coverage of domestic violence issues is highly diminished.  So, what does that say about women’s right to know and make an INFormeD decision about whether to confront their batterer (sometimes with a civil protective order — not even mentioned in these dialogues), or call the police and hope a criminal one is instated?

LASTLY (and that’s enough for today!), I wanted to also show the Mayor Ed Lee catering to the FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE organization, which currently owns prime real estate (or owns the organization that owns the real estate) in the SF Praesidio.  Futures without Violence, indeed.  The antidote to tyranny in our country (whether by domestic individuals within their family walls, or outside them by public officials) is a balance of powers between (1) the government and (2) the people, and fair enforcement of crimes against the state which jeopardize the safety of the public — which domestic violence DOES, and there’s plenty of evidence in the form of innocent bystanders shot, businesses disrupted, as well as responding police officers.  We live in one of the more violent countries in the world, in many levels, and despite decades of advocacy by DV groups, their inherent demand for public funds to “coordinate services” and educate — the world, essentially — they are not open to criticism from the street level about this agenda.

TOO BAD – it’s here, it’s coming and I’m not going to stop, if I can help, this outrage.  I have one-third of my adult life thrown down this rabbit hole ,and the concept of betrayal is absolutely high.  MSM is owned, and is never going to tell the whole story.  More bloggers are needed — bloggers that cite their sources where possible, and make sure that this situation is no longer covered up, or specially framed when it comes time to renew the funding for the VAWA act and the counterintuitive simultaneous funding of the next round of fatherhood/marriage etc. grants.  No wonder this keeps going on, perhaps — our society is so stressed and compartmentalized, and has been already pre-trained to have their income taxes garnished, so garnishing wages for child support is a short step away.  No privacy, no safety, and no justice.  Just more debt!

My parting shot, I think:  The Mayor that wants Mirkarimi out references Futures without Violence.  Label this:  “You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours!”

Ed Lee addresses domestic violence conference

Rachel Gordon

Saturday, March 31, 2012

Siana Hristova / The Chronicle

S.F. Mayor Ed Lee delivers the keynote address at a national domestic violence conference
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qux42sTZ

Without mentioning Ross Mirkarimi by name, Mayor Ed Lee on Friday delivered an indirect rebuke of the man he suspended from the sheriff’s job after he pleaded guilty to a domestic-violence-related charge of false imprisonment of his wife.

The mayor made his remarks during a brief keynote address at a national conference on domestic violence under way in San Francisco sponsored by the Futures Without Violence organization.

Seizing on sentence

Mirkarimi was elected sheriff in November after serving seven years on the Board of Supervisors. He was sworn in to his new job on Jan. 8 and was arrested less than two weeks later for allegedly bruising his wife’s arm during a New Year’s Eve argument in front of their 2-year-old son. The district attorney charged him with misdemeanor domestic violence battery, dissuading a witness and child endangerment.

The new sheriff pleaded not guilty to those three counts, but on March 12, under a plea-bargain agreement, pleaded guilty to misdemeanor false imprisonment. He was sentenced to three years’ probation, weekly domestic violence intervention classes, and one day in jail with time served for when he showed up at the Hall of Justice for booking; he did not serve time behind bars.
Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/03/30/BASJ1NSMGF.DTL#ixzz1qv2FUQhL

I have yet to find out a news article actually naming who is the provider of the weekly classes!  But this whole deal sure does give us a picture of how political the entire field is.  NOT TO MENTION — that once they get their mileage and some funds (he has to take those classes, right?) with the case, and the press — these programs that didn’t teach a county supervisor how to behave to his wife — and I’ll bet he probably approved some of the programs too — are going to continue, with MSM coverage while the private tragedies, ongoing, and far larger in scope, danger to the women involved, and near-lethal or lethal — surrounding the insane institution of the family courts — will continue, probably.  Talk about rocking the power structure to the center– if THAT story got out, I seriously doubt MSM (mainstream media) would take it!

They are right to suspend the guy.  Not that there aren’t others in the area that ought to lose their nonprofit standing for simply not profiting the public — like the huge Futures without Violence!

Full Name: FUTURES WITHOUT VIOLENCE FEIN: 943110973 Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 1648791 Registration Number: 077397 Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration Issue Date: 12/31/2005 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2011 Registration Status: Current Date This Status: 5/16/2007 Date of Last Renewal: 9/23/2010 Address Information Address Line 1: 100 MONTGOMERY STREET, PRESIDIO – MAIN POST Phone: Address Line 2: Address Line 3: Address Line 4: SAN FRANCISCO CA 94129 Annual Renewal Information Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-01 Fiscal End: 31-DEC-01 Total Assets: $8,143,898.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $10,345,721.00 RRF Received: 25-MAR-02 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status: Accepted

Fast forward 10 years, some additional Annie E. Casey participation and of course the concept of “Fatherhood” as a tool to prevent domestic violence (see my blog), and an institute (downloadable trainings?) to promote that concept:

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09 Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09 Total Assets: $26,157,567.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $11,614,069.00 RRF Received: 12-AUG-10 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status: Accepted Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-10 Fiscal End: 31-DEC-10 Total Assets: $36,603,585.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $17,118,149.00 RRF Received: 14-JUN-11 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status:

The extra $10 million in ASSETS between 2009 & 2010 is most likely the acquisition of the real estate at the Praesidio.  I dare you to look at their (rejected) tax return to the IRS, and figure out why it was rejected (letter uploaded to the same site).  this is the Office of Attorney General’s site, and anyone can search through it, and should:

(STATE CHARITABLE RETURN FOR 2009) FORM RRF-I INFORMATION REGARDING GOVERNMENT FUNDING STATEMENT 14 ART B, LINE 6

• U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAM 810 7TH STREET NW, 5TH FLOO~ WASHINGTON, DC 20531 NEELAM PATEL, 202-353-4338  — AMOUNT   $2.9 million
• U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 370 L’ENFANTE PROMENADE, 6Tl FLOOR
• WASHINGTON, DC 20447  — AMOUNT  $1.5 million
• U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DHUMAN SERVICES INDIAN HEALTH SERVICE 801 THOMPSON AVENUE ROCKVILLE, MD 20852 — AMOUNT $86K
• NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENIL! AND FAMILY COURT JUDGES P.O. BOX 8970 RENO, NV 89507  — AMOUNT $91K
• OTHER GOVERNMENT GRANTS (whose?)  AMOUNT $30K
• TOTAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING  $ 4,649,368

(that was year 2009)….

the heavy involvement of the US HHS and the NCJFCJ — which is a family court organization (and, the current head of the office of VAW, Susan D. Carbon, used to be president of the NCJFCJ, I heard) — ensures that no real critical analysis of the feminist backlash in the family court system is going to take place — that would be biting the hand that feeds them!

There were (year 2009) TEN (10) paid directors of this NONprofit — and their combined regular compensation was about $1.6 million, with Esta Soler’s being the largest salary ($234K & $71K “other”), and the lowest of any of the others being $112K.   If you add “other compensation” for all ten, the total is NEARLY $THREE MILLION  ($3 mil).

In addition, campaign /project manager professionals — $428,323….three individuals.

There are (moreover– see that tax returns), TWO real estate LLCs and ONE real estate “C-Corp” (an “Inc.”) with the word Praesidio in them, at the same street address (383 Rhode Island #304, SF) of the then-FVPF.  At least one of these is 100% owned by FVPF.

Futures without Violence is international in scope, but heavily supported — year after year (actually decade after decade it seems — I think it began ca. 1989) by US taxpayers, while being itself free from income tax (as a corporation) and investing in real estate.  GO FIGURE!  They are living “high on the hog” and running the show, while men, women and children around them continue to get molested, have their income, lives and assets SQUANDERED through ongoing litigation in the family law arena, which is funded in good part by similar corporations behind this monster DV agency.

I have heard Esta Soler speak, and she’s impressive.  What they have done is impressive.  However it doesn’t compensate for the intrinsic disparity of influence between this group — and actual mothers who need protection and help, and to keep their kids away from violent fathers — AND vice versa.

AND — in 2010 — they decided not to report their Schedule B — List of Contributors, including names and addresses (see amounts, above).  The notice was sent to the group in August 2011 — and the situation apparently has not yet been corrected.  Nor did they send in their annual $225 fee (notice also sent August 2011).  Perhaps this group is going to pull up roots, sell its real estate to a foreign-based corporation and simply stop dealing with the American law and order system entirely.

It should be looked into. It’s not too big to look into.   Why do we need a multimillion$$ NONprofit to run campaigns and things like “Coaching Boys into Men” — that’s the job of schools and parents.  take that money down and make better schools, or almost any situation might be preferable.

Publicize the actual LAWS against such violence on their sites and teach pastors, teachers, and others to report.  I reported to plenty of individuals in mandatory reporting positions during my marriage.  None of them, for the most part, did much.  They must have figured out it was someone else’s job.

Can you imagine running a ‘Batterers Intervention Class” for Ross Mirkarimi?  And can we imagine that a politician of this stature couldn’t convince anyone that he’s absorbed and believed the material?  There’s a LOT more than meets the eye to this case.  I’m glad he got suspended, not that this would have made him an inappropriate county supervisor or other political leader.  Just not sheriff!!

The Roots of Welfare DeForm — An Off-Road List of Links — and the Virtues of Educating Oneself

At bottom are the links from the blog  “The Family Court Franchise System.”  In one of the recent posts I said, “I’m not your mother” and suggested people educate themselves.  Plus two interesting links, “Educate Yo’self” and “Educate Yourself” which is where I got part of my education.

Where I got the habit of educating myself goes far back — but in these matters, it came from having relied on others’ information, which — though true enough — was (1) not the overview– critical elements were missing, and (2) given what was missing, almost irrelevant.  Instead they (includes Lundy Bancroft, and classic DV rhetoric) talked psychology and group dynamics and some law — something anyone living through what I did has already figured out (though how nice to have the correct terminology).

But they should’ve talked finances — and corporate influence, federal incentives, and private nonprofit associations running demonstration social science projects on as many POOR people (or other distressed populations) as possible, allegedly for the public’s benefit, and definitely at the public’s expense.  In fact, public and private are so blurred at this point, it might be best to ignore what the law says about domestic violence and criminal behavior, and rebuttable presumptions against custody going to the batterer (after all — plenty of judges, family law attorneys, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and child support professionals most certainly do.  And we have to deal with them anyhow, so why not figure out what’s going on!

ROUGHLY in TWO PARTS:  I.  “EDUCATE YOURSELF” — and several examples.  And then II. (as to the Roots of Welfare) — some links to do so.  (under 7,000 words this time).  That’s if you care to.  I’m not your babysitter, I do this for conscience, possibly for therapy, and for a track record. But they are — as this shows — hauling off (kidnapping) children systematically from good parents, to get drugged under foster care.  They are, when there are two parents fighting for custody, able to prolong and make horrible the fight for years — and so “justify” major grants continuations (under TANF, which makes this possible) to promote marriage and fatherhood, and other very chauvinistic (antifeminist) ideas.  At the heart of this is the concept that it’s OK to force indoctrination (“education”) on poor people to address why they are poor, that the elite are appropriate in “molding” the poor — through force — to understand their function and place in society.  Religion is a good aid to this policy.

Too much of this policy comes from places like the British monarchy, or the Nazi apparatus, or prior to that, Prussian educational ideas.  Too much of it depends on free time to philosophize on the backs of workers that barely make ends meet and have far less freedom or mobility simply because they have no family wealth (assets), whether earned, or inherited.  Add to this things like eminent domain (government condemning, then seizing, then selling to cronies, private property) and we’re headed back towards the concentrations camps.  Depending on when “Judgment Day” comes — or does not.  Whatever the status of “judgment day” — there is nothing “just” or equitable about Welfare Reform, which enables flexible grants to the states, and gives bribes to states for going along with federal policy.  Federal policy rubberstamped by Congress — but managed by the Executive Branch (White House and friends) through a grants system.  The grants system itself is based on the TAX system — and there you go.

This is commonly called fascism ,centralization and we know already where that heads off to.

I know what dictatorship is at the family level, the personal level — and am pretty hot and bothered to see how far down the line it is at the national level as well.  When one’s life’s work is repeatedly interrupted, and finally stopped — talking about the essential things one has done in life — one has to rethink the “hold a job til retirement model,” particularly being a female of a certain age in the USA, Post-Bush1 & Bush 2.

(Read PART I, those comments will make more sense).

PART I

Educate Yo’self was actually the domain name of a link someone else passed along.  What a source!

The Declaration of Independence – 1776
The Articles of Confederation – 1777
The Constitution for the United States – 1787
Its Sources and Its Application

Commitment One: To Freedom

The commitment of greatest importance is a DEDICATION To FREEDOM at all levels of society, and in all dimensions of our existence.

A commitment to freedom, at all levels, is automatically a commitment to Rigorous Honesty, the Truth of Reality. After all, once freedom is insured, why would one need to lie?

Any “security” that is gained through loss of freedom is a Commitment to Fear. Any nation that puts “national security” above personal freedom has lost its power base

And, tidbits such as (from 2008 — an election year. Worth a review this year?):

545 People Responsible for America’s Woes
by Charley ReeseHave you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

. . . .Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.    . . .

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS . . .

They continue to re-authorize the bastard child called “Welfare Reform,” which has simply expanded the ways to steal from the public, without proper monitoring, to infinity.  Go review the beginnings of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (I’ve blogged).  Or, how from state to state, the We, the People method of disciplining criminal judges (leaving ethical ones on the bench) — which was the grand jury — was replaced by “judicial complaint boards.”

It was passed in 1996, a Bill Clinton year.  See “From the Transvaal to TANF” talking about “triangulation” and how Clinton promoted this version of the “contract with America” as inbetween and somehow “above” party politics.  The fact is, the Republicans had succeeded in shutting down government over this, his ass was in trouble with Monica Lewinsky, and there was the Hillary problem; in fact there were plenty of problems.

The “Transvaal’ refers to Cecil Rhodes.  Bill Clinton, among others, was a Rhodes Scholar.   The purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship, and the beyond-my-liftime-goal of Mr. Rhodes, was to regain the British control of the world, particularly the return of “the US colonies” to their master.  Some people were born to lead, others were born to serve, obviously.  Now, fast-forward to TANF reform and look at who it’s targeting for program indoctrination on how to stay married, and quit propagating outside of marriage, etc.

The fact is, were it not for the artificial income tax / fiat currency situation (our $$ is off the gold standard), were it not the need for extremely wealthy corporations to maintain their wealth by a constant flow of competition for jobs in their industries (i.e., keep wages down, profits up) and to through a HUGE variety of means — including trying to designate everyone, almost, a behavioral health case, and where possible, proscribe some nice medication for them (i.e., control by medication, even sterilization) — it would be a piece of cake for an intelligent, motivated and in control of her own infrastructure single mother (or single father) to handle their own affairs.

One of the affairs the largest mistakes made by OUR forebears (generally speaking of USA citizens), over a century ago, was to hand over the raising of our kids to the government in the form of compulsory public education — which is compulsory time-wasting and dumbing down, and has been for decades.  It’s an ABSOLUTE disgrace and has become simply a values battleground anyhow.    And as to equalization — go check your senators — and all the representatives in the state — how many of them are sending their kids to public schools, and were themselves the product of public schools.  How many of them came from honest working backgrounds and were not raised with a silver spoon, or a political spoon?

Some of the greatest minds and leaders had the least traditional schooling — for themselves.   Horace Mann fits that example, and it appears 1837 was the first year there was a “Secretary of Education” at least in massachusetts.  Now we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services (more control over this country than you realize, and the current one is from Kansas), plus the “Czars” — interesting term, huh?  Look at him:

HORACE MANN‘s SCHOOLING

” The Father of American Education”,” Horace Mann, was born in Franklin, Massachusetts, in 1796. Mann’s schooling consisted only of brief and erratic periods of eight to ten weeks a year. Mann educated himself by reading ponderous volumes from the Franklin Town Library. This self education, combined with the fruits of a brief period of study with an intinerant school master, was sufficient to gain him admission to the sophomore class of Brown University in 1816” (4, Cremin). He went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and finally received admission to the bar in 1823 (15, Filler). In the year 1827 Mann won a seat in the state legislature and in 1833 ran for State Senate and won.” Throughout these years Horace Mann maintained a thriving law practice, first in Dedham and later in Boston” (5, Cremin).

” Of the many causes dear to Mann’s heart, non was closer than the education of the people. He held a keen interest in school policy. April 20, 1837, Mann left his law practice and accepted the post of the newly founded Secretary of Education” (6, Cremin). During his years as Secretary of Education Mann published twelve annual reports on aspects of his work and programs, and the integral relationship between education, freedom, and Republican government. He wanted a school that would be available and equal for all, part of the birth-right of every American child, to be for rich and poor alike. Mann had found “social harmony” to be his primary goal of the school. (8, Cremin).

Horace Mann felt that a common school would be the “great equalizer.” Poverty would most assuredly disappear as a broadened popular intelligence tapped new treasures of natural and material wealth. He felt that through education crime would decline sharply as would a host of moral vices like violence and fraud. In sum, there was no end to the social good which might be derived from a common school (8, Cremin).

SO — how’d you say THAT’s going?  Because in Los Angeles, they had a schoolteacher feeding blindfolded teaspoons of his own semen.  THIRD-graders.  Has poverty, violence and fraud been primarily despite the school system, or perhaps as a consequence of it?

Horace Mann had one thing — freedom.  He had another thing — access to the library.  He was also male, and he could vote — it was another century, from his passing the bar (1823) before women could!  Rather than trying to train a nation (how egotistical!), what about establish these basic rights, and make available justice (and libraries).

Horace Mann and Education Reform

Reformers, some influenced by the Prussian education reforms of the early 1800s, emerged at an incredible rate hoping to change the general form and ideals of American education to keep up with the evolving country. No longer would small rural schoolhouses, untrained teachers, or limitations in education opportunities suffice. A more defined system, which, as Mann and others had hoped, would also be free and universal, slowly garnered both grassroots and governmental support. The goal was to mold individuals from all socio-economic backgrounds into good people and good citizens through education. It was believed that in doing so everyone would be able to achieve to their fullest potential.

I would always much rather see a sermon than hear one.   Moreover, we ought to take care about importing Prussian OR German ideas.  Germans tend to be real organized, excessively so, — and I think it’s fair to say, Centralized. There is a LOT of literature out, particularly I’m thinking about Alice Miller, and “The Drama of the Gifted Child,” (d. 2010; she was a Swiss psychoanalyst, the book is about the consequences of repressed trauma)– talking about how the attempts to “mold” good strong citizens with cruel child-rearing practices (from Germany) may have helped created the cruel, socially-detached, amoral child molesters and sociopaths of today that we are now cleaning up after.

And yet, we have in TANF, a government intent on even more education of the public — in morality issues like fatherhood, marriage, abstinence, and so forth.  The truth is — at least as to TANF — I believe it’s simply another form of wealth-transfer; and it’s a VERY high profit-margin on downloading information by the internet, setting up a franchise system, having people BUY into it to be qualified as a marriage educator (etc.) — it was a real smart development for some very dishonest people.

What about Ben Franklin? (1706-1790)– was he adequately schooled?  Methinks not:

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706. He was the tenth son of soap maker, Josiah Franklin. Benjamin’s mother was Abiah Folger, the second wife of Josiah. In all, Josiah would father 17 children.

Josiah intended for Benjamin to enter into the clergy. However, Josiah could only afford to send his son to school for one year and clergymen needed years of schooling. But, as young Benjamin loved to read he had him apprenticed to his brother James, who was a printer. After helping James compose pamphlets and set type which was grueling work, 12-year-old Benjamin would sell their products in the streets.

What about Albert Einstein’s schooling?(1879-1955) (from a UK site): (take some time, here…)

Albert Einstein was born on 14th March, 1879 at Ulm, Germany. He spent his early life in Munich, where his family owned a small manufacturing business. He studied Judaism at home, where he also was taught to play the violin. He showed a great interest in Mathematics and taught himself Euclidian geometry at the age of 12.

What sort of education did Albert receive?

Albert Einstein began school in Munich, but does not seem to have been particularly interested in what was offered there. . .

He was already a self-motivated learner, with experience in (I presume) language, music, and geometry.  Are schools BORING the gifted? along with how many others?

Einstein hoped to become an electrical engineer and, at the second attempt, enrolled at the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zurich in 1896.

It seems that he continued to show little respect for his teachers, as he was not a regular attender at lectures. He spent considerable time studying physics on his own. Despite the lack of time in lecture halls, he graduated as a teacher of physics and mathematics in 1900, but was unable to obtain a post in the university. It has been suggested that he had not impressed his professors enough, which is perhaps not surprising, given his attitude, and so did not receive their all-important backing for an academic career.

Perhaps this lack of respect comes from someone who found something better to do with his time, working on self-assigned projects of interest.

What did he do next?

Albert Einstein became a temporary teacher of mathematics, first at the Technical High School in Winterthur, and secondly at a private school at Schaffhausen.

In 1902 he began work at the Swiss patent office in Bern as a technical expert third class. He remained there until 1909, having been promoted, in 1906, to technical expert second class! He married Mileva Maric, by whom he had two sons, in 1903. They later divorced.

During his time there, Albert Einstein devoted a great deal of his spare time to the study of theoretical physics, and in 1905, received his doctorate for a thesis entitled On a new determination of molecular dimensions. He also published three important papers on theoretical physics

 Anyone who’s honest today will admit that a major function of public school education is babysitter — to soak up the TIME of individuals so their parents (both their parents, if there are two) can go to work and pay their taxes to fund the teachers, among other things (or pay off some interest on the national debt).  As such, the kids (and youth) in school are going to have other things they would rather be doing, and/or exploring — so a good deal of the school day goes into administration and managing the kids.  And (now at least) running mental health screenings on them to see if some drugs can be marketed (see recent whistleblower on TMAP, PennMAP, who documented this).   More on Einstein:

In 1952, he declined the offer of the presidency of Israel and continued his work towards the world renouncing nuclear weapons.

Albert Einstein died on 18th April, 1955 at Princeton and was cremated that day at Trenton, New Jersey. He is, perhaps, the best known scientist of the 20th century

And just imagine — he was bored in school from the start, skipped a lot of classes, didn’t brown-nose enough in Swiss National Polytechnic around the turn of the century, resulting in his having a fairly humble job which left him time to study things of personal interest — eventually a Nobel Prize, etc. What does public education in the US do today?  Soak up time, DELETE a lot of music because not enough children are learning to read and write, substitutes values education, and when that (obviously) fails, recommend more money and start kids earlier and have longer school days and years.

The existence of the public school system, and its lower quality, is a caste-sorter, and intentionally so.   Where did our politicians go to school, prior to sponsoring initiatives to train the rest of us about the purpose of life, relationships, sex, and what and what is not healthy?  For example (to bring us to 2012 Presidential Candidacy, and which conservative do you want….)

Mitt Romney went to a private school from 7th grand onwards, where he met his wife, who also attended private schools.  Described as (Wikipedia):

Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km²) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities  …Romney went to public elementary schools^[17] and then from seventh grade on, attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school of the classic mold where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from even more privileged backgrounds.^{[18][23][24][25]} He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel at academics.^[18] While a sophomore, he participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan.^{[nb 2]} 

Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km²) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities. Cranbrook Schools is part of the Cranbrook Educational Community (CEC), which includes the Cranbrook Institute of Science, the Cranbrook Academy of Art, and Cranbrook House and Gardens. (Nearby Christ Church Cranbrook remains outside this formal structure.) The Cranbrook community was established by publishing mogul George Booth,

 Cranbrook was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 29, 1989 for its significant architecture and design. It attracts tourists from around the world. Approximately 40 acres (160,000 m²) of Cranbrook Schools’ campus are gardens.  As of 2006, Cranbrook Schools had an endowment of $191 million, among the 15 largest held by America’s boarding schools.^[1] In addition, the Cranbrook Educational Community, of which the Schools is a member, has an endowment in excess of $300 million.^[2]

Where did he get his wife from?

Ann Lois Romney (née Davies) (born April 16, 1949) is the wife of American businessman and Republican Party politician Mitt Romney. From 2003 to 2007 she was First Lady of Massachusetts.

She was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and attended the private Kingswood School there, where she dated Mitt Romney. Influenced by their relationship, she converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1966. She attended Brigham Young University and married Mitt Romney in 1969. She completed her undergraduate education through the Extension School at Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in 1975.

As First Lady of Massachusetts, she served as the governor’s liaison for federal faith-based initiatives.

Now THAT is disturbing . . . .

Her background — daughter of the mayor of Bloomfield Hills, who was anti-organized religion.  So, she converts to LDS (like Mitt) and her college is put on hold while he completes his.   Their marriage, being Mormon:

Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married by a church elder in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at a local country club.^[4][12] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her family could not attend since they were non-Mormons, but were present at a subsequent wedding breakfast held for them across the street.^[4][14]

When she fell ill, she had access to mainstream and alternative treatments for MS (a very serious disease) — such as equestrianism.  Suppose this had been one of her children — they’d have had that access also.

Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 and has credited a mixture of mainstream and alternative treatments with giving her a lifestyle mostly without limitations. In one of those activities, equestrianism, she has consequently received recognition in dressage as an adult amateur at the national level and competing professionally in Grand Prix as well

The topic is EDUCATION DISPARITIES by WEALTH — as contrasted with Horace Mann’s vision:

By contrast with the ONE child of a black single mother (also in Michigan), who — on finding out that her daughter, having developed complications possibly related to a vaccine, then was given Risperdal — and when that had even worse effects, like any good Mom, she took her child OFF it — and then all hell (including with tanks and helicopters) eventually took place.  (Link is below).  It “just so happened’ that the community they lived in was supposed to do what it was told with their kids, and not buck the system or seek — as Mrs. Romney could — non-mainstream ways to stay alive or keep their kids alive and healthy.  That’s cause for losing one’s kid to the state, apparently.

Ron Paul Op-Ed on Ms. Godboldo in context of overmedication of chidlren in foster care, forced mandatory psychiatric screening of children (think they get that in the Cranbrook Educational Community nowadays?):

“No Mandatory Mental Health Screening For Children!” by Ron Paul

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 Op-Ed by Congressman Ron Paul

Maryanne Godboldo, a mother in Michigan, noticed that pills prescribed by her daughter’s doctor were making her condition worse, not better. So Mrs. Godboldo stopped giving them to her. That’s when the trouble began. When Child Protective Services (CPS) bureaucrats became aware that the girl was not receiving her prescribed medication, they decided the child should be taken away from her mother’s custody on grounds of medical neglect. When Ms. Godboldo refused to surrender her daughter to the state, CPS enlisted the help of a police SWAT team! On March 24 of this year a 12 hour standoff ensued and young Ariana was taken into custody. The drug involved was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication with numerous known side effects. Ms. Godboldo had decided on a more holistic approach for her daughter. She is still engaged in a costly legal battle with the state over Ariana’s treatment and custody.

This is one example of how government’s increasing proclivity to medicate children with questionable psychiatric drugs violates the rights of parents. Just recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the astonishingly high rate of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children in the foster care system. It is absolutely astounding that nearly 40% of kids in foster care are on psychotropic drugs, some of them taking up to 5 different pills at a time. Some of these children are under one year of age – too young to safely take over the counter cold medication!

 Another account:

Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News
December 15, 2011

The horrific saga of Maryanne Godboldo’s battle with domestic terrorists in the government of her home state of Michigan appear to finally be coming to an end. TheDetroit Free Pressreports that two higher courts have confirmed the ruling of a lower court several months ago that Godboldo’s refusal to administer the dangerous Risperdal drug to her daughter was fully legal, and that all charges and actions taken against her by the state were unwarranted.

In case you missed the story, Child Protective Services (CPS) in Michigan sent a SWAT team and tank to Godboldo’s Detroit home back in April after the mother refused to keep giving her 13-year-old daughter Risperdal (risperidone), a dangerous schizophrenia drug that had been causing her daughter to experience severe adverse reactions. Godboldo’s doctor had recommended that she discontinue use of the drug, but CPS felt otherwise, and decided to launch a full-scale terrorist raid on the woman’s home, where they proceeded to illegally kidnap her daughter (http://www.naturalnews.com/032090_M…).

In one of the series of articles on this raid, the demographics of the community spoke loudly as to what happened.  It wouldn’t happen in a gated community, and I’ll bet it wouldn’t happen in Bloomfield Hills, either.  However, another clue shows up in this (april 2011) article — not only was this woman acting — in accord with the doctor’s advice to stop Risperdal — not only was she single and African-American, she was also homeschooling her daughter!

Godboldos focus on daughter’s release:  April 17, 2011, The Michigan Citizen, Eric T. Campbell

“This case is very simple,” Defense Attorney Allison Fomar told the Michigan Citizen. “The child was taken out of the home without any legitimate, lawful authority. They took her in the most drastic way they could think of, which was to involve Detroit police.

. . .Ariana has been in state custody since March 25 without medication.

“If the issue was medication, where is the justice?” Penny said. “Why isn’t she home with her father right now? He has complete authority after Maryanne. To me, they sent her into harms way.”

Penny {{the mother’s sister and a dance teacher at Margrove College}} says her niece was active and normal growing up in a home-schooled environment. She was active in church and received lessons in piano and horseback riding.   “There were absolutely no mental issues with her until she had the immunizations and even more with the Risperdal,” Penny said. “It’s been a hell ever since.”

Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality  . . .“The child has a father and an aunt and that’s where the mother thought the child was going when she released her,” Scott said. “Judge Pierce says she’s an advocate for families, so we’ll see what happens.”

According to Scott, CPS knew the daughter was doing fine without Risperdal and she was not considered an imminent danger to herself or anyone else. 

August, in this same case (good article — read it all!)

JURY RULES AGAINST MARYANNE GODBOLDO IN CUSTODY TRIAL

Posted on 08/16/2011 by Diane Bukowski

DETROIT – Despite testimony that Mia Wenk, a “social services specialist” with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, authorized the  psychiatric hospitalization of Ariana Godboldo-Hakim, 13, and the administration of four dangerous psychotropic drugs, without reviewing the child’s  medical records, a jury found Aug. 9 that it was Ariana’s mother Maryanne Godboldo who had neglected her.

Godboldo, who obtained alternative holistic treatment for her daughter from a medical doctor, testified earlier that she was suffering from a reaction to immunizations administered in Sept. 2009. She said Ariana had been diagnosed with encephalitis, not a psychiatric disorder. Neither she nor Ariana’s father Mubarak Hakim authorized their daughter’s treatment at Hawthorn Children’s Psychiatric facility after an army of police seized her from her home on Blaine near Linwood in Detroit March 24, 2011. 

Wenk said that as she watched the stand-off with police that resulted at Ariana’s home, her only concern was, “I didn’t want her to end up shooting her daughter.”**  Wenk is currently facing a federal lawsuit  filed by Nathaniel Brent (see next story) for taking his five children, who are of Native American heritage.

Captions: Maryanne Godboldo speaks at rally July 17, 2011 . . . Children’s Center recruits foster parents in billboard off John C. Lodge Fwy.; they are paid $34 per day per head by DHS for each child they take

(**Wenk provoked the crisis to start with, which seems to be pretty standard protocol, where possible to get away with.   It also signifies a serious attitude problem, job description or no job description.   In this situation, they simply didn’t reckon with an armed mother, and a supportive community expressing its outrage AND investigative reporting on it!  The problem is the presence of a system which enables this.  That the SWAT team would come in this situation shows that Wenk and friends hold far too much sway.  Meanwhile, over in Connecticut, a little boy (and across the country this is happening) is being tortured with symptoms BOTH medical and behavioral, as attested to by doctors — and the GAL in the case still has custody with the father who is doing this!  WHy not remove THAT child?) (Answer:  money in the family hasn’t been sucked out yet. See CT page on my other blog).

I keep finding more — and very disturbing — information on this case.  First of all — we note that this is a mature mother, not a teen mother (see photo, and article below says she’s in her 50s).  She is dedicated to taking care of her daughter who is an amputee, and was doing a good job of it; the troubles began with a school-required vaccination, and reactions to it.   And although parents are separated, this was not a case which could be played Mom VERSUS Dad.

“Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect daughter from Dangerous Medications.”

Health Impact News Editor

According to the Detroit News, a 56-year-old woman faces multiple felony charges and is being held on $500,000 bond after a 10-hour standoff with police, claiming she was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication. The story which led to this incident, as reported in the Detroit News and The Voice of Detroit, is quite disturbing.

Maryanne Godboldo’s daughter was born with a defective foot that required amputation of her leg below the knee, which led to Maryanne becoming a stay-at-home mother after her birth. Maryanne and her sister Penny now run a dance school in Detroit. Penny Godboldo reported in the Detroit News her niece’s confidence grew, and despite her handicap, she swam, sang, danced and played the piano. However, as she approached middle school age, she apparently wanted to start attending school, and therefore had to “catch up” on required immunizations.

As the Detroit News reports:

“We believe she had an adverse reaction to her immunizations,” Penny Godboldo said.

“She began acting out of character, being irritated, having facial grimaces that have been associated with immunizations.”

Evans said Maryanne Godboldo sought help for her daughter from The Children’s Center, an organization that helps families with at-risk children, where a medical and mental health treatment plan was developed. Godboldo told relatives the medications ordered by the doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems.

“It is an undiagnosed condition, but the doctor had given her psychotropic drugs that caused a bad reaction, made things worse,” said the girl’s father, Mubuarak Hakim. “Maryanne’s decision to wean her from that was making a difference, making her better, helping her to be a happy kid again.”

Maryanne Godboldo apparently has a good reputation in her community, and during the 10 hour standoff many people from the community offered to help with the negotiations, including ministers and community activists, according to reports in the Detroit News. Ironically, it was Wayne Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas, a former polio sufferer and advocate for the disabled, who finally convinced Maryanne to surrender

Embarrassed — or exposed? — although the mother had her criminal charges dropped, and her child back (late December) the Wayne County District attorney, per spokesman, is thinking of re-instating them.  They are crazy — but smart enough to know that this case is probably a good chink in the wall.

http://www.miweekly.com/news/85-detroit/5705-mom-in-police-standoff-awaits-decision-on-charges

Last Updated: December 10. 2011 1:00AM

Doug Guthrie/ The Detroit News

Detroit— A judge is expected to announce his decision Monday whether to reinstate criminal charges against a mother who resisted police who forced their way into her home to take her teenage daughter during a dispute over medications. . . .

Acting on a call from a Wayne County Child Protective Services (=CPS) worker, who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect, the officers responding to Godboldo’s home accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them in. Godboldo was talked out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.

Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges in August because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don’t normally enforce civil court orders, but had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.

And the police didn’t LOOK at the warrant?  Do criminal and civil warrants look different from each other?

http://justice4maryanne.com/

Some excellent reporting.

Talk about the disparity of viewpoints:  Family, Community — versus the System who wants the child to be medicated.

My reading has led me to the conclusion — this is a class war, and at the bottom of the barrel (as to scapegoating) are women who look and act like this one.  Like Albert Einstein, Horace Mann, and other leaders, her daughter’s education was not traditional — and part of schooling these days is getting the vaccinations (I even found a reference to James Franklin — Ben’s older brother — protesting vaccinations in his time!).   Drugging people is a form of medical control — not just profits — get it?  If certain classes of people are being used as test cases for the effects of dangerous drugs, then this comprises a class war against them.   Why should this mother AND her community have to wage a legal battle to “buy” back a daughter which had been kidnapped improperly?   Why should anyone have to?

At some level, we have got to start acknowledging that mature, independent mothers are a threat to the status quo.   For the rest of us, the family law system with its fatherhood funding gets the job done without SWAT teams.  But both methods are extortionist.

Listen to “Managing Oneself” (found by checking out the spelling: Onesself or Oneself?)

(Peter Drucker, Harvard Business Review, 1999)  It’s password protected from copying a single sentence, but (bottom of page 5 or so) talking about what a knowledge ecomony we have, and how one must manage oneself, including knowing one’s learning style.  Are you a writer or a reader?  For those who learn by writing, he says, school is pure torture– writers learn by writing  — not by listening and reading (guess I’m one of those!).  Because schools don’t let them learn that way, they get poor grades (speculation, I suppose, as to cause)….

Schools do not accommodate the different learning styles, forcing everyone to learn “the way the school teaches” is “sheer hell for students who learn differently.”   

“Success in the knowledge economy comes to those who know themselves, their strengths, their values and how they best perform.”

Easy to say, but that Michigan Mom seems to be someone who knows herself, her strengths (and her daughters) and certainly her values — so why should she catch this kind of hell, and have her daughter in a psychiatric institution for two months or more, where there is some question whether or not she was also sexually assaulted (some news accounts bring this up) — in the land of the free and the home of the brave?

In case you can’t guess why this case has so grabbed my attention, even though I don’t have a disabled child, while my children were not (to my knowledge) forcibly medicated, the “kidnapping” was enabled around accusations of educational neglect (among others, none of which were proved, as is common) which was in fact educational choice, and an informed one.  When we’ve come to kidnapping and tanks/helicopters to prop up a bad decision by a CPS worker, and (see Voice of Detroit reporting, plus I recognized some of the companies investigated, and the system) everyone has to go into behavioral health testing grounds EXCEPT those who are rich enough and independent enough to escape the target range of these programs – then I have to ask –  what are we putting our lives and taxes toward to start with?  Is THIS something you want to really endorse?

 

A closer look is warranted at the entire system, and its background.  It’s already “culling” the population and in a crisis (see Katrina) guess who gets sacrificed.  Now read from Transvaal to TANF, read the congressional testimony just prior to enacting 1996 Welfare Reform (or even read some of the current talk/writing — if you can do so without regurgitating — and, in the mirror, ask whether this was accidental or planned.)

It took me a while to come to the conclusions I have, and I don’t expect others to agree immediately — or ncessarily ever.  But I do stand my ground — pay less attention to the talking heads, the mainstream media, and a lot more to your legislators and do NOT underestimate the influence of the family court system.  After all, a lot of money is going missing in the process — so what’s that money going INto?  Drugs?  Legal or illegal, or is there a difference?

 

It takes a good deal of context to separate Info from DISinfo. And it’s work, too.  With time, it gets a lot easier, though.

At bottom are the links from the blog  “The Family Court Franchise System.”  In one of the recent posts I said, “I’m not your mother” and suggested people educate themselves.  Plus two interesting links, “Educate Yo’self” and “Educate Yourself” which is where I got part of my education.

 

Where I got the habit of educating myself goes far back — but in these matters, it came from having relied on others’ information, which — though true enough — was (1) not the overview– critical elements were missing, and (2) given what was missing, almost irrelevant.  Instead they (includes Lundy Bancroft, and classic DV rhetoric) talked psychology and group dynamics and some law — something anyone living through what I did has already figured out (though how nice to have the correct terminology).

But they should’ve talked finances — and corporate influence, federal incentives, and private nonprofit associations running demonstration social science projects on as many POOR people (or other distressed populations) as possible, allegedly for the public’s benefit, and definitely at the public’s expense.  In fact, public and private are so blurred at this point, it might be best to ignore what the law says about domestic violence and criminal behavior, and rebuttable presumptions against custody going to the batterer (after all — plenty of judges, family law attorneys, custody evaluators, guardians ad litem and child support professionals most certainly do.  And we have to deal with them anyhow, so why not figure out what’s going on!

 

ROUGHLY in TWO PARTS:  I.  “EDUCATE YOURSELF” — and several examples.  And then II. (as to the Roots of Welfare) — some links to do so.  (under 7,000 words this time).  That’s if you care to.  I’m not your babysitter, I do this for conscience, possibly for therapy, and for a track record. But they are — as this shows — hauling off (kidnapping) children systematically from good parents, to get drugged under foster care.  They are, when there are two parents fighting for custody, able to prolong and make horrible the fight for years — and so “justify” major grants continuations (under TANF, which makes this possible) to promote marriage and fatherhood, and other very chauvinistic (antifeminist) ideas.  At the heart of this is the concept that it’s OK to force indoctrination (“education”) on poor people to address why they are poor, that the elite are appropriate in “molding” the poor — through force — to understand their function and place in society.  Religion is a good aid to this policy.

Too much of this policy comes from places like the British monarchy, or the Nazi apparatus, or prior to that, Prussian educational ideas.  Too much of it depends on free time to philosophize on the backs of workers that barely make ends meet and have far less freedom or mobility simply because they have no family wealth (assets), whether earned, or inherited.  Add to this things like eminent domain (government condemning, then seizing, then selling to cronies, private property) and we’re headed back towards the concentrations camps.  Depending on when “Judgment Day” comes — or does not.  Whatever the status of “judgment day” — there is nothing “just” or equitable about Welfare Reform, which enables flexible grants to the states, and gives bribes to states for going along with federal policy.  Federal policy rubberstamped by Congress — but managed by the Executive Branch (White House and friends) through a grants system.  The grants system itself is based on the TAX system — and there you go.

This is commonly called fascism ,centralization and we know already where that heads off to.

I know what dictatorship is at the family level, the personal level — and am pretty hot and bothered to see how far down the line it is at the national level as well.  When one’s life’s work is repeatedly interrupted, and finally stopped — talking about the essential things one has done in life — one has to rethink the “hold a job til retirement model,” particularly being a female of a certain age in the USA, Post-Bush1 & Bush 2.

(Read PART I, those comments will make more sense).

 

PART I

Educate Yo’self was actually the domain name of a link someone else passed along.  What a source!

The Declaration of Independence – 1776
The Articles of Confederation – 1777
The Constitution for the United States – 1787
Its Sources and Its Application

Commitment One: To Freedom

The commitment of greatest importance is a DEDICATION To FREEDOM at all levels of society, and in all dimensions of our existence.

A commitment to freedom, at all levels, is automatically a commitment to Rigorous Honesty, the Truth of Reality. After all, once freedom is insured, why would one need to lie?

Any “security” that is gained through loss of freedom is a Commitment to Fear. Any nation that puts “national security” above personal freedom has lost its power base

And, tidbits such as (from 2008 — an election year. Worth a review this year?):

545 People Responsible for America’s Woes
by Charley ReeseHave you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits? Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?

You and I don’t propose a federal budget. The president does. You and I don’t have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does. You and I don’t write the tax code. Congress does. You and I don’t set fiscal policy. Congress does. You and I don’t control monetary policy. The Federal Reserve Bank does.

One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices – 545 human beings out of the 300 million – are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.

I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.

. . . .Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault.    . . .

REPLACE THE SCOUNDRELS . . .

They continue to re-authorize the bastard child called “Welfare Reform,” which has simply expanded the ways to steal from the public, without proper monitoring, to infinity.  Go review the beginnings of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (I’ve blogged).  Or, how from state to state, the We, the People method of disciplining criminal judges (leaving ethical ones on the bench) — which was the grand jury — was replaced by “judicial complaint boards.”

It was passed in 1996, a Bill Clinton year.  See “From the Transvaal to TANF” talking about “triangulation” and how Clinton promoted this version of the “contract with America” as inbetween and somehow “above” party politics.  The fact is, the Republicans had succeeded in shutting down government over this, his ass was in trouble with Monica Lewinsky, and there was the Hillary problem; in fact there were plenty of problems.

The “Transvaal’ refers to Cecil Rhodes.  Bill Clinton, among others, was a Rhodes Scholar.   The purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship, and the beyond-my-liftime-goal of Mr. Rhodes, was to regain the British control of the world, particularly the return of “the US colonies” to their master.  Some people were born to lead, others were born to serve, obviously.  Now, fast-forward to TANF reform and look at who it’s targeting for program indoctrination on how to stay married, and quit propagating outside of marriage, etc.

The fact is, were it not for the artificial income tax / fiat currency situation (our $$ is off the gold standard), were it not the need for extremely wealthy corporations to maintain their wealth by a constant flow of competition for jobs in their industries (i.e., keep wages down, profits up) and to through a HUGE variety of means — including trying to designate everyone, almost, a behavioral health case, and where possible, proscribe some nice medication for them (i.e., control by medication, even sterilization) — it would be a piece of cake for an intelligent, motivated and in control of her own infrastructure single mother (or single father) to handle their own affairs.

One of the affairs the largest mistakes made by OUR forebears (generally speaking of USA citizens), over a century ago, was to hand over the raising of our kids to the government in the form of compulsory public education — which is compulsory time-wasting and dumbing down, and has been for decades.  It’s an ABSOLUTE disgrace and has become simply a values battleground anyhow.    And as to equalization — go check your senators — and all the representatives in the state — how many of them are sending their kids to public schools, and were themselves the product of public schools.  How many of them came from honest working backgrounds and were not raised with a silver spoon, or a political spoon?

Some of the greatest minds and leaders had the least traditional schooling — for themselves.   Horace Mann fits that example, and it appears 1837 was the first year there was a “Secretary of Education” at least in massachusetts.  Now we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services (more control over this country than you realize, and the current one is from Kansas), plus the “Czars” — interesting term, huh?  Look at him:

HORACE MANN‘s SCHOOLING

” The Father of American Education”,” Horace Mann, was born in Franklin, Massachusetts, in 1796. Mann’s schooling consisted only of brief and erratic periods of eight to ten weeks a year. Mann educated himself by reading ponderous volumes from the Franklin Town Library. This self education, combined with the fruits of a brief period of study with an intinerant school master, was sufficient to gain him admission to the sophomore class of Brown University in 1816” (4, Cremin). He went on to study law at Litchfield Law School and finally received admission to the bar in 1823 (15, Filler). In the year 1827 Mann won a seat in the state legislature and in 1833 ran for State Senate and won.” Throughout these years Horace Mann maintained a thriving law practice, first in Dedham and later in Boston” (5, Cremin).

” Of the many causes dear to Mann’s heart, non was closer than the education of the people. He held a keen interest in school policy. April 20, 1837, Mann left his law practice and accepted the post of the newly founded Secretary of Education” (6, Cremin). During his years as Secretary of Education Mann published twelve annual reports on aspects of his work and programs, and the integral relationship between education, freedom, and Republican government. He wanted a school that would be available and equal for all, part of the birth-right of every American child, to be for rich and poor alike. Mann had found “social harmony” to be his primary goal of the school. (8, Cremin).

Horace Mann felt that a common school would be the “great equalizer.” Poverty would most assuredly disappear as a broadened popular intelligence tapped new treasures of natural and material wealth. He felt that through education crime would decline sharply as would a host of moral vices like violence and fraud. In sum, there was no end to the social good which might be derived from a common school (8, Cremin).

SO — how’d you say THAT’s going?  Because in Los Angeles, they had a schoolteacher feeding blindfolded teaspoons of his own semen.  THIRD-graders.  Has poverty, violence and fraud been primarily despite the school system, or perhaps as a consequence of it?

Horace Mann had one thing — freedom.  He had another thing — access to the library.  He was also male, and he could vote — it was another century, from his passing the bar (1823) before women could!  Rather than trying to train a nation (how egotistical!), what about establish these basic rights, and make available justice (and libraries).

Horace Mann and Education Reform

Reformers, some influenced by the Prussian education reforms of the early 1800s, emerged at an incredible rate hoping to change the general form and ideals of American education to keep up with the evolving country. No longer would small rural schoolhouses, untrained teachers, or limitations in education opportunities suffice. A more defined system, which, as Mann and others had hoped, would also be free and universal, slowly garnered both grassroots and governmental support. The goal was to mold individuals from all socio-economic backgrounds into good people and good citizens through education. It was believed that in doing so everyone would be able to achieve to their fullest potential.

I would always much rather see a sermon than hear one.   Moreover, we ought to take care about importing Prussian OR German ideas.  Germans tend to be real organized, excessively so, — and I think it’s fair to say, Centralized. There is a LOT of literature out, particularly I’m thinking about Alice Miller, and “The Drama of the Gifted Child,” (d. 2010; she was a Swiss psychoanalyst, the book is about the consequences of repressed trauma)– talking about how the attempts to “mold” good strong citizens with cruel child-rearing practices (from Germany) may have helped created the cruel, socially-detached, amoral child molesters and sociopaths of today that we are now cleaning up after.

And yet, we have in TANF, a government intent on even more education of the public — in morality issues like fatherhood, marriage, abstinence, and so forth.  The truth is — at least as to TANF — I believe it’s simply another form of wealth-transfer; and it’s a VERY high profit-margin on downloading information by the internet, setting up a franchise system, having people BUY into it to be qualified as a marriage educator (etc.) — it was a real smart development for some very dishonest people.

What about Ben Franklin? (1706-1790)– was he adequately schooled?  Methinks not:

Benjamin Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706. He was the tenth son of soap maker, Josiah Franklin. Benjamin’s mother was Abiah Folger, the second wife of Josiah. In all, Josiah would father 17 children.

Josiah intended for Benjamin to enter into the clergy. However, Josiah could only afford to send his son to school for one year and clergymen needed years of schooling. But, as young Benjamin loved to read he had him apprenticed to his brother James, who was a printer. After helping James compose pamphlets and set type which was grueling work, 12-year-old Benjamin would sell their products in the streets.

What about Albert Einstein’s schooling?(1879-1955) (from a UK site): (take some time, here…)

Albert Einstein was born on 14th March, 1879 at Ulm, Germany. He spent his early life in Munich, where his family owned a small manufacturing business. He studied Judaism at home, where he also was taught to play the violin. He showed a great interest in Mathematics and taught himself Euclidian geometry at the age of 12.

What sort of education did Albert receive?

Albert Einstein began school in Munich, but does not seem to have been particularly interested in what was offered there. . .

He was already a self-motivated learner, with experience in (I presume) language, music, and geometry.  Are schools BORING the gifted? along with how many others?

Einstein hoped to become an electrical engineer and, at the second attempt, enrolled at the Swiss National Polytechnic in Zurich in 1896.

It seems that he continued to show little respect for his teachers, as he was not a regular attender at lectures. He spent considerable time studying physics on his own. Despite the lack of time in lecture halls, he graduated as a teacher of physics and mathematics in 1900, but was unable to obtain a post in the university. It has been suggested that he had not impressed his professors enough, which is perhaps not surprising, given his attitude, and so did not receive their all-important backing for an academic career.

Perhaps this lack of respect comes from someone who found something better to do with his time, working on self-assigned projects of interest.

What did he do next?

Albert Einstein became a temporary teacher of mathematics, first at the Technical High School in Winterthur, and secondly at a private school at Schaffhausen.

In 1902 he began work at the Swiss patent office in Bern as a technical expert third class. He remained there until 1909, having been promoted, in 1906, to technical expert second class! He married Mileva Maric, by whom he had two sons, in 1903. They later divorced.

During his time there, Albert Einstein devoted a great deal of his spare time to the study of theoretical physics, and in 1905, received his doctorate for a thesis entitled On a new determination of molecular dimensions. He also published three important papers on theoretical physics

 Anyone who’s honest today will admit that a major function of public school education is babysitter — to soak up the TIME of individuals so their parents (both their parents, if there are two) can go to work and pay their taxes to fund the teachers, among other things (or pay off some interest on the national debt).  As such, the kids (and youth) in school are going to have other things they would rather be doing, and/or exploring — so a good deal of the school day goes into administration and managing the kids.  And (now at least) running mental health screenings on them to see if some drugs can be marketed (see recent whistleblower on TMAP, PennMAP, who documented this).   More on Einstein:

In 1952, he declined the offer of the presidency of Israel and continued his work towards the world renouncing nuclear weapons.

Albert Einstein died on 18th April, 1955 at Princeton and was cremated that day at Trenton, New Jersey. He is, perhaps, the best known scientist of the 20th century

And just imagine — he was bored in school from the start, skipped a lot of classes, didn’t brown-nose enough in Swiss National Polytechnic around the turn of the century, resulting in his having a fairly humble job which left him time to study things of personal interest — eventually a Nobel Prize, etc. What does public education in the US do today?  Soak up time, DELETE a lot of music because not enough children are learning to read and write, substitutes values education, and when that (obviously) fails, recommend more money and start kids earlier and have longer school days and years.

The existence of the public school system, and its lower quality, is a caste-sorter, and intentionally so.   Where did our politicians go to school, prior to sponsoring initiatives to train the rest of us about the purpose of life, relationships, sex, and what and what is not healthy?  For example (to bring us to 2012 Presidential Candidacy, and which conservative do you want….)

Mitt Romney went to a private school from 7th grand onwards, where he met his wife, who also attended private schools.  Described as (Wikipedia):

Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km²) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities  …Romney went to public elementary schools^[17] and then from seventh grade on, attended Cranbrook School in Bloomfield Hills, a private boys preparatory school of the classic mold where he was the lone Mormon and where many students came from even more privileged backgrounds.^{[18][23][24][25]} He was not particularly athletic and at first did not excel at academics.^[18] While a sophomore, he participated in the campaign in which his father was elected Governor of Michigan.^{[nb 2]} 

Cranbrook Schools is a private, PK–12 school located on a 319-acre (1.29 km²) campus in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan. The schools comprise a co-educational elementary school, a middle school with separate schools for boys and girls, and a co-educational high school with boarding facilities. Cranbrook Schools is part of the Cranbrook Educational Community (CEC), which includes the Cranbrook Institute of Science, the Cranbrook Academy of Art, and Cranbrook House and Gardens. (Nearby Christ Church Cranbrook remains outside this formal structure.) The Cranbrook community was established by publishing mogul George Booth,

 Cranbrook was designated a National Historic Landmark on June 29, 1989 for its significant architecture and design. It attracts tourists from around the world. Approximately 40 acres (160,000 m²) of Cranbrook Schools’ campus are gardens.  As of 2006, Cranbrook Schools had an endowment of $191 million, among the 15 largest held by America’s boarding schools.^[1] In addition, the Cranbrook Educational Community, of which the Schools is a member, has an endowment in excess of $300 million.^[2]

Where did he get his wife from?

Ann Lois Romney (née Davies) (born April 16, 1949) is the wife of American businessman and Republican Party politician Mitt Romney. From 2003 to 2007 she was First Lady of Massachusetts.

She was raised in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan and attended the private Kingswood School there, where she dated Mitt Romney. Influenced by their relationship, she converted to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1966. She attended Brigham Young University and married Mitt Romney in 1969. She completed her undergraduate education through the Extension School at Harvard University with a bachelor’s degree in 1975.

As First Lady of Massachusetts, she served as the governor’s liaison for federal faith-based initiatives.

Now THAT is disturbing . . . .

Her background — daughter of the mayor of Bloomfield Hills, who was anti-organized religion.  So, she converts to LDS (like Mitt) and her college is put on hold while he completes his.   Their marriage, being Mormon:

Ann Davies and Mitt Romney were married by a church elder in a civil ceremony on March 21, 1969, at her Bloomfield Hills home, with a reception afterward at a local country club.^[4][12] The following day the couple flew to Utah for a wedding ceremony inside the Salt Lake Temple; her family could not attend since they were non-Mormons, but were present at a subsequent wedding breakfast held for them across the street.^[4][14]

When she fell ill, she had access to mainstream and alternative treatments for MS (a very serious disease) — such as equestrianism.  Suppose this had been one of her children — they’d have had that access also.

Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998 and has credited a mixture of mainstream and alternative treatments with giving her a lifestyle mostly without limitations. In one of those activities, equestrianism, she has consequently received recognition in dressage as an adult amateur at the national level and competing professionally in Grand Prix as well

The topic is EDUCATION DISPARITIES by WEALTH — as contrasted with Horace Mann’s vision:

By contrast with the ONE child of a black single mother (also in Michigan), who — on finding out that her daughter, having developed complications possibly related to a vaccine, then was given Risperdal — and when that had even worse effects, like any good Mom, she took her child OFF it — and then all hell (including with tanks and helicopters) eventually took place.  (Link is below).  It “just so happened’ that the community they lived in was supposed to do what it was told with their kids, and not buck the system or seek — as Mrs. Romney could — non-mainstream ways to stay alive or keep their kids alive and healthy.  That’s cause for losing one’s kid to the state, apparently.

Ron Paul Op-Ed on Ms. Godboldo in context of overmedication of chidlren in foster care, forced mandatory psychiatric screening of children (think they get that in the Cranbrook Educational Community nowadays?):

“No Mandatory Mental Health Screening For Children!” by Ron Paul

Wednesday, December 14th, 2011 Op-Ed by Congressman Ron Paul

Maryanne Godboldo, a mother in Michigan, noticed that pills prescribed by her daughter’s doctor were making her condition worse, not better. So Mrs. Godboldo stopped giving them to her. That’s when the trouble began. When Child Protective Services (CPS) bureaucrats became aware that the girl was not receiving her prescribed medication, they decided the child should be taken away from her mother’s custody on grounds of medical neglect. When Ms. Godboldo refused to surrender her daughter to the state, CPS enlisted the help of a police SWAT team! On March 24 of this year a 12 hour standoff ensued and young Ariana was taken into custody. The drug involved was Risperdal, a neuroleptic antipsychotic medication with numerous known side effects. Ms. Godboldo had decided on a more holistic approach for her daughter. She is still engaged in a costly legal battle with the state over Ariana’s treatment and custody.

This is one example of how government’s increasing proclivity to medicate children with questionable psychiatric drugs violates the rights of parents. Just recently, the Government Accountability Office released a report on the astonishingly high rate of prescriptions for psychotropic drugs for children in the foster care system. It is absolutely astounding that nearly 40% of kids in foster care are on psychotropic drugs, some of them taking up to 5 different pills at a time. Some of these children are under one year of age – too young to safely take over the counter cold medication!

 Another account:

Ethan A. Huff,
Natural News
December 15, 2011

The horrific saga of Maryanne Godboldo’s battle with domestic terrorists in the government of her home state of Michigan appear to finally be coming to an end. TheDetroit Free Pressreports that two higher courts have confirmed the ruling of a lower court several months ago that Godboldo’s refusal to administer the dangerous Risperdal drug to her daughter was fully legal, and that all charges and actions taken against her by the state were unwarranted.

In case you missed the story, Child Protective Services (CPS) in Michigan sent a SWAT team and tank to Godboldo’s Detroit home back in April after the mother refused to keep giving her 13-year-old daughter Risperdal (risperidone), a dangerous schizophrenia drug that had been causing her daughter to experience severe adverse reactions. Godboldo’s doctor had recommended that she discontinue use of the drug, but CPS felt otherwise, and decided to launch a full-scale terrorist raid on the woman’s home, where they proceeded to illegally kidnap her daughter (http://www.naturalnews.com/032090_M…).

In one of the series of articles on this raid, the demographics of the community spoke loudly as to what happened.  It wouldn’t happen in a gated community, and I’ll bet it wouldn’t happen in Bloomfield Hills, either.  However, another clue shows up in this (april 2011) article — not only was this woman acting — in accord with the doctor’s advice to stop Risperdal — not only was she single and African-American, she was also homeschooling her daughter!

Godboldos focus on daughter’s release:  April 17, 2011, The Michigan Citizen, Eric T. Campbell

“This case is very simple,” Defense Attorney Allison Fomar told the Michigan Citizen. “The child was taken out of the home without any legitimate, lawful authority. They took her in the most drastic way they could think of, which was to involve Detroit police.

. . .Ariana has been in state custody since March 25 without medication.

“If the issue was medication, where is the justice?” Penny said. “Why isn’t she home with her father right now? He has complete authority after Maryanne. To me, they sent her into harms way.”

Penny {{the mother’s sister and a dance teacher at Margrove College}} says her niece was active and normal growing up in a home-schooled environment. She was active in church and received lessons in piano and horseback riding.   “There were absolutely no mental issues with her until she had the immunizations and even more with the Risperdal,” Penny said. “It’s been a hell ever since.”

Ron Scott of the Detroit Coalition Against Police Brutality  . . .“The child has a father and an aunt and that’s where the mother thought the child was going when she released her,” Scott said. “Judge Pierce says she’s an advocate for families, so we’ll see what happens.”

According to Scott, CPS knew the daughter was doing fine without Risperdal and she was not considered an imminent danger to herself or anyone else. 

August, in this same case (good article — read it all!)

JURY RULES AGAINST MARYANNE GODBOLDO IN CUSTODY TRIAL

Posted on 08/16/2011 by Diane Bukowski

DETROIT – Despite testimony that Mia Wenk, a “social services specialist” with a bachelor’s degree in criminal justice, authorized the  psychiatric hospitalization of Ariana Godboldo-Hakim, 13, and the administration of four dangerous psychotropic drugs, without reviewing the child’s  medical records, a jury found Aug. 9 that it was Ariana’s mother Maryanne Godboldo who had neglected her.

Godboldo, who obtained alternative holistic treatment for her daughter from a medical doctor, testified earlier that she was suffering from a reaction to immunizations administered in Sept. 2009. She said Ariana had been diagnosed with encephalitis, not a psychiatric disorder. Neither she nor Ariana’s father Mubarak Hakim authorized their daughter’s treatment at Hawthorn Children’s Psychiatric facility after an army of police seized her from her home on Blaine near Linwood in Detroit March 24, 2011. 

Wenk said that as she watched the stand-off with police that resulted at Ariana’s home, her only concern was, “I didn’t want her to end up shooting her daughter.”**  Wenk is currently facing a federal lawsuit  filed by Nathaniel Brent (see next story) for taking his five children, who are of Native American heritage.

Captions: Maryanne Godboldo speaks at rally July 17, 2011 . . . Children’s Center recruits foster parents in billboard off John C. Lodge Fwy.; they are paid $34 per day per head by DHS for each child they take

(**Wenk provoked the crisis to start with, which seems to be pretty standard protocol, where possible to get away with.   It also signifies a serious attitude problem, job description or no job description.   In this situation, they simply didn’t reckon with an armed mother, and a supportive community expressing its outrage AND investigative reporting on it!  The problem is the presence of a system which enables this.  That the SWAT team would come in this situation shows that Wenk and friends hold far too much sway.  Meanwhile, over in Connecticut, a little boy (and across the country this is happening) is being tortured with symptoms BOTH medical and behavioral, as attested to by doctors — and the GAL in the case still has custody with the father who is doing this!  WHy not remove THAT child?) (Answer:  money in the family hasn’t been sucked out yet. See CT page on my other blog).

I keep finding more — and very disturbing — information on this case.  First of all — we note that this is a mature mother, not a teen mother (see photo, and article below says she’s in her 50s).  She is dedicated to taking care of her daughter who is an amputee, and was doing a good job of it; the troubles began with a school-required vaccination, and reactions to it.   And although parents are separated, this was not a case which could be played Mom VERSUS Dad.

“Police use Assault Weapons and Tank against Home School Mom wanting to protect daughter from Dangerous Medications.”

Health Impact News Editor

According to the Detroit News, a 56-year-old woman faces multiple felony charges and is being held on $500,000 bond after a 10-hour standoff with police, claiming she was protecting her 13-year-old daughter from unnecessary medication. The story which led to this incident, as reported in the Detroit News and The Voice of Detroit, is quite disturbing.

Maryanne Godboldo’s daughter was born with a defective foot that required amputation of her leg below the knee, which led to Maryanne becoming a stay-at-home mother after her birth. Maryanne and her sister Penny now run a dance school in Detroit. Penny Godboldo reported in the Detroit News her niece’s confidence grew, and despite her handicap, she swam, sang, danced and played the piano. However, as she approached middle school age, she apparently wanted to start attending school, and therefore had to “catch up” on required immunizations.

As the Detroit News reports:

“We believe she had an adverse reaction to her immunizations,” Penny Godboldo said.

“She began acting out of character, being irritated, having facial grimaces that have been associated with immunizations.”

Evans said Maryanne Godboldo sought help for her daughter from The Children’s Center, an organization that helps families with at-risk children, where a medical and mental health treatment plan was developed. Godboldo told relatives the medications ordered by the doctor worsened symptoms, including behavioral problems.

“It is an undiagnosed condition, but the doctor had given her psychotropic drugs that caused a bad reaction, made things worse,” said the girl’s father, Mubuarak Hakim. “Maryanne’s decision to wean her from that was making a difference, making her better, helping her to be a happy kid again.”

Maryanne Godboldo apparently has a good reputation in her community, and during the 10 hour standoff many people from the community offered to help with the negotiations, including ministers and community activists, according to reports in the Detroit News. Ironically, it was Wayne Circuit Judge Deborah Thomas, a former polio sufferer and advocate for the disabled, who finally convinced Maryanne to surrender

Embarrassed — or exposed? — although the mother had her criminal charges dropped, and her child back (late December) the Wayne County District attorney, per spokesman, is thinking of re-instating them.  They are crazy — but smart enough to know that this case is probably a good chink in the wall.

http://www.miweekly.com/news/85-detroit/5705-mom-in-police-standoff-awaits-decision-on-charges

Last Updated: December 10. 2011 1:00AM

Doug Guthrie/ The Detroit News

Detroit— A judge is expected to announce his decision Monday whether to reinstate criminal charges against a mother who resisted police who forced their way into her home to take her teenage daughter during a dispute over medications. . . .

Acting on a call from a Wayne County Child Protective Services (=CPS) worker, who told police she had obtained an order to remove the child on a claim of medical neglect, the officers responding to Godboldo’s home accused her of firing a handgun at them through a plaster wall after she refused to let them in. Godboldo was talked out of the house. She was jailed for several days until her release on bond, and her daughter was held in a state psychiatric facility for almost two months.

Godboldo was charged with resisting and assaulting police, as well as use of a firearm in the commission of a felony. Giles tossed out the charges in August because he said the order used by police as authority to enter the house was invalid. It was never authorized by a judge, but had a rubber stamp signature. Police also testified they don’t normally enforce civil court orders, but had been told by the protective services worker it was a criminal warrant.

And the police didn’t LOOK at the warrant?  Do criminal and civil warrants look different from each other?

http://justice4maryanne.com/

Some excellent reporting.

Talk about the disparity of viewpoints:  Family, Community — versus the System who wants the child to be medicated.

My reading has led me to the conclusion — this is a class war, and at the bottom of the barrel (as to scapegoating) are women who look and act like this one.  Like Albert Einstein, Horace Mann, and other leaders, her daughter’s education was not traditional — and part of schooling these days is getting the vaccinations (I even found a reference to James Franklin — Ben’s older brother — protesting vaccinations in his time!).   Drugging people is a form of medical control — not just profits — get it?  If certain classes of people are being used as test cases for the effects of dangerous drugs, then this comprises a class war against them.   Why should this mother AND her community have to wage a legal battle to “buy” back a daughter which had been kidnapped improperly?   Why should anyone have to?

At some level, we have got to start acknowledging that mature, independent mothers are a threat to the status quo.   For the rest of us, the family law system with its fatherhood funding gets the job done without SWAT teams.  But both methods are extortionist.

 

 

PART II LINKS:

 

First set of links are ###  some stats (food for thought in a land flush with marriage/fatherhood theory — and grants).

Second set of links are $$$ — including some searchable databases to know about.

The three links beginning with  “—” I just felt were important summaries.  Right about now, J.A.I.L.4Judges is making a whole lotta sense (see site).  I also put my “What Rhetoric Are You” up there just to remind us — be aware whose rhetoric you are hearing.  It’s in the tone, language, and framing.  The third “—” link is an unbelievable account (except it’s happening nationwide; the rarety here is what a mother did to stand up, and that her case was eventually turned around) that we should read, it’s symptomatic.  (Maryanne Godboldo case).

After that, I go into some chrono links — at least a few references by year.

After that, it’s alphabetical by some of the organizations.

 

There’s a reason librarians are paid — and I’m not one.  But I felt that if I continue writing posts, and writing posts — no one will get through this information.  The best learning — anyhow– is situation relevant, and from people who are highly motivated to acquire the understanding or skill RIGHT NOW to address a problem facing them.  In other words, the best learning is self-taught, and from someone or some source you’ve checked out as reasonable, which knows more than you do.  Period.

Failure can be a far better teacher than success.  Perhaps that’s why I can’t look to those still holding on to their middle-class or lower-middle class jobs to figure this out.  People who’ve been treated like tetherballs IN the public institutions tend to be better reporters; they’ve had to work harder to regain their center of balance.  I am one of many such people around; look for loners, not followers! And always check out FIRST (as to organization) are they honest in (1) corporation status (2) filing tax returns with the IRS and (frequently missing) (3) filing with their local state as required by corporation and by charitable trust, if required.

Another common lie I find is date of the beginning of some organization.  When the corporation “begins” it has a record with a year attached.  Unless mythology is OK, check talk to incorporation.  You’d be amazed what’s out there.

“It’s Elementary” — The Links Tell The Story

• ##s-$$ Obama to ADD to Fatherhood Funding (2010, $500Mil)
• ##s-Actual Welfare Recipients testifying in 1990s Congressional Testimony on Welfare Reform (17 of 600!)
• ##s-Obama refers to women’s issues in Inaugural (0. Bush-1, Clinton-1)
• ##s-Obama refers to women’s issues in State of Union Addresses (2 of 4)
• ##s-US Women Still Majority (Census, 51%)
• ##s-US Women Still Minority (Congress,17%)
• $$ [State’s name] Charitable Registry Searches
• $$ Corp Registration SOState Sites (CoordinatedLegalTech) KISS this site! Do Lookups!
• $$ Interlocking Directorate: “ALEC”
• $$ NCCSdataweb: KISS this site! Nonprofit Tax Return Lookups, National
• $$ TAGGS (HHS Grants Database) (unreliable, but still an eye-opener)
• $$ USASpending.gov (Search by DUNS#) (almost NEVER matches TAGGS)
• —J.A.I.L.4 Judges: Judicial Immunity=Tyranny
• —What Rhetoric Are You: Father, Mother, or Mediator? (1/2011)
• –The Extraordinary Case (Courage) of Detroit Single Mom, Maryanne Godboldo=Where It’s At+Great Reporting
• 1973 War and Emergency Powers Act (Sen.Rpt. 93-549: README!)
• 1995 Clinton’s (Fatherhood) Compromise
• 1996 “Personal Respons.Work Oppty Reconciliation Act” (Welfare Reform/TANF)
• 1999 Film: 6 Welfare Mothers Try To Play by New Rules
• 2001 Bush’s FIRST Exec Order establishes OFBCI (Faith-based Office in White House).
• 2001 Prospecting Among the Poor:Welfare Privatization
• 2003 Cindy Ross (N.Calif) Classic Summary of Fed Funding.FamCourts.Misogyny
• 2005 TMAP/PENNMap Whistleblower:Pushing Psychotropics for the Poor (GWBush-style)
• 2006 HHS Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood=226 grantees
• 2006 PA OIG Whistleblower, TX lawsuit on Pharma Payoffs
• 2007 OH: Downside of State “Offices for Faith-Based”
• 2008 Sept USGAO: HHS Lacks Mechanisms to Track HMRF Grantees’ Compliance!
• 2008 TANF: Pushed to the Altar (Public Eye, Good Summ’y)
• 2009 March: Attorney Richard Fine kidnapped, incarcerated w/o charge
• 2009, Feb. Calif Gov Signs Retro-Immunity for Judges SBX-211 (next up, jail Fine!)
• 2011 HHS Budget: $500 million (more) for WHAT??!?? (search “marriage”)
• 2011 Scranton PA messageboard (&my obnoxiously long comments/research)
• 2011-FBI raids “in the best interests of the child” courthouse (Lackawanna County PA)
• 45 CFR 303.109 Fed Regs for Access-Visitation Grants (Social Science Projects, Centralized Control to HHS Secretary :See Reg. (b)(2))
• AFCC History (“Beware”) from StopCourtOrderedChildAbuse
• AFCC History In Its Own Words (the “spin”)
• Bush-Moon-“True Parents” Obsession
• Bush-Moon-Extreme GOP Christianity:Unholy Alliance (Why Family Courts really do behave like “cults”?))
• CRC (court-related nonprofits to watch) history
• Fatherhood&Families Coalition (Understand this Group!)
• Ford+Feds+Foundations= MDRC (1974) Know This Group
• Foundations: **1982 Norman Dodd Intvw (re: Ford, Rockefeller, etc.)
• Foundations: Carnegie
• Foundations: FORD has a (global) Plan
• Foundations: MacArthur (John D Catherine T)
• Foundations: Rockefeller
• Foundations: Wm T Grant (Social Science Research, esp. Youth)
• Foundations:Wm T Grant (Obama Whitehouse Appointees)
• Foundatns: Annie E Casey (funds Fatherhood esp)
• Governors Overhaul by Exec Order-Kansas (2012)
• Govt Overhaul by Exec Order: KS 2012 (SRS)
• Govt Overhaul by Governor:CO 2012 (CDHS)
• Models for Change (MacArthur plan, by State & Issue)
• Models for Change (Mindtools,Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze)
• National Alliance for Family Court Justice (Exposes the Welfare Reform-Family Court Paradigms,1993ff)
• NCADV (sliding-scale membership) Nonprofit
• OCSE (on Child Support: FinePrint Historic, from House Ways’N Means)
• Opus Dei (Vatican/Pentagon)
• TANF: CRS Issue Rvw @ 2003 (Congressional Research Service)
• Tavistock-Social Engineering into Slavery…

Previous posts of this blog have had a little yellow flag labeled “Expose Corruption” up next to some of the posts on parenting coordination and/or Kids’First.  From Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania (next to the infamous Luzerne County).  The visuals (which a forum Administrator only could put up) have rather changed in quality recently, which exposes — well, the mentality or an assumed mentality that’d discredit the gravity of the situations they are handling, namely racketeering, money laundering, child abuse coverups, in general corruption of public officials.

Without saying too much more, I have had some private conversations (there is a messaging function) on the board with its moderators, who were first a couple, then just the wife.  It seems to me that the present graphics are hardly her style, and they do resemble Mr. Pilchesky’s style — but then again, what do I know?  With any forum, there can be multiple identities and some gamesmanship to keep the discussions going.

Either way, FYI:

Also, after several months on a forum in Scranton, the forum message board is posting a photo of a targeted public person (I gather) in his briefs.  JUST FOR THE RECORD — in the past week or so of 2012, the leading photos have featured a hooker leaning over onto a police car, a crude graphic of a man trying to plug a damn with water spouting out through his ear (i.e., flowing through his body) and then this.  Either Mr. Pilchesky is back on board, or something happened — but FYI, I wouldn’t have put out all that research onto the site with this level of visuals, and (though it’s been deleted since) inf act spoke up about some of this in 2011.

 There’s a line between expression and simply sharing the same gutter, and this is over it. There are individuals taking legal action to change the dynamics, but part of life is definitely who you hang out with.  That’s just plain offensive; it doesn’t help the cause at all, and may have been intended to hurt it by association.

PART II LINKS:

First set of links are ###  some stats (food for thought in a land flush with marriage/fatherhood theory — and grants).

Second set of links are $$$ — including some searchable databases to know about.

The three links beginning with  “—” I just felt were important summaries.  Right about now, J.A.I.L.4Judges is making a whole lotta sense (see site).  I also put my “What Rhetoric Are You” up there just to remind us — be aware whose rhetoric you are hearing.  It’s in the tone, language, and framing.  The third “—” link is an unbelievable account (except it’s happening nationwide; the rarety here is what a mother did to stand up, and that her case was eventually turned around) that we should read, it’s symptomatic.  (Maryanne Godboldo case).

After that, I go into some chrono links — at least a few references by year.

After that, it’s alphabetical by some of the organizations.

There’s a reason librarians are paid — and I’m not one.  But I felt that if I continue writing posts, and writing posts — no one will get through this information.  The best learning — anyhow– is situation relevant, and from people who are highly motivated to acquire the understanding or skill RIGHT NOW to address a problem facing them.  In other words, the best learning is self-taught, and from someone or some source you’ve checked out as reasonable, which knows more than you do.  Period.

Failure can be a far better teacher than success.  Perhaps that’s why I can’t look to those still holding on to their middle-class or lower-middle class jobs to figure this out.  People who’ve been treated like tetherballs IN the public institutions tend to be better reporters; they’ve had to work harder to regain their center of balance.  I am one of many such people around; look for loners, not followers! And always check out FIRST (as to organization) are they honest in (1) corporation status (2) filing tax returns with the IRS and (frequently missing) (3) filing with their local state as required by corporation and by charitable trust, if required.

Another common lie I find is date of the beginning of some organization.  When the corporation “begins” it has a record with a year attached.  Unless mythology is OK, check talk to incorporation.  You’d be amazed what’s out there.

“It’s Elementary” — The Links Tell The Story

• ##s-$$ Obama to ADD to Fatherhood Funding (2010, $500Mil)
• ##s-Actual Welfare Recipients testifying in 1990s Congressional Testimony on Welfare Reform (17 of 600!)
• ##s-Obama refers to women’s issues in Inaugural (0. Bush-1, Clinton-1)
• ##s-Obama refers to women’s issues in State of Union Addresses (2 of 4)
• ##s-US Women Still Majority (Census, 51%)
• ##s-US Women Still Minority (Congress,17%)
• $$ [State’s name] Charitable Registry Searches
• $$ Corp Registration SOState Sites (CoordinatedLegalTech) KISS this site! Do Lookups!
• $$ Interlocking Directorate: “ALEC”
• $$ NCCSdataweb: KISS this site! Nonprofit Tax Return Lookups, National
• $$ TAGGS (HHS Grants Database) (unreliable, but still an eye-opener)
• $$ USASpending.gov (Search by DUNS#) (almost NEVER matches TAGGS)
• —J.A.I.L.4 Judges: Judicial Immunity=Tyranny
• —What Rhetoric Are You: Father, Mother, or Mediator? (1/2011)
• –The Extraordinary Case (Courage) of Detroit Single Mom, Maryanne Godboldo=Where It’s At+Great Reporting
• 1973 War and Emergency Powers Act (Sen.Rpt. 93-549: README!)
• 1995 Clinton’s (Fatherhood) Compromise
• 1996 “Personal Respons.Work Oppty Reconciliation Act” (Welfare Reform/TANF)
• 1999 Film: 6 Welfare Mothers Try To Play by New Rules
• 2001 Bush’s FIRST Exec Order establishes OFBCI (Faith-based Office in White House).
• 2001 Prospecting Among the Poor:Welfare Privatization
• 2003 Cindy Ross (N.Calif) Classic Summary of Fed Funding.FamCourts.Misogyny
• 2005 TMAP/PENNMap Whistleblower:Pushing Psychotropics for the Poor (GWBush-style)
• 2006 HHS Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood=226 grantees
• 2006 PA OIG Whistleblower, TX lawsuit on Pharma Payoffs
• 2007 OH: Downside of State “Offices for Faith-Based”
• 2008 Sept USGAO: HHS Lacks Mechanisms to Track HMRF Grantees’ Compliance!
• 2008 TANF: Pushed to the Altar (Public Eye, Good Summ’y)
• 2009 March: Attorney Richard Fine kidnapped, incarcerated w/o charge
• 2009, Feb. Calif Gov Signs Retro-Immunity for Judges SBX-211 (next up, jail Fine!)
• 2011 HHS Budget: $500 million (more) for WHAT??!?? (search “marriage”)
• 2011 Scranton PA messageboard (&my obnoxiously long comments/research)
• 2011-FBI raids “in the best interests of the child” courthouse (Lackawanna County PA)
• 45 CFR 303.109 Fed Regs for Access-Visitation Grants (Social Science Projects, Centralized Control to HHS Secretary :See Reg. (b)(2))
• AFCC History (“Beware”) from StopCourtOrderedChildAbuse
• AFCC History In Its Own Words (the “spin”)
• Bush-Moon-“True Parents” Obsession
• Bush-Moon-Extreme GOP Christianity:Unholy Alliance (Why Family Courts really do behave like “cults”?))
• CRC (court-related nonprofits to watch) history
• Fatherhood&Families Coalition (Understand this Group!)
• Ford+Feds+Foundations= MDRC (1974) Know This Group
• Foundations: **1982 Norman Dodd Intvw (re: Ford, Rockefeller, etc.)
• Foundations: Carnegie
• Foundations: FORD has a (global) Plan
• Foundations: MacArthur (John D Catherine T)
• Foundations: Rockefeller
• Foundations: Wm T Grant (Social Science Research, esp. Youth)
• Foundations:Wm T Grant (Obama Whitehouse Appointees)
• Foundatns: Annie E Casey (funds Fatherhood esp)
• Governors Overhaul by Exec Order-Kansas (2012)
• Govt Overhaul by Exec Order: KS 2012 (SRS)
• Govt Overhaul by Governor:CO 2012 (CDHS)
• Models for Change (MacArthur plan, by State & Issue)
• Models for Change (Mindtools,Unfreeze-Change-Refreeze)
• National Alliance for Family Court Justice (Exposes the Welfare Reform-Family Court Paradigms,1993ff)
• NCADV (sliding-scale membership) Nonprofit
• OCSE (on Child Support: FinePrint Historic, from House Ways’N Means)
• Opus Dei (Vatican/Pentagon)
• TANF: CRS Issue Rvw @ 2003 (Congressional Research Service)
• Tavistock-Social Engineering into Slavery…

Previous posts of this blog have had a little yellow flag labeled “Expose Corruption” up next to some of the posts on parenting coordination and/or Kids’First.  From Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania (next to the infamous Luzerne County).  The visuals (which a forum Administrator only could put up) have rather changed in quality recently, which exposes — well, the mentality or an assumed mentality that’d discredit the gravity of the situations they are handling, namely racketeering, money laundering, child abuse coverups, in general corruption of public officials.

Without saying too much more, I have had some private conversations (there is a messaging function) on the board with its moderators, who were first a couple, then just the wife.  It seems to me that the present graphics are hardly her style, and they do resemble Mr. Pilchesky’s style — but then again, what do I know?  With any forum, there can be multiple identities and some gamesmanship to keep the discussions going.

Either way, FYI:

Also, after several months on a forum in Scranton, the forum message board is posting a photo of a targeted public person (I gather) in his briefs.  JUST FOR THE RECORD — in the past week or so of 2012, the leading photos have featured a hooker leaning over onto a police car, a crude graphic of a man trying to plug a damn with water spouting out through his ear (i.e., flowing through his body) and then this.  Either Mr. Pilchesky is back on board, or something happened — but FYI, I wouldn’t have put out all that research onto the site with this level of visuals, and (though it’s been deleted since) inf act spoke up about some of this in 2011.

 There’s a line between expression and simply sharing the same gutter, and this is over it. There are individuals taking legal action to change the dynamics, but part of life is definitely who you hang out with.  That’s just plain offensive; it doesn’t help the cause at all, and may have been intended to hurt it by association.

Does It Matter Who Baked the Pie, so Long as It’s Eaten? Well, That Depends on the Cook(s).

What About that 66/34 effect?

Several times on this blog (and another forum or so), I have promoted the “AbuseFreedomLive” blogtalk Tuesday Night radio show, (and been on it once, called in sometimes) because there are simply so few people around actually that actually seem to understand the role played by the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system.

And to understand this to get a pretty good measurement of where this country is overall.  It’s a HUGE issue.   It is also part of how the well-to-do and corporations exert control over the poor (and make sure there are plenty of poor around) to help regulate the middle class and employ (for now) a large sector of said middle class, including white AND blue-collar professionals, in regulating and administratively studying, tabulating (etc.) the huddled masses that either started in the US, were imported in the bottom of ships for free labor (see “corporations”), or fled bloodshed, famine incited by theocracy and religious prejudice, in other countries.  And their descendants.

As the rich tend to understand money (and more forms of it, and more ways of accumulating it, and more ways to not pay income taxes, and more ways to write off taxes, and more tax shelters) than people raised, drilled, and limited to ONE form of (above-the-radar) income production called JOBS, which the rich are supposedly always creating more of, which is why Congressmen should continually give them more tax breaks.  And let them pass adjustments to welfare requiring the poor to get and/or stay married (etc.).

MSM agrees with this on me.  I didn’t hear it on  Dr. Phil (because I don’t watch Dr. Phil), however, for once I agreed with Michael Moore (on Tavis Smiley, recently) a show with about a dozen guests that I caught a fragment of.  Mr. Moore pointed out that, f the wealthy wished to get rid of poverty, they could — however it’s handy to have the poor around to keep the middle class in line (and vice versa — my opinion).    So no, this is not too esoteric a subject.  It cuts to the heart of “whose kids ARE they?” and for that matter, “Whose am I?  Do I belong to myself?”  Most people would say yes — or wish to say it, which then puts them in conflict with others who have.

So when I am talking about federal incentives, meaning what the IRS distributes, to something as basic as the States and what they do with it to handle the poor (which allegedly is what welfare and child support are THERE for), I am cutting to the heart of the American experience, and to any matter dealing with child custody, visitation — including visiting by parents when the state has the child, or visiting with parents when parents don’t cohabit, and so forth.

This 66/34 matter has so many influences on our culture, it qualifies as PRIMAL .

And we know which sectors of society baked up:  once married always married, joint custody recommendations, and the pro-marriage/anti-feminazi movement– and how.  Well, at least I do and if not totally, at least the picture is fairly clear, and these are father-friendly organizations, so-called.  The “few prominent thinkers” and “Close to Washington D.C.” and Think Tankers.  The Heritage Foundationers, Family Research Council-ers, Focus on the Families-ers, and so forth, plus the parallel on the progressive side (there IS a parallel to the fatherhood movement in the non-faith-based sector).   AFCC/CRC etc.

These are the “Expensive Remedy In Search of a Legitimate Problem” that certain mothers (primarily) groups have been protesting for years, and protested again in front of the ways and means/ appropriations subcommittee in June 2010 (Liz Richards article, re-blogged recently here).

• Typically fathers protest VAWA and Some mothers protest Fatherhood Funding/Access-Visitation/Marriage (etc. promotion).  You do not have, typically, fathers groups PROtesting the fatherhood funding — which sometimes comes with pro bono help to increase noncustodial (father) parenting time.  More typically, while vigorously protesting bias against men in the family courts –and doing something about it — these are standing in line to form groups to get more grants to preach this gospel.  Or just evangelize in general, when it comes to “faith-based” only through marriage counseling and relationship classes.  etc.
• Activist Fathers’ groups also lobby alongside conservative groups (married women and second wives as well) against anything removing children from their home, or forcing them to, in their eyes, pay exorbitantly to support the mothers of their departed (or in some cases abandoned) exes.  That’s the general breakdown.
• Although some of us (I’m never quite sure where my “us” begins and ends, but I have a flexible concept of the juicy center of it) wish to inform some of the fathers’ groups who’ve been extorted (for real, not for “if I can’t see my kids I sure as heck am not going to support them” group) that there is a middle ground here, and we have more in common in wishing to eject program fraud from ALL sectors, and in fact to reduce, curtail if not STOP TANF diversions to Designer Family Building programs.
• In other words, not every father is a Jeffrey Leving, a Glenn Sacks, or a Warren Farrell (or, for that matter, a Richard Warshak, although I don’t know if he’s a Dad).  Some Dads are simply living their lives, or trying to, and are not out for blood & guts fame in reforming government.

 I’ve blogged plenty on the welfare/child support system’s incentives in the domestic relations / family law system, and on the Federal/State % incentives built into it.  I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed’s ex), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups.*

(*I’ll repeat the italicized part several paragraphs later to connect this point below to my concerns, below):

This post addresses a concern — or question — I have about the direction of the 66/34 Effect show, and particularly one section of it seen in today’s news alert.   I think it’s relevant, because it’s showing up as new light on a difficult situation; high-profile speakers from various industries (not only court-related, although that’s the focus) are producing a lot of information and food for thought.  And in an information age — no information is neutral, it all has values attached.  And above all, it should be honest.  No one is 100% accurate (and I try to correct my factual mis-speaks when I see them or it’s brought to my attention.  Not typos, but where I got my facts wrong, due to error in recall, or error in attribution — but never is it intentional.

I don’t state the issue until near the bottom of the post; scroll if need be, or read the post for context, reasoning, explanation.  Then again the troublesome part is at the very, very bottom of the email alert, and probably most people missed it.  But it seems to be a clue.

And while here, I’ll drive home this two-thirds/one-third (66/34) matter, which I think bears teaching, re-teaching, and explaining the import of, weekly (at least) until people get it:  Stop Federal Incentive Welfare-related Diversionary Programs (in order to stop widespread waste &  fraud) and Face It — this is Fascism in the Making, if not just about ready to come out of the oven!

(“Fascism” meaning, the combining and centralization of government by degrees — hey, Obama wants to merge agencies, but ALL agencies are already to encourage fatherhood promotion (Clinton, 1995), pay for more noncustodial FATHER involvement in the families (Welfare reform 1996, see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative for how to jumpstart a statewide program) and Faith-based Inclusionary Activities (see Bush, 2001 January).  Don’t ever forget, Hitler considered himself a Christian, too. So did pastors on BOTH sides of the Rwandan massacre (see “Left to Tell” or the book on which “Hotel Rwanda” was based).  Christian groups from United States –including some on the marriage movement take — had to quick, dissociate themselves with a “kill-the-gays” law in Uganda, but I assure us (and it’s seen) that some of these US evangelical groups love to test their material on sub-Saharan Africa, or other places too distressed to properly resist. . . .I distinguish “fathers” from “fatherhood” the way I distinguish “religion” from spirituality, which is a lot closer to ethics and what’s in the center of a person.)

This phrase (and its position, likely not to be noticed, on the very bottom of the email alert) really concerns me:

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out or mission to improve the way the family courts do business. He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

Which then shows the link to a “Change.org” petition posted by a noncustodial MOTHER who is now paying her ex child support; this petition (I also have the link on blogroll, or did for quite a while) was originally assembled by Athena Phoenix (prior to that username which is associated with the blogtalk radio show) anyhow — who is also female, not male and not a father.

http://www.change.org/petitions/cut-tanf-title-iv-d-programs-which-represent-4billion-of-waste

This is an excellent petition, and speaks in detail of some of the areas of consistent program mismangement and waste.  I feel it is very well written.  However, it’s not whichever responsible father hosted the show’s petition — it was written by a very smart woman who’s become famliar with this material through research.

It goes, in part, like this (no link to the budget is provided, but people can look the data up) (in pink font):

Why This Is Important

This letter is to request that you take action to cut spending on pork barrel spending on certain TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4 billion untraceable dollars that no one keeps track of. These funds meant for needy children were diverted and wasted by the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to non needs based programs available to all fathers engaged in the family court litigation industry—no matter how wealthy they are. These parents now ask Congress to take a stand to hold ACF’s defective leadership and the programs destroying families accountable by demanding the following budget cuts:

1. TANF Contingency Fund authorized under 403(b) Social Security Act for payment to States and other non-federal entities under Titles I, IV-D, X, XI, and XIV “to remain available until expended.” (p. 474)

2. ID Code 75-1552-0-1-609, lines 0005 and 0009 [$990 million] (p. 473)

3. ID Code 75-1501-0-1-609 lines 0002, 0003 [Access and Visitation] [$1.7 billion] (p. 474)

4. Discretionary “Child Support Incentives” to States [$305 million] (p. 475)

5. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Healthy Families” [$1.7 billion] (p.476)

6. ID Code 75–1512–0–1–506 “Abstinence Education” [$1.7 billion] (p. 477)

7. Line 0129 “Faith Based Initiatives” [$1 million] (p.479)

Struggling parents want things like jobs, housing, education, childcare, and access to medical care to help them weather the current economic crisis. Instead, these hard working families are forced to invest $4 Billion in irresponsible, extortion based, Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF) programs that promote widespread Medicaid and child support fraud, protracted high conflict litigation, and bogus therapy programs.

Child support agencies deliberately withhold and mismanage billions of paid collected support, which starves children onto TANF and causes parents to be falsely prosecuted for nonpayment.

Good parents are being exploited, bankrupted, and emotionally destroyed while their kids are needlessly placed on the welfare, Medicaid, and foster care system rolls. Billions of dollars of child support remains unaccounted for nationwide.

This petition was posted by Liora Farkowitz on Change.org, who also presented at the last BMCC conference (July 2012):

See “Cut TANF Title IV-D programs which represent $4Billion of waste.”  While Ms. Farkowitz may be very responsible, it’s evident she’s not a father.  Was this just a mistaken link?

The wording indicates that a responsible father asks people to sign “this” (not “his”) petition.  Yet no mention is made of the responsible mother who posted it or its actual author, who also is female.  The programs they re protesting specifically are stated to target and help noncustodial fathers increase custody share (whether or not this actually takes place); is it more true and more credible in the eyes of men if a man points to it?  Well, probably — but is that the important message?

Is anyone on the program tonight (which includes a number of nonprofits in the juvenile corrections and preventing human trafficking practices, with an emphasis on Georgia) receiving possible program funding from HHS?

Possibly:  And in fact two posts (from the last two days of blogging) I’ve been drafting in regards to the organization ALEC, showed me how that even in this matter of very legitimate problems related to racist lockup policies (harsher sentencing for males of color) and the attendant (multiple) nonprofit juvenile justice foundations focusing on DIVERSIONARY programs — has some overlap, but a lot of conflict — when the same principles affect custody courts — which they do.  And they affect custody courts the MOST when it comes to matters of attempted separation from abusive parents, including some parents in lockup rightfully, from violence.

For example (see program flyer for tonight, if you’ve received on, or if my last link was accurate):

LOCKING UP KIDS WHO HAVE COMMITTED NO CRIME COULD COST GEORGIA MILLIONS IN FEDERAL FUNDS,   By Jim Walls, JJIE Journal, 1/12/2012 Original content found here.    Every week, Georgia locks up juveniles who’ve committed no crime. A new study contends Georgia risks losing millions of dollars in federal funding if it continues doing so at the current rate.   They are runaways, truants, curfew violators, underage smokers and drinkers. They’re called status offenders because their actions are only an issue due to their status as juveniles; if an adult did the same thing, it wouldn’t be a crime. Now, a report commissioned by the Governor’s Office for Children and Families warns that the practice could cost the state about $2 million a year in federal funding, particularly if Congress follows through with plans to tighten guidelines for placing status offenders in secure detention.

Let’s look at the HHS grants to this office:  I see two streams, one which has no DUNS#.  Although I suspect that the funding they are referring to is more likely to be DOJ funding, let’s see what the same office is getting, here:

 

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	DECATUR	GA	30032	DE KALB	000000000	$ 4,045,342
GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	DECATUR	GA	30032	DE KALB	828115951	$ 3,946,786

If you click on both those, you’ll see grants that (I’ll wager — and see if I can check quickly here) sound like “AE” Abstinence Education and FR (Fathers Rights), one from a FYSB (Youth bureau) and the other from CB (Children’s Bureau):

Program Office	Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0802GAFRPG	2008 FRP	1	05/21/2009	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 862,805
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAFRPG	2009 FRSS	1	09/17/2009	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,091,492
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1002GAFRPG	2010 CBCAP	1	09/09/2010	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,073,087
CB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1102GAFRPG	2011 CBCAP	1	09/02/2011	93590	Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention Grants	CLOSED-ENDED	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,017,958
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAAEGP	2009 AEGP	1	05/21/2009	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,100,934
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	0902GAAEGP	2009 AEGP	1	07/30/2010	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 824,398
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1002GAAEGP	2010 AEGP	1	09/27/2010	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,810,331
FYSB	GA Governor`s Office for Children and Families	1102GAAEGP	2011 AEGP	1	09/01/2011	93235	Affordable Care Act (ACA) Abstinence Education Program	BLOCK	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 1,859,919

Results 1 to 8 of 8 matches.

 

Going to USASpending.gov with the one DUNS# we have here, it seems that this DUNS# could refer to either the above office, the office of “Children and Youth” (see “Abstinence Education”) or simply the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget.  The DOJ/OJJP projects show up there (some, close to $2 million) under delinquency prevention.  ALSO clear is that this DUNS dates to 2009 and no earlier (on this database anyhow).  For example (that’s just one award):

1.

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States

$1,897,000

Or, a slice of these grants (26 in all, total receipts $23 million, with largest sector in 2009 — which tells me, “ARRA” or “recovery.gov”

Transaction Number # 24

Federal Award ID: 2010JFFX0026: 00 (Grants)

Recipient: GOVERNORS OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET 270 Washington St. S.W. Room 8095 Room 8095, Altanta, GEORGIA Reason for Modification: Program Source: 15-0405:Juvenile Justice Programs Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs CFDA Program : 16.540 : Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention_Allocation to States Description: FY 2010 Formula Grant Porject-GA

Date Signed: July 13 , 2010  Obligation Amount:  $1,897,000

 

While the AbuseFreedomLive 66/34 Effect host show claims  (clearly) it may not share all the viewpoints of the guests, the host also selects the guests.  I take it with a grain of salt — the HHS also disclaims some of the viewpoints of groups it links to on its site, but it still links to them!

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Home Page

Notice the paragraph at the bottom, following all the various ways readers can get to fatherhood promotion pages:  This is just for reference, if you don’t like it, caveat emptor – don’t blame us!

Responsible Fatherhood Grants The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 provides funding of $150 million in each of five years for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood.  Each year, $75 million may be used for activities promoting fatherhood, such as counseling, mentoring, marriage education, enhancing relationship skills, parenting, and activities to foster economic stability.		Healthy Marriage Healthy marriage services help couples, who have chosen marriage for themselves, gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage.
Effective Parenting Involved fathers provide practical support in raising children and serve as models for their development.  Children with involved, loving fathers are significantly more likely to do well in school, have healthy self-esteem, exhibit empathy and pro-social behavior compared to children who have uninvolved fathers.  Committed and responsible fathering during infancy and early childhood contributes emotional security, curiosity, and math and verbal skills.		Economic Stability Resources for helping fathers improve their economic status by providing activities, such as Work First services, job search, job training, subsidized employment, job retention, and job enhancement; and encouraging education, including career-advancing education.
Access, Visitation, Paternity, & Child Support About half of all children spend some part of their life apart from one or both of their parents, and most often the parent that does not live with the child is the father.  The laws that cover these relationships are the responsibility of the state (Family Law), but the Federal Government does provide states with funding to assist in the development of programs that help establish paternity, collect child support, and provide non-residential parents with access to their children.		Incarceration The Department of Justice has estimated that over 7.3 million children under age 18 have a parent who is in prison, jail, on probation, or on parole. Given these numbers, it is important to understand how children and their caregivers are affected by the criminal activity of a parent and their subsequent arrest, incarceration, and release.  Additionally, it is important to know which services and assistance might be available to those under criminal justice supervision to help them be better parents and to return successfully to the community.
Research, Evaluation, & Data Good research and program evaluations assess program performance, measure outcomes for families and communities, and document successes.  Information on previous and current research and evaluation efforts can help programs and researchers to direct limited resources to where they are most needed, and most effective, in assessing results.		Program Development The principal implication for fathering programs is that these programs should involve a wide range of interventions, reflecting the multiple domains of responsible fathering, the varied residential and marital circumstances of fathers, and the array of personal, relational, and environmental factors that influence men as fathers.
Assistant Secretary for Planning & Evaluation ASPE is the principal advisor to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on policy development, and is responsible for major activities in policy coordination, legislation development, strategic planning, policy research, evaluation, and economic analysis.  Pertinent Fatherhood topics found there include: Child Welfare, Employment, Family and Marriage Issues, andViolence.		Other Research Resources Federal information relating to fatherhood research is spread throughout multiple departments and agencies.  This area includes other websites that have federal sponsored research related to responsible fatherhood.
Disclaimer: This website contains links to fatherhood and related websites created and maintained by other public and private entities.  This information is provided for the reader’s convenience.  The Department of Health and Human Services does not control or guarantee the accuracy, relevance, timeliness, or completeness of this outside information.  Further, these links do not intend or imply endorsement of any views expressed or products or services offered.

Nevertheless, this is a US Government Agency page, and its sustenance paid for by the public.  The same standards also go for MONITORING the program funds and effectiveness after it’s distributed.  The GAO, or the HHS/OAS/OIG gets in their sporadically, but basically once started, they’ll sample audit, they’ll report back, but there’s so little teeth — that this black hole of (for example — only one example) program fraud and “undistributable child support collections” is –unknown in extent.  Don’t blame us — we’re only overseeing.

This “we’re only overseeing” rebuttal has also (call and ask) been used repeatedly to people investigating grant usage as individual citizens, i.e., particularly members of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice.  I’ve seen some of the letters discussing how to deflect inquiry on the funds usage; they may show on a discussion group (yahoo) or you can contact the website owner for more info.   The point is – NO ONE is really responsible, which is bad news for John and Jane Doe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The “66/34” reference refers to the Federal/State relationship towards programs.  This excerpt comes from a brief written (years ago) by an attorney (I think it’s the same one, at least) found receiving a diversionary child support award in California.  The brief explains:

PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION SURVIVES SUPREME COURT’S BLESSING V. FREESTONE DECISION by Leora Gershenzon

The United States Supreme Court has ruled unanimously in Blessing v. Freestone1 that custodial parents may not sue in federal court to force a state to comply substantially with the general requirements of federal child support law found in Title IV-D of the Social Security Act.2 Significantly, however, the Court refused to limit in any way the right of individuals to sue government officials who deprive them of statutory or constitutional rights while acting “under color of state law.” The right to bring such lawsuits, based on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, is commonly referred to as a “private right of action.”

The plaintiffs in Blessing v. Freestone had filed a class action lawsuit against Arizona’s Department of Economic Security, the state’s child support agency, contending that it operated the child support program in violation of federal law

Statutory Framework

Under federal law, any state that receives federal funds to operate a Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) program3 also must operate a child support enforcement program. To be in compliance with statutory requirements, states must locate noncustodial parents and their assets; establish paternity; and establish, modify, and enforce child support orders. These services must be provided to families receiving TANF benefits and, for a nominal fee, to all other families who choose to participate in the program.
The detailed statutory and regulatory scheme contained in Title IV-D sets strict time limits for performance of the specific duties imposed on the state child support agency. For example, states must open a case within 20 days of an application or a referral from the welfare office, use appropriate locate sources to search for a noncustodial parent within 75 days and repeat every three months, if necessary, and, within 90 days of locating a noncustodial parent, establish paternity and obtain a support order or attempt to or complete service of process on that parent.

The federal government pays over two-thirds of the costs of the program in every state, and up to 90% in some states. Due to welfare savings resulting from child support collection as well as to other factors, more than half the states experience a net gain from their child support collection programs

[{OTHERWISE EXPRESSED: THIS WORKS IN BARELY OVER HALF THE CASES, DESPITE FEDERAL SUPPORT APPROACHING 2/3 OF THE COST. TRY AND RUN A PRIVATE BUSINESS LIKE THIS, AND YOU’D BETTER HAVE PLENTY OF CAPITAL FOR START-UP. WHICH OF COURSE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOES NOT, IT JUST EXERCISES ITS PRIVILEGES TO INCREASE FEDERAL DEBT LOAD, HENCE WE ARE NOW TALKING IN TRILLIONS, WHEREAS THE CHILD FAMILY SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM COSTS “ONLY” IN TERMS OF BILLIONS, AT LEAST THE PART THAT WE’RE COUNTING…}]
.

The Secretary of Health and Human Services is responsible for reviewing and evaluating state child support programs to ensure compliance with federal law and regulations. In general, a state will be found to be in substantial compliance if it provides necessary and timely services to 75% of the families (90% in some instances) who seek child support assistance. If a state is found to be out of compliance, the Secretary can impose a penalty of up to 5% of the state’s TANF block grant. However, a state can avoid the penalty by submitting a Corrective Action Plan, and only a couple of states have ever been penalized.

The Arizona Litigation

By any objective standard, Arizona’s child support program has been failing children and parents. Between 1985 and 1991, the state failed every federal child support audit. With each failure, the agency submitted a Corrective Action Plan and the Secretary waived any penalties

Child Support itself if a highly contentious issue, with some damaging afterglow when pursued, or modified:

Sometimes they kill, sometimes they just abduct, sometimes they engage in prolonged custody litigation, and sometimes (far too much and far too often), the money is collected, held (collecting interest for the agency — not the household the child support is for) and for each and every scenario, there is an option which profits court-connected professionals, including judges, and increasingly impoverishes families.   Having thus collected sufficient funding (and being salaried, without judges causing THEM to lose their jobs with unfair or frivolously ridiculous rulings), these court-connected professionals have a system enabling them to fly around the country to various vacation locales to communicate with each other about how to do it better next time.

Some of these tax-write-off, public-funded (i.e., dues for the professional membership AND travel/hotel can be written off under one from or another of education, including continuing CLE education (providers and or participants, probably).  For example, I read (and yes, it’s on the blog here) about a Task Force or commission in Indianapolis which was considering flying their membership out to an AFCC conference.  The decided instead to simply approach AFCC about holding a nice conference IN Indianpolis next time, saving the air fare, and putting it into hosting.  I believe this has already happened.

One of the most demonstrative states around in pushing parent education, fatherhood promotion, all kinds of diversionary programs around openly on the website, and I’ve repeatedly referenced it here, is the Kentucky Courts.  On examination of SOME of their 11 divorce education programs (which is only part of the offerings), we can find one company based in Scranton, PA area (where the FBI is examining case-steering, overbilling, or whatever evidence they hauled off for Lackawanna County) marketing through Kentucky books written (many of them) in California, and some in Massachusetts, or recommended by a nice AFCC Massachusetts Judge.

California, where much of this baloney originated, IS truly the “Golden State” if you’re in control and in the right profession (or three) within government.  Ask Mr. Gwinn, the Lockyers, the Thorns (Kids’ Turn), Dr. Carolyn Curtis (Sacramento Healthy Marriage, or whatever its current title), the Past, Present, and Future Boards of Director Judges of some of these Access Visitation Subgrantees (Kids Turn San Diego being one), ask almost anyone in the Los Angeles Court System, and ask those cycling between positions in the legislature, and CEO of domestic violence organizations.  Ask the heads of Futures Without Violence, etc.

The system is FAIRLY straightforward in operation, though diverse in execution.  Form a nonprofit.  It’s not necessary to completely stay incorporated, file tax returns with the IRS OR the State annually, as required by law.  To fire up the ignition a little further, call yourself Faith-Based, and connect up with the NARME or other chameleon organization to study how to Take the Money and Run.   For an example, see Ohio Governor’s Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Initiatives, which is still around, and see how the original staff did it, and got some CYA report from Baylor University Texas, from a person who just also happens to be a member of the nationwide “CJJDP.”

For an example of how to double-bill and wipe your mouth saying, “I see NOthing,” even after you’re caught at it, this has been going on so long, we can now reference old-school and new-school versions of this, most of which involves switching a child from a known decent parent to the other one, often abusive, thereby causing the decent one to fight for custody, rather than simply abandon the child.  I’m naturally thinking of situations of over-billing and program fraud such as is reported in:

Visitation Fraud Reported in Amador County(Complaint filed 9/7/99)

The following is a copy of a complaint filed to the Judicial Council of California regarding federal funding fraud by Amador County Superior Court. It exemplifies how federal “family” programs are mis-used to protect incest offenders/batterers in the family law courts. Liz Richards, of the National Alliance for Family Court Justice has contacted you regarding these abuses in the courts. These family programs, and those who abuse them, need to be fully investigated by competent persons who have no vested interest in protecting any involved in the abuses. . . .

(the Karen Anderson case) . . .

Through an initial contact with Senator Jackie Speier’s office, I was directed to Lee Mohar (sp?). During my conversation with Mr. Mohar, I explained to the best of my ability my concerns about how the public funds of the state Family Law Facilitator Program (hereinafter “Facilitator”) and the Federal Access to Visitation Program (hereinafter “A/V”) were directly involved in my private family law matter before Amador County Superior Court (“Court”). At Mr. Mohar’s request, you contacted me about this issue to more fully understand my concerns.

During my conversation with you, I explained the following: The Program Director for the federal Access to Visitation grant, Helen O. Page, represents my ex-husband in my private family law matter 98 FL 0084, and continued to do so through all of the dates inclusive, in which the Court was accessing A/V funds through this program. I have obtained records from the county auditor, as well as from the Court, in the form of payment vouchers, the grant application, and the grant contract. These documents declare that that the intent of the A/V program is to “encourage contact between children and both parents,” to “facilitate contact between non-custodial supervised parents and children” with a criteria for a “step-down” in supervised visitation.

{She then goes on to relate how custody was reversed to her, and she was put on Supervised Visitation based on “PAS”, the collusion of a minors’ counsel with a supervised visitation business owner, and how she was forced to pay cash for it! To see her kids!}}:

During the term of the A/V contract, the program director, Helen O. Page, under the authority of the Court, violated the entire intent of the program and specific terms of said contract for the gain of her private client, who is my ex-husband. Payment vouchers to herself and to other participants who are/have been involved in the private litigation of case 94 FL 0084, namely Larry Leatham, Marsha Nohl, and Nohl’s supervised visitation program A.F.T.E.R., prove that while mandated to comply with the terms of the A/V contract, all the forenamed have collectively engaged in accessing these public funds under a conflict of interest, thus violating the terms of the contract.

Here’s a few more of the players and the interrelationships – notice, some were made grant sub-contractors.  All of this comes under “Access/Visitation” grant programs — which are only a fraction of the other diversionary programs coursing through the system, and diverting parents from their primary purposes in life, which is to raise children, provide an inheritance of possible for them, and to be able to focus their lives on their kids — not on self-defense from abusive systems and program fraud by people working (some, as public employees aka “civil servants”) IN those system.  Remembering this is from 1999 — 12+ years ago!

The court orders which have obstructed my liberty interest in parenting my children and left my children at risk of continued molestation, along with the continual harassing litigation perpetrated by Page for her private client, cause the case to be categorized as “highly contested” for which Page/Court is able to access the A/V funds according to the grant application. While Page fights through private litigation for her client, my ex-husband, to keep me on supervised visitation, this also causes the case to fall into the category that provides the necessity for the A/V funds according to the grant application, which in turn personally benefits her financially through payments she receives from the grant. In order to maintain the case in the category that provided access to the A/V grant money, Page used Marsha Nohl (who Page made into a grant sub-contractor) and Larry Dixon (state funded minor’s counsel), as allies in support of the original grossly negligent evaluation and testimony of Leatham (who Page also has made a grant sub-contractor). I have been maintained on supervised visitation and the case itself is maintained as highly litigated, through acts of perjury, misconduct, intentional misrepresentation, willful obstruction of justice, and witness tampering, by Page, Nohl and Dixon

It’s known — and has been known for years, but not blogged enough for “the common women” (fathers’ groups tend to be told this) that the funding can come from BOTH the parent (in cash, as per Karen Anderson, and now parents in Lackawanna County, PA have been protesting the same issue, as I recall, with both supervised visitation, and/or parenting coordinator).  They had to pay cash for services.  To a decent parent, not seeing one’s offspring after removal from the home is NOT an option, so they paid AND the federal government funding stream, which is OCSE diversion.

And I showed readers recently that for FY2012, the HHS requested that — in light of how important continuing to promote “fatherhood” (whatever this is), they want mandatory access visitation orders for EVERY child support order, which then moves custody and visitation matters further out from a judge’s decision based on facts (allegedly, or at least potentially) to an administrative boilerplate (generally speaking) managed by a court-connected program manger or designated professional.

This is called Double-Billing.  “Don’t Ask.  Just Do it for your Kids.”

In years since, others have continued to research the same topic upwards and downwards, namely, taking it to the source:  The funds come from the HHS (grantees recorded in TAGGS database, and some other places), and child support TANF diversions.  At around the same time (post-1996, late 1990s, early 2000s) California along with other states was under a federal “centralize into a Statewide Distribution Unit (“SDU”) system for child support distribution — or give up your welfare assistance.  Of course, if you don’t need food stamps, cash aid, (Medicaid?) and other help from Big Brother, then don’t.  YOU put up 34$, we’ll put up 66% (not mentioned:  this 66% comes from funds previously collected through taxes etc. from the public, or interst/investment gains on it).

So yes, it does matter who baked THAT cake, because it’s got a little “leavening” in it which makes it a high-rise profit system for those in the system, and a debt production machine for stressed-out parents who eat from it.  How many people know going IN to the courts that any child support order, and EVERy child support order, and I’ll hazard a guess, in EVERY State and US territory, has as 66/34 effect called INCENTIVE.   In fact one of the hard lessons I learned (obviously) was to find out WHO is speaking to you whenever help or relief from injustice or danger is offered, in response to one’s cries for help, or without even those cries.

Who Bakes the Domestic Violence Group Cakes?  The same supplier — it may not be the 66/34 effect as to DV programs, but we’ve seen they are heavy into HHS funding (not just DOJ) and collaborating with fatherhood-oriented groups when protective mothers aren’t watching, while teaching them distracting information lest they DO watch.  See Loretta Frederick, who I’ll bet did NOT highlight her connection with AFCC (or teach women who AFCC was) at the last BMCC (“Battered Mother’s Custody Conference”).    In 2011, access visitation was mentioned from the podium by someone WITHOUT some product to market (after the conference was — like it appears to have been this year, too — well over an hour behind schedule on the last segment of the conference)  but as soon as the speaker went to the podium, a lunch break was called.  Un believably, I saw the same thing happen again this year — a break was called, and a woman’s voice at the mike (Ricky Fowler, search my blog) was surrounded by noise of coming and going, but when someone protesting what she said spoke up, another grabbed the mike and told everyone to quiet down and listen, because “this is important.”  (like the previous comment wasn’t?) and tried to counter it.

So, your Domestic Violence Advocacy and Protective Mothers Advocacy groups have, as it were, pre-baked cake mixes from pretty much the same source.  They have — amazingly coincidental — the same blind spots; which a little experience has shown is not blindness – it’s a “no-fly-zone.”    

My Para. from above:

I’ve several times recommended such unrealistic (but one can always put the idea out there!) scenarios as let’s eliminate the OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) as it’s by this point so “fatherhood” — alternately enraging certain types of fathers, oppressing others — as to be a literal danger to the children, and many mothers, who it is supposedly for, AND sometimes innocent bystanders (Seal Beach, CA 2011, Washington D.C. Sniper (Mildred Muhammed, ex-wife of D.C. Sniper, “Scared Silent” ca. 2002/John Muhammad, a Devoted Dad?
Connecting the Sniper case to family court corruption and federal fatherhood program fraud.  (Part 1)
by Cindy Ross © October 28, 2002), Sandoval/Torres/Starczyk (officer), 2008, etc.), not to mention the public burden and crime scene cleanups, plus trials that follow).

It is VITALLY important, in other words, that more people understand and protest the continued funding of a system of “evolving purposes” all labeled’ family” which are resulting in habitually increasing scenarios involving roadkill.  This scenario claims that the family is the basic unit of society, anything that threatens “family” is itself (by definition) a threat to society, and women’s right to live alone versus live with constant domestic terrorism based on the fact that they’re female, or vulnerable and happen to get paid less per $$ then men overall — and are not represented even halfway proportionately in our primarily white male Congress & Senate.  Sorry to put it that way, but one hellish marriage, and an equally long hell in the court system simply leads me rationally to acts of Congress designed to promote fatherhood.  I didn’t promote or pass these at the time, and am simply reporting their existence, and in part, their costs.  Plural.

This is the rationale which (if it’s bought & believed, or tolerated) which priorities “family” over Bill of Rights in EVERY case where there is a custody dispute.  That philosophy then enables passage of programs in which we find fraud, and incentives — which have zero (NO) place in promoting justice.  If courtrooms are not neutral — meaning, they are bribe-free — and they are “OUT-COME based” versus PROCESS-based” — they are kangaroo courtrooms.  So we need to report honestly — Let’s get Honest — about this facet in particular.  At the annual price tag of approximately $4 billions, and for the Jessica Gonzales’ the Dawn Axsoms, the Catalina Torres’, and the Officers shot in the line of duty during domestic dispute hostage situations, let’s defuse the need for the Federally Sponsored (with corporate help) “Special Interest Resource Centers” Publish, Design a Logo, Link to GroupThink, or We Perish industry.

It’s important.    Look at the site (probably not most current, for general idea only):

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES

[HHS/ACF — and ACF is one of the largest OpDivs [Operational Divisions] of HHS)

PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT AND FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAMS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FY 2012

BUDGET PAGE APPROPRIATION LANGUAGE ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 269

AUTHORIZING LEGISLATION …………………………………………………………………………………………. 270

APPROPRIATIONS HISTORY TABLE ………………………………………………………………………………… 271

AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR OBLIGATION ………………………………………………………………………… 273

OBLIGATIONS BY ACTIVITY ………………………………………………………………………………………….. 274

SUMMARY OF CHANGES ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 275

JUSTIFICATION:

GENERAL STATEMENT ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. 276

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS ……………………………………………………… 276

BUDGET REQUEST……………………………………………………………………………………………………. 278

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES TABLE ……………………………………………………………………………… 280

RESOURCE AND PROGRAM DATA ………………………………………………………………………………… 282

STATE TABLES …………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 287

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here are selected states (fairly whimsical, but I tried to honor Republican Primary Candidates, and Kansas gets a mention because it so recently re-organized the SRS department (which gets the OCSE funding) and is recommending women marry their way out of poverty, too bad for domestic violence (see Topkea) and as advised behind closed doors by some ultra-conservative experts, i.e., Wade Horn, etc.  Marriage & Fatherhood promotion are diversionary programs enabled under welfare law, and typically recruiting or program enrollment often happens at the child support level).  Look at some of the program titles and which branch of government gets the funding (or most of it), which varies by state:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS	KS	11IAKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 535,121
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	0904KS4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 698,875
KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES	KS	1104KS4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 27,012,837
Kansas Dept of Social and Rehabilitation Services	KS	90FD0145	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MONICA REMILLARD	$ 15,469
PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS	KS	11IBKS4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 250,000

IOWA, TEXAS, UTAH

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	0904TX4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 1,735,514
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	1104TX4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 193,122,346
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	TX	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	0904UT4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 446,019
UT ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	UT	1104UT4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 22,067,247

Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

MINNESOTA, OHIO, PENNSYLVANIA:

Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	0904IA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,535,162
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	1104IA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 18,224,176
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	IA	90FD0183	MAPPING THE FUTURE OF PATERNITY ESTABLISHMENT THROUGH GIS	1	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JOE FINNEGAN	$ 95,214
Iowa State Dept of Social Services/Human Services	IA	90FD0144	LINKING CHILD SUPPORT WITH THE IOWA PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	HAROLD B COLEMAN	$ 50,000
LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11ICMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 143,405
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	07IDMN4004	2007 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 14,098
MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE	MN	11IDMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 217,386
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	0904MN4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 490,616
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	1104MN4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 101,786,892
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0127	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	PATRICK W KRAUTH	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0140	OCSE SECTION 1115 – FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	JILL C ROBERTS	$ 69,684
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 0
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	MN	90FD0147	OCSE SECTION 1115 – PRISONER REENTRY INITITATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	KAREN L SCHIRLE	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR **	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED		$ 198,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	0904OH4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 2,961,680
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	1104OH4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 111,207,241
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0142	OCSE 1115 – PRISON REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 50,000
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES	OH	90FD0174	OHIO OFFICE OF CHILD SUPPORT, COMMISSION ON FATHERHOOD, AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION WILL PROVIDE FINANCIAL EDU	2	93564	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	ATHENA RILEY	$ 75,000
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	0904PA4004	2009 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 4,560,291
PA ST DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE	PA	1104PA4004	2011 OCSE	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 150,800,949
RED LAKE BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS	MN	11IAMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 403,801
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11BIMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 307,298
WHITE EARTH RESERVATION TRIBAL COUNCIL	MN	11IBMN4004	2011 OCSET	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	OPEN-ENDED		$ 230,371

Results 1 to 25 of 25 matches.

**This “demonstrates” that at least browsing where money from the Dept. of HHS/OCSE is going from time to time, can be illuminating.  When one sees an unexplained acronym, it may be worth a closer look.  I figured “HMHR” had something to do with “Healthy Marriage” and was right.  Here’s the rest of the Ohio “HMHR” grants (spent for What?  Ohioans should look up) and found $198K per year for several years.  I also figured this is going on in more than one state, i.e., it’s some federal policy — and was right:

OHIO only (see grant award number has “OH” in it)

Fiscal Year	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
2011	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2009	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2008	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2007	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)		$ 198,000
2006	0604OHHMHR	2006 HMHR	1	93563	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	CLOSED-ENDED	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$ 198,000

Results 1 to 5 of 5 matches.

$1.194 million so for — hope it’s a good program!

From the web:

1. Chapter 2: Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids …

   www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/strengthen/eval…/grand_ch2.html

   The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement … TheHMHR project proposes to reach at least 2500 people over 5 years with direct …*   
   

   
   

   
   

2. More Specifically (and predictably):

1. Healthy Marriages Healthy Relationships—Grand Rapids (HMHR) is a community-based initiative that delivers relationship skills-building services intended to encourage healthy relationships between parents, and between parents and their children, and to increase the financial well-being of children in a low-income urban area of Grand Rapids, Michigan. The HMHR project was awarded a Child Support Enforcement Demonstration Section 1115 waiver in October 2003. The Federal funding required a non-Federal match, and HMHR received a private grant from the Grand Rapids Community Foundation in November 2003. Community needs assessment, recruitment, and relationship building with partners and service delivery planning led to the delivery of relationship skills-building services starting in June 2004.

(Grand Rapids is something of a faith-based community to start with, Dutch Reformed, I seem to recall.  But this could be done anywhere).

 

2.1 Project Goals

The HMHR project proposes to reach at least 2,500 people over 5 years with direct family-strengthening activities such as training in parenting and relationship skills. The initiative has established goals that are broad-based and comprehensive—they encompass improving couple relationships and the parenting skills of low-income parents in the community. Ultimately, HMHR aims to “enhance the financial and emotional well-being of children” (Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004a; Health Marriages Grand Rapids [HMGR], 2004b). The specific goals of the initiative are to

• increase the number of prepared healthy marriages among low-income couples in Kent county.
• decrease the divorce rate among low-income couples in Kent county.
• increase the active, healthy participation of noncustodial fathers in the lives of their children.
• increase the responsible and effective coparenting skills of married and unmarried parentsto include improvement of the relationship between low-income adults parenting children.{{I.e., Marital Counseling = Child Support Enforcement (diversionary waiver…) philosophy — typical!!
• facilitate, in Kent county, the measurable increase in agreement with the perspective that healthy marriages, healthy relationships between parents, and responsible parenting are criticalto the financial well-being of children.***SERIOUSly?? ?????   Governor Gray Davis (abou 2002 or so) vetoed an attempt to endorse Kids Turn programs to help children navigate the rocky terrain of divorce on the basis that he (as Governor of California) didn’t feel — although the legislature (which probably had a better idea of how this system works) that it was the place of the California Judicial Council to measure mental health matters.  Obviously persistent program promotion works.{{I.e., brainwashing, excuse me, attitude adjustment, typical favorable to religious views of independent mothers as dangerous more as wombs than full-status humans.  “HERE:  Take my classes, and afterwards sign this agreement (survey) saying you believe this stuff, so we can get our grant next year, too!  Hungry?  well, go to the childs upport office and seek a modification, or to get it enforcement; that’s not a service we offer (directly) here”}}

Taken together, achieving the above objectives are intended to support** the following Title IV-D child support enforcement goals:

• Improve compliance with support obligations by noncustodial parents, when needed.
• Increase paternity establishment for low-income children born to unwed mothers (HMGR, 2004a; HMGR, 2004b)

**the road to hell has always been paved with “good intentions.”  It’s only in recent times? that merely expressing intent to “facilitate” attitude adjustment in order to reduce poverty (i.e., by increasing sales of relationship skills programs has been so well (federally) rewarded with so little justification.  See “Smartmarriages.com” and acknowledge how very smart that corporation’s founder indeed was! (place of incorporation, Washington, D.C., which is where conferences are also held yearly, or were? from 2000-2010, as I recall).

About these SIP programs (from HHS) — This is another place for marriage/fatherhood programs to come in. For the novice, a marriage promotion program (as we’ve seen the HHS organizations doing this, not one of which is truly feminist) IS a FATHERHOOD program. the same is practically true of programs called “CHILD” any more.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/healthymarriage/funding/child_support_past_projects.html
ACF-FUNDED HMI DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS AND GRANT ACTIVITIES:
Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE)

2003 SIP Grants  (see above link for active links to these).
2005 SIP Grants
2006 SIP Grants

The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) facilitates State and Tribal development of programs that locate non-custodial parents, establish paternity when necessary, and obtain and enforce child support orders..

Special Improvement Projects (SIPs)

{{isn’t that “special”?}}
SIP grants fund faith- and community-based organizations, as well as state, local, and tribal agencies, to improve child support outcomes such as paternity establishment and child support collections and improve the well-being of children.

These grants are authorized through Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. During 2003-2006, the following projects received funding to provide child support and marriage education services to improve outcomes for children.   

While it reads “to provide child support services” we can see the “roundabout” reasoning, meaning, Tour de Marriage Enhancement, and possibly — well, we hope — this will result in more child support payments.

Several States (award goes directly to states) got these awards, all are marked “budget year 1” all are “Demonstration” and none have a “principal investigator” listed.   MOST of the funding is as “Administrative Supplement” and this has been going on since 2003 or 2004.   Here’s a list omitting grantee institution so it’s alpha by state, “NEW” only, which is 27 awards out of 68 (a little less than half of them):

All of these are under straightforward CFDA 93563, “Child Support Enforcement” (although a separate category even exists for “research and demo).  These relationship mongering skills are Special Project Waivers.

State	County	Award Number	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Sum of Actions
CO	DENVER	0604COHMHR	01/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 276,726
FL	LEON	0504FLHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
FL	LEON	0604FLHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
GA	FULTON	0504GAHMHR	05/27/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
GA	FULTON	0604GAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 192,000
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
ID	ADA	0404IDHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 110,880
IL	SANGAMON	0504ILHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 273,003
IN	MARION	0804INHMHR	07/16/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
KY	FRANKLIN	0504KYHMHR	07/15/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
KY	FRANKLIN	0604KYHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 333,333
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0404LAHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0504LAHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
LA	EAST BATON ROUGE	0604LAHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 308,000
MA	MIDDLESEX	0504MAHMHR	11/29/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 324,939
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	10/03/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MI	INGHAM	0404MIHMHR	12/01/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0404MNHMHR	09/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0504MNHMHR	08/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0604MNHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
MN	RAMSEY	0704MNHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
OH	FRANKLIN	0604OHHMHR	07/14/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
TX	TRAVIS	0604TXHMHR	10/11/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 499,092
WA	THURSTON	0604WAHMHR	03/15/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0605WAHMHR	04/20/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000
WA	THURSTON	0704WAHMHR	08/08/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 200,000
WA	THURSTON	0705WAHMHR	08/07/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	$ 198,000

Results 1 to 27 of 27 matches

For comparison — in ONE year (nationwide) 772 OCSE grants (including, but not limited to these), totalling:

Total of 772 Award Actions for 171 Awards

Total Amount for all Award Actions:

$ 3,176,826,043

This doesn’t include important federal programs like abstinence education, either. . . . . .

Anyhow, click around TaGGS some, look at CFDA 93564 and find out just how much experimentation is really going on — plus get at least a few principal investigator’s names together to figure out what’s up.   Here’s a segment (no years selected) showing just how active TENNESSEE & TEXAS are, not to mention showing that sometimes people write “TEXAS” or “TX” or “State of” when it comes to state name format and sometimes, unbelievably, the word “Mr.” is entered under the name category, as I found out as to California, “Principal Investigator” for a $29,000 grant to help connect Title IV-A (TANF) and Title IV-D (Child Support). I hope the person making all these clerical errors (?) isn’t earning much more than $29,000 of my money to do so. Who’s training the database submission personnel at HHS, anyhow?   Howsabout some basic filing protocol, eh?  For reference, see phone book.

http://www.certain.com/event/accounts/register123/judicialcouncil/cfcc/events/20080006/Descriptions_8.25.pdf

What this tells me is that these states are fairly busy in “Child Support Research and Demonstration”  These are all CFDA 93564 (not 93563, and not 93597, which is Access/Visitation — which also promotes some of the same things.

California:

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	90FD0003	PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODIAL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT SYST	3	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PEGGY JENSEN	$- 73,983
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0083	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PRIORITY AREA 4	1	09/15/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LEORA GERSHENZON	$ 60,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 150,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	09/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DANIEL LOUIS	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	2	08/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	09/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	LESLIE CARMONA	$ 75,000
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0114	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANTS	3	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHY HREPICH	$ 0
CA ST DEPT OF CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES	90FD0158	SERVE OUR IV-A/IV-D PROGRAM COLLABORATION	1	09/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR BILL OTTERBECK	$ 29,000

STATE OF TENNESSEE	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/23/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 82,853
State of Louisiana, Department of Social Services	90FD0125	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-2)	1	08/23/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBBIE ENDRIS	$ 59,983
TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	1	07/20/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,112
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0077	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 60,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0102	TENNESSEE DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	09/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LINDA CHAPPELL	$ 62,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/31/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 101,427
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	07/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,688
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	03/06/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0108	TENNESSEE DPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES PRIORITY AREA 1	3	02/24/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/20/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 54,612
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 52,034
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	07/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	2	05/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	09/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 50,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0129	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 1	3	05/18/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 100,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 71,240
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0139	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	3	08/08/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 47,500
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	09/01/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	2	03/14/2011	OTHER	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 0
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0148	TENNESSEE PROJECT IN SUPPORT OF THE PRISONER REENTRY INITIATIVE	3	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR CHARLES BRYSON	$ 49,300
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 85,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0171	BUILDING ASSETS FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES	2	08/14/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 75,000
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0177	INTEGRATING WORKFORCE STRATEGIES WITH CHILD SUPPORT SERVICES IN TENNESSEE	1	09/24/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$ 55,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0052	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM (PRIORITY AREA III)	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	WILLIAM H ROGERS	$- 8,058
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0073	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-P.A. 2	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MICHAEL HAYES	$- 6,976
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0078	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #5	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 80,040
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0085	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT, PRIORITY AREA #4	1	08/26/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	1	08/29/2003	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILL ROGERS	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	09/27/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA CAFFERATA	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	2	01/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KAREN HENSON	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0088	SECT. 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	3	08/16/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN HENSON	$ 196,555
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0092	TEXAS OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	1	09/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL D HAYES	$ 125,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	07/27/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	03/19/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	2	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	07/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 108,400
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0113	OCSE SECTION 1115	3	06/27/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HAILEY KEMP	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	2	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 60,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TED WHITE	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0124	OCSE SECTION 1115 (PA-3)	3	03/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TED WHITE	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0134	OCSE RESEARCH GRANTS 1115 WAIVER	1	09/29/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 703,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	1	08/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAMMI SIEMENS	$ 100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	09/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	2	01/13/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0137	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION-PROJECTS IN SUPPORT OF THE PAID INITTIATIVE	3	09/25/2011	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 50,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	1	09/25/2010	OTHER	NEW	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 85,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	90FD0169	URBAN FATHERS ASSET BUILDING PROJECT	2	08/29/2011	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$ 75,000
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	1	09/01/2009	OTHER	NEW	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 99,348
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	90FD0141	FAMILY-CENTERED SERVICES FOR UNWED PARENTS IN THE IV-D CASELOAD	2	09/19/2010	OTHER	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARILYN R SMITH	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	1	09/01/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 150,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	09/26/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	08/10/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	2	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	08/31/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOHN BERNHART	$ 75,000
US DHHS, ACF, OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES	90FD0115	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES, PRIORITY AREA #2	3	06/22/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOHN BERNHART	$ 0
UT ST DIV

RE:

 

The 66/34 Effect Show with Athena Phoenix was sponsored this week by a responsible father who wishes to assist us in carrying out o[u]r mission to improve the way the family courts do business.  He asks that you please consider signing this petition to tell Congress and the President to stop wasting money on HHS programs that lack oversight and harm families and children caught in the family courts:

 

The shows bring up consistently valuable speakers, and it’s true some segments have featured the effect of the TANF budget, and the 66/34 effect.  The press-releases prior to show are jam-packed with links and information and shows in themselves.

My perspective and purpose differs somewhat, and I believe that given the urgency of the times, it is vERY necessary to locate people (particularly mothers) who are willing to blow the cover on the DV industry sellout AS MOTHERS in custody challenges, and FATHERS who are willing to blow the cover on how these program diversions are actually conceived with intent to divert profits to already profiting individuals in various institutions, and expand welfare until it blankets the United States with relationship education, whether or not this entails poor and needy families on the “take our program” side.  I have a general idea of what kind of people are drawn to the “give me a grant, I’ll push your product” side — whether at the professional level (the two professors from UDenver who have PREP, Inc. thing going), and other contracting organizations (MDRC, Maximus, etc.) who defraud (allegedly, judging by how often they get sued) and the judges etc. with their retirement plan & income supplementation at public expense plans (the Kids’ Turns and Family Justice Centers of the world) and the “let’s do a NICE conference business.

 

In recent days/weeks, I’ve had an absolutely wonderful looking, articulate, attractive intelligent mother (a widow) and grandmother in her sixties come up to me, at a loss regarding finding work.  She was downsized after twenty-nine (29) years in what sounds like very responsible, executive responsibility support staff in an engineering firm for a huge company.   What is she to do?  I looked at her with my court-custody-DV-strewn work life scenario and was thankful that at least this disaster prepared me for handling more of the same; my disadvantage working to my survival advantage in a rapidly changing world.

And I prefer to bake my own cakes at many points.  Years of having social / community relationships compromised by court filings and sudden disappearance of my kids (I don’t think a mother EVER gets over that, no matter what else she does in life), not because they served in Iraq, but because they were born in this country and in that decade of Jim Crow times regarding civil rights for women, too.

(and here’s the end of my 11,000 — so far — word post.  That includes the tables, of course):  A person working to stop child slavery in California is on:  here is the nonprofit description of HOW children girls are kept in line:

 

Director of this Chino, California organization, The Faces of Slavery, is “Juana Zapata.”  It’s site has tremendous graphics, and “FACES” is an acronym:  Fight Against Child Exploitation And Sexual Slavery    of AMERICAN CHILDREN.  “Amber’s Story” deals with a runaway (my mind immediately thinks of reasons a child might run away, one of which is violence or abuse in the home, including molestation.    So why not do better at stopping that to start with?)

Please read this site.  The problem is real!  (see “Franklin Coverup” also)

 

The Problem of Child Sex Slavery, http://www.facess.org/problem.html     Today there are at least 20,000 slaves under the age of 18 in the United States. According to the Department of Justice, the average of these children is 13 years old. 80% of these children are girls and 80% of those girls are sexual slaves like “Amber”. The life expectancy of girls like “Amber” is 7 – 10 years from the time of their abduction and the start of their enslavement. Amber and countless other girls experience on a daily basis: Rape Assault Neglect Starvation Torture False imprisonment Exploitation Drugging Emotional, physical And mental abuse Slaveholders will send “testers” in to the girls to pretend to rescue the girl. If she engages with the tester she will be beaten. At some point the girl gives up and becomes resigned to her new life – her hell on earth. Survival mode will kick in and she will quickly become hardened, disconnected, hopeless, angry, and isolated – trusting no one, which is the slaveholder’s goal. Why Don’t These Girls Try to Escape? There are many different methods these slaveholders use to manipulate and control their slaves. These impressionable and dependent children want to be accepted by someone. The slaveholder is the only one they really know in their new reality. Between the abuses and in an effort to keep the children the slaveholder will also tell the girls he loves them, buy them gifts, and take them to exciting places in order to keep them submissive, producing a Stockholm Syndrome where the victim actually thinks they are being loved – thus skewing their concept of love. What Is Our Government Doing About Slavery? The answer to that question is, “Not much.” F.B.I. recovery numbers are 900 children per year. Typically, the recovery rate is less than 1% of the actual trafficked population. And what happens to a child like “Amber” when she is rescued? The Department of Justice has confirmed that care facilities specifically designed to support these trafficked children can give shelter to less than 100 of them. F.B.I. policy is to place these rescued victims into juvenile hall which sends the message to these children that they are criminals. The cost of a child in juvenile hall is $250 per day. Government agencies cannot give these children what they need most – love.

See the bullets above?  Sometimes many of those features happen WITHIN nuclear families — sometimes even within families that have biologically related Mom, Pop and Kids.   And yet still the building block of society has to be families?

for the healing process — imagine this:

 

How We Can Make a Difference

What does a child like “Amber” need to heal from the deep mental, emotional, and physical scars that have been inflicted upon her? She needs a warm, safe, peaceful, place. She needs to be surrounded by people who will gently guide her, support her, encourage her, and show her what real love is. We can provide these very things.

Our property in California is tucked away in a beautiful, quiet and safe place. We are surrounded by trees and ponds and mountains. We have the ability to provide fun and “normal” activities such as hiking, swimming, other water sports, museums, dining out, movies, playing games so she can regain her childhood.

 

Similarly, after severe violence IN the home — although surely this must be worse — children who grew up “Exposed to Violence” including watching one parent beat the other (adjust to accommodate step-parent, boyfriend, girlfriend, etc.) — they too need a healing and detox period.

But they are not getting it for long — and primarily they are not getting this because the custody courts, with their AFCC, their Access Visitation (CRC theory), their incentives to prolong war (while claiming they stop it) and their assets-stripping, bone-chilling, never ending encouragement of the worse parent when “worse” is obvious — will not allow for, our society is just not ready to accommodate and SAY NO TO  custody — ANY type of custody and particularly not joint, and not shared — when one parent has already demonstrated assault and battery, threats, economic oppression & “pimping” (this happened to me.  I worked, he got the checks, I got threatened and slapped, kicked, choked, etc., sleep-deprived anyhow.  I provided the job reference for the credit application — he got the credit! etc.  Once you start one of these relationships, if you are not committed to IMMEDIATELY terminate it, it’s very hard to get out.

And in this climate, once you get out, here comes “conciliation code” and a bunch of people who are not “rich enough” yet to defraud people of their rights to exist, legally and simply live, as INDIVIDUALS in this country.   See “Ohio Fatherhood Commission” (targeting counties with single mothers) for a nice example.  It is ONLY going to get worse until this is stopped, and I know that I alone cannot stop this.

 

Here is a facebook page which states Government Agencies are looking to F.A.C.E.S.S. but we also need your donations

 

REGISTRATION, Secretary of State?  I don’t know:   I see these (after FACESS and “Fight Against” searches didn’t turn up a registration) or “FACESS” with or without the periods:

http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Results of search for ” F.A.C.E.S. ” returned no entity records.

Record not found.

As to those initials for Charities (i.e., nonprofits) in California, the only ones I see (both delinquent) relate to Autism, i.e., that’s what the “A” in the acronym stands for.  Our F.A.C.E.S.S. doesn’t show in California as a nonprofit:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type F.A.C.E.S. FOR KIDS, INC. 099503 Charity Dissolution Pending REDWOOD CITY CA Charity Registration Charity F.A.C.E.S. OF THE EAST BAY 116862 Charity Delinquent OAKLAND CA Charity Registration Charity 1

 (facebook logo’ FB shows 392 followers on the page)

These would be the corporate registrations.  Only one (formed about a year ago) is left standing here in California:

 

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2439255	03/01/2004	SUSPENDED	CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT MUTUAL BENEFIT CORPORATION	DAVID REPLOGLE
C1229360	10/12/1983	DISSOLVED	FAMILY AWARENESS OF CHILD EXPLOITATION – IN-TRUDERS	CHARMAINE DENNIS
C3367022	03/17/2011	ACTIVE	FOUNDATION AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION & HUMAN TRAFFICKING	ERIC BUSH
C1195950	03/06/1987	SUSPENDED	PEOPLE AGAINST CHILD EXPLOITATION	JAMES D DAVIES

So far, I see a facebook page.  The website direcst people to the Facebook page, and the law enforcement link (on the website) is by password only, understandably.

 

Just that if someone is seeking donations, we seek an EIN# and registration.  It’s that simple.  So perhaps I will call in and simply ask — is there an umbrella organization?:

There are “10 people” names Juana Zapata in California, and 1 (with 1 connection only) on LinkedIn.  There’s the mother of a young man whose car crahsed into and killed a police officer in Freson, listed as his 47 year old mother (the young man not living at home at the time, and being the youngest of 5 at age 19)

http://www.kristieslaw.org/fresno.htm  This is a hard story to hear, and probably a different woman involved, as apparently this mother needed a translator.  It’s undated.

 

Featured here, protesting (it seems) an “adult” page in a paper, or on-line, from “The Majestic Dreams Foundation”

http://www.themajestic.org/blog/2011/10/07/Press-Release-The-Daily-Titan.aspx

”The advocates of anti-slavery held signs that read, “Hey Ortega! Real men don’t buy girls” and “I am the key to free,” while protesting Ortega and the conglomerate which owns BackPage.com.Lizeth Sebastian, 21, pioneer of the anti-human trafficking club at Chapman University called Set Captives Free, said many people are unaware that sex trafficking is happening in local areas.Juana Zapata, from Faces of Slavery, said for the past three years her organization has been rescuing and protecting girls who have been victims of human trafficking and who were advertised on BackPage.com, averaging one girl every six weeks.“We are a permanent residential place for them (the victims),” said Zapata, who was invited to the protest by Cenedella. “For us it’s very important that the public knows that this is actually happening right here; it’s not international. Students have to be fully aware what’s happening with their generation and they are the voice.

This is a GRIPPING story of Aimee, and what happened after she reported abuse from the ages of 8 to 12 by a priest, a friend of her aunt.  She reported it at age 17 to a minister, then to law enforcement, and was subjected to cruel and inhumane treatment, a 51-50 psychiatric hold (without her mother’s knowledge) with resulting lasting damage, and in general was treated as the criminal  .

Her report went from minister to law enforcement to hold, to hospital in short order.  Her family which refused to believe the story are estranged — BUT she was able to make a film.

 

The Majestic Dreams Foundation is a  nonprofit organization located in Southern California.  It was formed and created byAimee Galicia Torres on January 8, 2010.

The Majestic Dreams Foundation aims to provide aide to sexually abused survivors as well as promote awareness for all forms of abuse. The Majestic Dreams Foundation teams up with film production company, Trinity Alliance Films to provide films that reflect this growing epidemic so that we as a society can bring about a change.

 

This day forever changed the rest of her life.  That very day, Aimee underwent hours of questioning by the local police department as the suspect, Honesto Bismonte, was placed immediately in jail.  After a long interview, receiving scrutiny from the police department, Aimee was sent to undergo a psychological evaluation by a county psychologist.  However, to her surprise, when she was being escorted by two police officers, they admitted her into the hospital without her knowledge.  She was placed on a 51-50, hold, which means she legally must remain admitted for psychological evaluation for up to 72 hours. . .

When Aimee was 16,** she fell into an abusive relationship with her boyfriend of 3 1/2 years.  He would physically abuse her and attempted to kill her on various occasions. Through the numerous years of psychological, physical, emotional, and sexual abuse Aimee has received, she decided to turn everything into a positive learning experience.  She wanted to show abused victims and survivors, that despite any obstacle, you can succeed.  Aimee is proud to say, that throughout it all, she has never smoked or taken any drug of any kind. “Just because horrible things happen in our lives, we must be strong to not let it get the best of us.”

Relationship, much? from sexual abuse ages 8-12 by a priest, and from 12-1/2 through 16, sought “refuge” in another relationship with at least a non-priest, but another abuser?

Aimee has been a strong advocate for victim’s rights.  She is an avid supporter of RAINN (Rape, Abuse National Network), Rescue & Restore Victims of Human Trafficking, ACF Trafficking, SNAP (Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests), Perverted Justice and more.

This young woman is a graduate of the NY Film Academy, apparently her mother also was a producer?  Here’s a company she founded in “2004” (January 2005).  I did not find the foundations, yet, but I see the high energy that sometimes people who get OUT of abuse have afterwards; they/we are simply so excited to be free, and creativity is at an all-time high, plus speaking to the cause.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
200501110252	01/10/2005	ACTIVE	AIMESTER PRODUCTIONS LLC	AIMEE GALICIA TORRES

?? Aimee is the registered agent; the “jurisdiction” (which street address I looked up — I always try to look up street addresses ) is for “New America Foundation” — the California Office.  this is supposedly where the LLC business is, and Ms. Torres’ address (or, Studio City, CA) is the “registered agent” address:

Main Office New America Foundation 1899 L St., N.W., Suite 400 Washington, DC 20036 Map & Directions Phone: 202-986-2700 Fax: 202-986-3696

California Office New America Foundation 921 11th Street, Suite 901 Sacramento, CA 95814 Map & Directions Phone: 916-448-5189 Fax: 916-448-3724

This is a very interesting corporation (and not the subject of today’s post); ties to the council on Foreign Relations, and a board of 21 people, about 5 women, and some extremely high-achieving ones, too.  I am not sure how this ties into “Aimester Productions, LLC” of — as of yet — where “FACESS” actually resides as a corporation, other than on facebook and a website.  Such are the times we live in; we’d best deal with it!

one-half hour to the radio show, if you are planning to call in it’s 1-646-595-2134.  Again, I feel the focus is far broader than the pressing need in the family courts and child support (etc.) business entails at this point.  But it will be informative.

There is going to be a Judge from Georgia, we should ask what he thinks about (1) the Nancy Schaefer alleged murder/suicide while investigating CPS; (2) how nice to have a Georgia Judge on a Nationwide CCJJDP commission (“CC” standing for “Coordinating Council”:

These being the (appointed) “Practitioner Members” in addition to heads of various agencies:

Laurie Garduque
Adele L. Grubbs
Byron Johnson
Steven H. Jonesen
Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Pamela Rodriguez
Deborah Schumacher
Trina Thompson
Richard Vincent

The Hon. Adele L. Grubbs, as I recall, made an in absentia appearance on a previous show, when one of the callers related being incarcerated for 18 months around something regarding the sale of her home AFTER she’d been forced into bankruptcy (through custody matters, what else?) and it had already been foreclosed.  I can’t recall ALL the details.   I also know a woman in Georgia in terror in that her ex-kidnapper had done his time, and was stalking again.   And people in Pennsylvania have been made aware of the dynamic duo Parent Coordinators (Susan Boyan & Ann Marie Termini, the latter working out of Lackawanna County), with the expired associations their names are associated with, and the invisible (to me, at least) anywhere “Cooperative Parenting Institute” advertised at parentcoordinationcentral.com or whatever that site’s name is.

Georgia must be a beautiful (landscape Geography) state, I have a feeling.  It is also known in some circles for the (in)famous Georgia Fatherhood Initiative, a statewide deal organized out of the DHS, OCSE I guess:

The Georgia Fatherhood Program, created by the Division of Child Support Services (DCSS) in 1997, works with non-custodial parents who owe child support through DCSS but are unable to pay. Georgia’s Fatherhood Program is the largest state-operated fatherhood program in the country. Several thousands of non-custodial parents received services through the program during the past year. Gainful, stable employment enables these parents to provide regular financial support for their children. Fatherhood Program participants paid $18.7 million in child support during FY 2005.

Georgia recognized early on that many non-custodial parents wanted to pay their court-ordered child support, but lacked the economic capacity to do so. DCSS has partnered with other government and community agencies to develop a comprehensive network of services for this group.

The Fatherhood Program:
• Generally takes three to six months to complete.
• Serves both fathers and mothers who are non-custodial parents. . .

The Georgia Fatherhood Program is implemented by the Fatherhood Services Network, sponsored by the Department of Human Services’ Division of Child Support Services. The Network includes:
• Georgia Department of Human Services
• Child Access and Visitation Program
• Voluntary Paternity Acknowledgement Program
• Georgia Family Connections Partnership** (a nice nonprofit including a Juvenile Court judge on its board…)
• DCSS, which contracts with:
• Georgia Department of Technical and Adult Education
• Georgia Department of Labor
• DeKalb County Fatherhood Initiative Network

Anyhow, it sure should be interesting.

For BMCC Day 1: Why VAWA, DV Groups Basically Can’t (Won’t?) Stop [Terroristic Threats, Murder, Assault, Battery, Stalking, False Imprisonment, Harrassment– Child Molestation–or other Crimes]

Why?

Well, I have one line of reasoning — that there is a family court around basically creates an immense loophole; any police officer anywhere can just about get out of arresting domestic violence perpetrators (they could anyway) by, when children exist, simply failing to arrest, and letting it land in the family venue.  Ditto with CPS.  But even if they didn’t, they still have immense discretion to simply not arrest.  If they DO arrest, the DA’s have immense discretion not to prosecute also.

WOMEN’s JUSTICE CENTER /CENTRO de JUSTICIA PARA MUJERES

Santa Rosa, California

(a site I quote below, and refer to often enough) I see has written an October 2011 letter to:

Dear Feminist Law Professors:

I’m a women’s rights advocate who has been working for the last 20 years in the exasperating struggle to end violence against women. I’m writing because we’re stumped, and we need your help.

My opinion:  these feminist law professors and women, in many respects,  have for over a decade completely ignored the role of the family courts, and their relationship to the criminal prosecution of (see title) real-time crimes play in simply invalidating domestic violence law, child abuse law, in fact most criminal laws of any sort for women who have given birth.   And women who give birth, aka MOTHERS, represents a significant portion of women against whom violence is routine.

In this current climate, and while that off-ramp from the criminal justice system (if the reporting and prosecution even gets there), it is next to impossible for these women to get free from an abuser – with children — and stay free unless HE simply chooses not to sue for custody or further bother her.  And, if there’s a Title IV-D child support order around, even if he doesn’t want to bother her, the county can and will go after that family and those kids anyhow.   That’s My take on it.  So I would not be asking a feminist law professor for help, based on the track record and under-reporting of this scandal.  And I’ve talked to some of them (including in my area).  However, this writer has a point:

The problem is this: Modern violence-against-women laws are in place throughout most of the U.S., as are crisis centers, hotlines, counselors, and shelters. But a critical piece is missing. We don’t have anywhere near adequate enforcement of the laws. Nor do women have any legal right to enforcement of the laws, nor any legal remedy or redress when police and prosecutors fail to enforce the laws.

As such, the laws are meaningless to us.  However, it takes a while — and sometimes costs a life — to recognize this.

. . . But the daunting and particular problem for women is that these absolute discretionary powers are in the hands of law enforcement agencies that are rife with anti-women biases, structures, and traditions. Violence-against-women cases are the cases these officials are most overwhelmingly prone to ignore, ditch, dismiss, under-investigate, under-prosecute, and give sundry other forms of disregard. This disparate impact and denial of equal protection is undermining all the other monumental efforts to end violence against women.

Despite all the high flying official rhetoric to the contrary, way too many police and prosecutors don’t want to do these cases. They know they don’t have to do these cases. They know a million ways to get rid of these cases. They know nobody can hold them to account. And the Supreme Court keeps driving this impunity deeper into the heart of American law. Not surprisingly, the violence against women rages on.

We can social work these cases endlessly, but when police and prosecutors don’t do their part and put the violent perpetrators in check, the perpetrators easily turn around and undo any stability and safety we and the women have attempted to secure. The freer she gets, the angrier he becomes. Without adequate law enforcement, victims of violence against women are doomed. And then they are double doomed by the void of any legal cause to hold unresponsive police and prosecutors to account. And then, all too often, she is dead

Notice that at the end of this eloquent (and I believe, truthful) letter, she refers to the “Judicial Ghetto of Family Law.”  It is this Ghetto that has to be addressed if “violence against women” is to stop.  To date, we are still the gender that produces children, gives birth to them, no matter how nurturing Dad is.  As such, this arena, that ghetto, ALSO has to be addressed, or as an obstacle to life itself for those in it, removed:

We urgently need your help. Not in the judicial ghetto of family law where victims of violence against women are too often shunted to fend for themselves.

Why NOT?  Why should women have to fend for themselves in a biased system  — because thats where it typically goes after any civil restraining order (see VAWA, below) is put in place.   Perhaps if there’d been more “feminist law professors” who’d gone through leaving DV AS MOTHERS, this might have been handled by now.  Not saying that it wasn’t a tough uphill battle to start with.  But we mothers are certainly not ballast in this journey; just treated like it in these circles!

But in criminal law where the state itself must take responsibility for securing justice for these heinous crimes. We can’t solve this problem without you.

As a first step, please pass this on to colleagues you think would most fervently fight to create a women’s right to justice. And then consider joining in yourself.

Thank you for your concern.

Marie De Santis, Director Women’s Justice Center Centro de Justicia para Mujeres

mariecdesantis@gmail.com www.justicewomen.org

We like to believe that criminal law always applies when crimes are committed (the title lists some of the crimes which comprise “Domestic violence” and “Child abuse” and characterize the lives of people who sometimes, after years enduring these things, end up dead, or paying their abuser, which is a form of institutionalized extortion).

BUT — when a case is labeled “high-conflict” or “custody dispute” of any sort, BY LAW (apparently) it comes under the jurisdiction of a different court — which is not a real court, it’s a business enterprise.  (See this blog.  See other NON-federally-supported blogs or articles.

For example get this (“johnnypumphandle, re:  Los Angeles “Public Benefit Corporations Supported by Taxpayers”   Not only ALL the people walking through the halls — but the real estate — the halls themselves, apparently are often part of this enterprise!  Why this never occurred to me before reading these matters, I don’t know.   The family court is in a separate building from the main (Criminal) courthouse in MANY towns and cities across the county.  That alone should have caught our attention.  Now (same general idea), they are building, sometimes, “Family Justice Centers” as part of a National Alliance movement (see “One-Stop Justice Shop” posts, mine).

I reviewed this material carefully before, it takes a while to sink in.  It will NOT sink in if all you see mentally is the visual of the building and its inhabitants.  In order to “See” straight, one needs to see and be willing to think in terms of corporations, tax returns, and cash flow.  And something relating the words “taxpayer” with “tax-exempt.”  As the site says:

 We have again reminded the IRS of the same scheme being perpetrated by the Private Corporation – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation – with the same bond guarantees by the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers. Taxpayers are still getting stiffed by this scam, since there is no accountability for the money and NO TAX FORMS HAVE EVER BEEN FILED!

Key in this EIN#

470942805

to This Charitable Search Site (for California) — and tell me why the Relationship Training Institute — which does business with and takes business FROM the court, evidently — is still marked “current” when no (zero, nada, zilch, nothing at all) has been filed (and uploaded) by this organization for the state of California as a charity -EVER; even though it’s filed with the IRS?  Is that cheating the citizens of California, or what?   Here they are (and here goes continuity in my post today):

Relationship Development and Domestic Violence Prevention, Training, and Consultation

The Relationship Training Institute (RTI) is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, established in 1986* by David B. Wexler, Ph.D. to provide training, consultation, treatment, and research in the field of relationship development and relationship enhancement.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2583174	05/17/2004*	ACTIVE	RELATIONSHIP TRAINING INSTITUTE	DAVID B WEXLER

Because — in the 7 years (at least) it’s been operating in California, David B. Wexler, Ph.D.’s group has not bothered to file it’s (by law) annually required tax return with the state (NOTE — which provides the California Attorney General with a Schedule B showing names and addresses of contributors, and has to list government funding) and because the CA Corporations search site is so limited, I can’t see  from there OR its founding articles if this is a domestic (Ca originated) or “foreign” (out of state) corporation.   

On the other hand, the group California Coalition for Families and Children which incorporated in 2010 (per same site) — and is critical of the San Diego Family Court Practices — has twice received a “file your dues” letter, which you can search at the same charities link, above.  It has no EIN# because it hasn’t registered yet.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C3284403	03/09/2010	ACTIVE	CALIFORNIA COALITION FOR FAMILIES AND CHILDREN	CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY WHICH WILL DO BUSINESS IN CALIFORNIA AS CSC – LAWYERS INCORPORATING SERVICE

I believe any group that calls itself a 501(c)3 (or “4”) should fulfil the requirements of it.  However, there seems a bit of favoritism (OR, This group has no bribe to pay — below the table — for the regulatory agencies, including the OAG?); Emad G. Tadros, Ph.D., checked out the suspicious credentials of a custody evaluator, discovered a custody Mill (plus that a house cat got a diploma from the same place) and put up a website about all this, plus filed a suit, which was simply the right thing to do.  In retaliation for challenging the right of the courts to continue their fraud up on the public he was fined $86K in fees, and an attempt has been made at obtaining interest, too.   Apparently, this group has not cut a deal with anyone, and so the OAG WILL go after their nonprofit status.  Here’s the link to “San Diego Court Corruption.”

So, as to The Relationship Training Institute, I guess not filing with the state is “close enough for jazz The Office of Attorney General.”  And also close enough for an NIMH sponsored grant on Domestic Violence in the Navy, too.  If our Navy was run this way, we’d be losing a lot more wars.

RTI offers an on-going series of informative workshops and state-of-the-art training programs for mental health professionals and for the public, bringing innovative leaders and teachers to the San Diego community. RTI staff also travel throughout the world training professionals in the treatment models that we have been developing and publishing for over 25 years

So, don’t try to tell me the courts and attorney general are unaware — see its website, and see the detail on its charitable registration.  A letter has been sent to this charity, and its site claims it’s approved by the Judicial Council of California to provide CLE credits for its trainings!

(the logos of approving organizations).

Approving Organizations

     

By the way, Dr. Wexler is listed under another one, IABMCP or something:

David B. Wexler , Ph.D., Diplomate IABMCP
	Director, Relationship Training Institute, San Diego, California

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine, Counseling and Psychotherapy  (group registered in Dallas, TX in 1979, EIN has 11 numbers # 17523304719.  Usually it’s 9 or 12):

Name	Taxpayer ID#	Zip
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE COUNS	17523304719	75225

The actual EIN# is 751726710 and it’s registered in Colorado as a 501(c)6 ” Business leagues, chambers of commerce, real estate boards, etc. formed to improve conditions..”  It has a tiny budget and apparently exists to distribute a newsletter, per 990 (2010 ruling.), registered as a foreign nonprofit (citing the Texas org.) since 1999 and apparently is filing its reports in Colorado OK.

2010

751726710

International Academy of Behavioral Medicine Counseling and Psychother

CO

1980

06

31,455

1,402

990

Dr. Wexler anyhow, is on its Advisory Council, along with a long list of mostly but not all male personages, including Deepak Chopra…

I also note that this domestic violence training is very man-friendly…  But RTI is apparently the group that does the trainings OUTSIDE the courthouse, which makes them part of the personnel bill.  The earlier article was about who pays rents on the real estate, who owns the real estate, of the courthouses themselves?  Reading on:

August 25, 2001 – Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation and others. e.g. Los Angeles County Law Enforcement-Public Facilities Corporation and (too many to name or to discover). The Crusaders think that there are over a dozen of these ‘Public Benefit’ Corporations hiding in LA County. If you are aware of any of the others, drop us a line.

These companies are established as Tax exempt ‘charitable trusts’ under the Federal Statute – 501(c)(4). They direct millions of dollars but are basically unaudited. The Los Angeles County Courthouse Corporation (LACCC), for example, controls projects for $632 million, but as yet has not registered with the California Department of Corporations even though they have issued outstanding securities for this amount.

They have established trust agreements with banks, lease and leaseback agreements with developers, securities agreements with underwriters, legal assistance from high powered law firms, yet they have no employees. All work is done ‘outside’ on authorization from an officer of the Company. e.g. bills are paid, rents are collected, legal services are performed by outsiders through agreements. As an example, O’Melveny & Myers pays the fees for this Corporation.

Is this a donation? Somehow, I think O’Melveny & Myers are not providing legal services for free.

The company has offices in the LA County facilities, claims no employees, but has all of its utilities, telephone, rent, etc. paid by the County.

Who answers the phone? A county employee, doing ‘part time’ work but receiving no pay. At least the Corporation claims to have no employees.

How are bills paid? We have a letter to Henry P. Eng, an auditor , who is told that he will receive a check for $4,730 and a like amount will be charged to the rent due to the corporation in order to balance the books. You see, the Corporation has issued bonds (Certificates of Participation) recently for $115 Million to build the Antelope Valley Courthouse. The Banc of America and four other underwriters have guaranteed the purchase of all of these certificates.

So WHY do I make those claims in the Title of this post today?   Well, for one, I research TAGGS grants, and read conference brochures, and pay attention to what groups do – -and don’t — report on, including the various elephants in the room…  

I’m not the only one, either, questioning what VAWA is for, except to inspire a lot of anti-feminist backlash, give Fathers & Families (GlennSacks hounds) something to complain about, and a source of funds to set up websites and conferences (ad nauseam) to perpetuate the illusion that whatever a civil — or even criminal — domestic violence action DOES, Family Courts will not quickly UNDO, even if neither parent  asks them to!

You might want to look at this article:

VAWA Critique
In Which a Little-Known Legal Brief Plows into Hallowed Terrain

I almost felt like a traitor (though I was sure in my opinion) with this round of requests I write someone to reauthorize VAWA.  WHY? I thought.  I already know who’s collaborating with these other courts.  Well, another (non-federally funded, intentionally so) site – I like this site, too — explains:

Ever since the U.S. Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) was passed in 1994, women’s advocates have rallied again and again to assure that VAWA stays authorized and funded. The steady torrent of threats against the act from antagonist men’s groups has left advocates with little inclination to question whether VAWA is truly delivering what’s needed to end the violence and secure justice for women. But a little-disseminated legal brief we came across recently rips along the fault lines and suggests that giving VAWA a thorough critique may be one of the most important steps we should be taking to advance the struggle.

“The legal brief, signed by a dozen domestic violence scholars from around the country and submitted in 2007 to the Inter-American Human Rights Commission, emphatically makes the case that VAWA not only is failing to protect women, but that this failure is rooted in fundamental flaws in VAWA’s structure and administration. “VAWA is a limited remedy,” the document states, “That fails to protect women or to discharge the United State’s obligations under international law.”

(it’s going to talk about the Jessica Gonzales case, and the IACHR. However, NO — I say that these DV scholars have simply fallen asleep at the switch, or decided to look the other way, to keep their publications, etc. coming.   )

In summarizing their analysis, the brief states, “VAWA fails to accomplish four crucial things: 1) It does not provide any remedy when abuser’s or police officer’s violate victims’ rights, 2) it does not require participation of all states or monitor their progress, 3) it does not fully or adequately fund all the services that are needed, 4) it does not require states to pass or strengthen legislation around civil protective orders or the housing rights of domestic violence victims.” . . .

VAWA: “primarily a source of grants” which has not reduced domestic violence The brief goes on to characterize VAWA as “primarily a source of grants” with non-binding terms, voluntary participation, unmonitored compliance, and which mandates nothing. And the funding is paltry. According to the brief, in 2007, the median total of VAWA grants to individual states was 4.5 million dollars. That’s less than the cost of one wing of a fighter jet allotted per state to combat violence against women. If the core of this brief is accurate, despite the services VAWA has provided to tens of thousands of women, the message VAWA delivers to law enforcement and other public officials throughout America is disastrous. ‘You can prevent, investigate, and punish violence against women – if you feel like it. But if you’d rather not, don’t worry about it. VAWA doesn’t mandate that you do anything. And if women are upset by that, rest assured, VAWA and the courts have also made sure there’s not a darn thing women can do about it to hold you to account.‘ Most troubling of all, the brief finds that in the time from VAWA’s passage in 1994 to 2007 when the brief was filed, VAWA has not reduced domestic violence in the U.S., despite the U.S. government’s claims to the contrary. As stated in the brief, “Since the passage of VAWA, domestic violence rates have not been reduced in proportion to other violent crimes

This site writes their rationale:

And perhaps worse, these fundamental flaws in VAWA are not even a matter of discussion, debate, or protest among frontline women’s advocates. It’s critical for progress in ending violence against women that that discussion begin.

which they analyze as, and I can see this:

The Tie that Binds

VAWA requires that shelters and rape crisis centers that receive VAWA funding must demonstrate their cooperation with their local law enforcement agencies.

Individual states that administer the VAWA grants have implemented this requirement in various ways. But typically the shelters and crisis centers seeking VAWA grants must obtain signed operational agreements with their local law enforcement agencies. This has given law enforcement veto power over the survival of the violence against women centers, a controlling power law enforcement has not hesitated to use.

People should read this article — and a lot of this site, based in Sonoma County, California (wine country north of SF).  I notice that the Family Justice Alliance Center made sure to get a center into Sonoma County — and if I were going to donate to somewhere to stop violence (other than the time I’ve donated, here, and off-blog) it’d be to this group, responsible for the website:

Feel free to photocopy and distribute this information as long as you keep the credit and text intact.
Copyright © Marie De Santis
Women’s Justice Center,
www.justicewomen.com 
rdjustice@monitor.net

VAWA is a Federal Act of Congress first passed in 1994.  By Contrast (and to oppose its premises), the National Fatherhood Initiative is a NONPROFIT started by someone with close connections to HHS, and Washington, and now many legislators — and is not only still funded, but has permeated the structure and purpose of violence prevention, child welfare, and child abuse prevention  areas of goverment.  While VAWA (which at least went past Congress initially — the NFI did not) promotes one kind of training, NFI promotes the opposite theories.

Then the two groups get together, for example, The Greenbook Initiative and congratulation their federally-paid-behinds for being able to get along, while women continue to die after breeding and leaving abuse.  And etc.

The DOJ Defending Children Initiative:  even has an “Engaging Fathers” link:

The ILLUSION that there is protection for women and children through groups such as “Child Protection Services” is fatuous.  That’s not what they’re there for, apparently.  Nor, apparently, are the civil restraining order issuers (typically a domestic violence nonprofit of some sort, or possibly a parent might get one on his/her own) there to prosecute or punish any crime.

I heard this from a woman (grandparent) in an unidentified urban area, regarding her grandchildren’s being in the sole custody of an abusing father AFTER CPS and police had confirmed sodomy and forced copulation with the (young boy):

Hearsay #1:

There are no laws or penal codes against child abuse by a parent.  Child abuse by a parent comes under the Welfare and Institution Code (WIC).

The welfare and institution code does ONE thing — offers reunification services to the abuser.  The one and ony law mandated by legislators (in such cases) is reunification.

Since the theme is “reunification” (and really, let’s get honest — “supervised visitation” concept comes from this field, reunification), no family court has any interest in re-unifying a protective mother with her child once that child has been completely (and physically) “reunified” with the abuser father.  There are no fatherhood-promotion services for this (access/visitation concept is actually a fatherhood concept).  Supervised visitation with a sex offender (young) father and mother has resulted in child-rape INSIDE a supervised visitation facility in Trumbull County, Ohio, recently.  It has resulted in financial fraud on East and West Coast both (Genia Shockome/Karen Anderson of Amador County, PA), it has resulted in a child literally being supervised by a woman who had criminally sexually assaulted a DOG in Contra Costa County California courts (Welch v. Tippe), and — the commissioner? who made that order, as recommended by her court-crony, is I believe still on the bench — and has been, while we’re at it, on the Board of Kids’ Turn, too.  After all, it’s all about the “Kids” and what’s best for them, right?  How often do women whose children have been abused get put on supervised visitation for “alienating” the father by reporting — or allowing their kids to even report to someone else unsolicited, like a schoolteacher — real live criminal activity upon themselves?

Hearsay #2:

Child Protective Services labeled our case high-conflict which put it in custody court.  Neither the father or I had even mentioned divorce at the time.

This mother says she saw it on their report.  I’d like to see that report.  Assuming it’s true, this means that CPS knows quite well that they don’t have to prosecute anything against a parent when it comes to abuse of children; they can shunt it off to family court.

Hearsay #3 (to you — this is my case):

When my children were being stolen (abducted), and I was protesting on the basis of a valid court order giving me physical custody, an attempt was made to bring CPS in — although no abuse was being alleged!  When I pointed this out, the officers supervising the exchange — which I’d requested for personal safety — refused to enforce the court order, mocked me, and when I realized there was no recourse from this crew, I had to let my “ex-batterer” and the children’s father, drive off into the sunset with children I’d raised, and from this point forward (til today) not ONE single court order was consistently obeyed for more than a month, including visitation or phone contact with me, alternating holidays, or the children with the mother on mother’s day, all of which remained in the CUSTODY order.

In short, if I wasn’t going to voluntarily justify bringing on more (paid, public employee) professionals AFTER existing paid, public employee professionals simply refused to do their job (which I later learned — they don’t have to, even if not doing their job results in someone’s, or even three children’s, deaths.  See Castle Rock v. Gonzales).

Talk about “interlocking directorate” – – – – I also heard from a savvy investigator (mother) (noncustodial) in another state how that, literally, when a father is accused AND found guilty of abuse in one sector (for example, criminally, or child support services) this literally causes the father to be declared “incapacitated” or incompetent — making the child a “dependency” case.  The court that the mother then walks into is, in effect, a “dependency court.”  The state owns her child, and if she can’t ransom it back, too bad.  The ransom process is simply this:  the hearings go on, and on, and on and as much money is extracted from the mother, who WILL fight back, until she’s broke too, if not in spirit.  That’s the plan.  That’s not an anomaly or “burp” of the system — that IS the plan.

We have heard also of horrendous situations, and I’ve reported this, of dual electronic docketing.  (“Computerized or Con-puterized?”  Janet Phelan on Joseph Zernik reporting.  One week after she published the layperson’s explanation of this, he was picked up by police without cause and held).   We’ve heard of collected but intentionally not distributed child support, in the millions of $$ (Silva v. Garcetti (who was Los Angeles D.A., involving Richard Fine).    Even a brief look at what happened to Mr. Fine (besides getting incarcerated and disbarred) and how the California Legislature handled the fact that the entire judiciary was subject to bribery at the county level by payments to judges — from the county — in cases where — the county — was a party.  It retroactively granted immunity, and did this quickly, lest the entire judicial system get shut down.  (SBX-211) — that brief look should say, what we are dealing with is XX % crooks, and X% enablers or people who can’t themselves get out of the system because by participation, they’d be prosecuted too.  Talk about “gangs” . . . that’s a Gang.  Sometimes deals go between one jurisdiction and another, making them a little harder to catch (Gregory Pentoney)

Two other things which I’ve heard of from a non-BMCC “let’s ask the expert source” in recent times — and again, I present this as Hearsay, but it’s entirely in character for the venue — of more than one physical case file being kept.  One is shown to the litigant when she can afford it (which ain’t always), or qualifies as low-income enough to be shown it.  The other is shown and hauled out when it comes to justifying program billing — that one or both parents may be totally unaware of, occurring in their case, under their or their kids’ social security #s, and in their name.

Again, my plan is to curtail posting on this blog (I believe I’ve “said my piece” on most major points) at the end of January, and get about other aspects of life.  Oh yes, and I signed the blog up for Twitter, which should curtail the length some, like by ca. (10,000 to 14,000) – 140 characters!

I realize that conversational style isn’t communication, yet the information is urgent to present and get out.  The “end of January” date was in honor of the BMCC conference, which I plan to comment on every day it’s in session.  Ideally, you will see one post a day from here til 1/31, however, some of the material does cause vicarious trauma to report, which may affect quality of post, or my getting one out on a certain day.  While I know what I know, from study, research observation, reflection, and synthesis, expressing it is another matter.

Also, the conversing with the material style is laborious, and takes hours.  Whereas in a personal conversation, say, by phone, with interaction, I know I could convey the key FAQs, overall, in 10 minutes or less, and tell people where to find more information, should they be motivated.

So here we go:

Some people I know are headed up again to the Battered Mothers Custody Conference IX in Albany, New York again this year, where the same basic information will be presented by experts, while mothers are welcome to participate from the floor and by adding their square to the quilt, by buying books which the presenters will be selling (last year’s hot-off-the-press available in softcover and at a discount – only $59 — for conference attendees) and donate, too.   This is addressed to mothers who are probably being fleeced in the courts, have tortuous situations to handle, and some are paying child support to their child’s or their abuser, which is why they pull it together to come to this conference, seeking help and answers — from the experts.

One difference — a positive one — THIS year is the attendance of Dr. Phyllis Chesler, who also will be selling her newly revised “Mothers on Trial”  which I know incorporates some new stories, and I plan to order it on-line.

However, I also know that it’s not about to contain the information on this blog, on NAFCJ.net, or much on the AFCC, Welfare Reform (1996), and the role of the Child Support $4 billion industry in prolonging custody conflicts, for profit.  However, it will be a new presenter, and an experienced feminist who I’ll bet is not afraid to address some of the issues of Gender Apartheid (which also results in “Battered Mothers”) in front of this audience, and on which she is an expert.  Perhaps she will — as I don’t think others have — bring up the impact of religion on this situation in the family courts.  It’s there – -not talking about it would hardly make sense.

At the  bottom of this post, I am going to list the Presenters, and brief comments or links on the ones I know.  The ones I don’t, I’ll look up.  Perhaps in the next post (as this one expanded into handling a few other items).

And in this post, I’m going to charge pretty hard into the entire concept behind this conference, as I did last January, afterwards.

NB:  I attended one conference in all its years, but primarily to meet mothers I’d been blogging with; I’d already realized that it was a marketing conference.  That’s responsible behavior for people shelling out travel, hotel, and conference fees, not to mention in general.  You find out who’s saying what and evaluate it.

The Title of this year’s conference is apparently “IS WHAT WE’RE DOING WORKING”?

HUH?

 

• We who?  (Mo Hannah, Barry Goldstein, et al.?)

• Working for whom?*

• Define “working” — what’s the goal here?  (Sales, Self-Promotion, Shaping Distressed Mothers’ Perceptions?)

Ask a foolish question, you will get a very foolish answer.  Act on those answers and you become a fool.  A sucker is born every minute, and I regret every minute of my own “suckerhood” which listened to domestic violence rhetoric for too long, and didn’t think to GO CHECK TAX RETURNS AND NONPROFIT FILINGS FIRST, which might’ve had a different result.  

That’s why I believe that it’s the “experts” that should be sitting around the tables in the conference and taking notes, and the women themselves that should be up on stage giving testimony, ideas — and controlling the microphones.  Then some of the questions they have might get some answers, through collective wisdom, as women tend to do — when not co-opted into the hierarchical model of relating to each other which is more characteristic of males, and of this society we live in.

The structure of this type of conference is didactic — from presenter to participant.  They are the dispensers of wisdom, women & mothers attending, the recipients.  Go forth and deliver the expert wisdom to your areas, (seek to hire us as expert witnesses in your court cases) and if it doesn’t work — next year we are going to do the same basic routine anyhow, and your feedback will NOT be front and center, if it is allowed at all.

Seriously — that’s how it goes.  And anyone with a child in a custody case has a ticking clock, if not time bomb, which is running.  We do not have time to beat around the bush and fail to address things in PRIORITY order.

So anyhow, “is what we (?) are doing working?”

Somehow this is going to be stretched out into a weekend’s worth of material?  Is there a better question to ask, such as — what can we do to either clean up or shut down the family law courts if they refuse to clean themselves out, which is unlikely?  How many experts does it take to distract a mother’s attention from who is paying her abuser and the judges that gave that kid to the abuser?  Why doesn’t this conference ever bring up child support, welfare reform, or mathematical issues, such as economics?

Or, for that matters, why are not the people who experienced abuse considered THE experts, and why are the true experts (the battered mothers) not as informed as the presenting experts on things that others figured out over 15 years ago in this field?

This is, among other things, a marketing conference, and a chance for women to sit with each other and have company in their distress.  It is NOT a place for them to actually reform the courts, or learn the most direct possible ways (if any ways are possible) to get their children back, or a crooked judge off their case.  That I can tell.

*A comment on the site says women can contribute to a quilt for missing children.   (Which somehow reminds me of a church situation — you may attend, women:  Here — serve some cookies,  greet perhaps, and of course work child care, the sermon and other important things will be piped in from our (male) minister).  . . . . now, there are presenters who are mothers on the platform, some of who I know by name, and I know those mothers are not about to rock the boat — by reporting on what you’ll find here, NAFCJ.net, Cindy Ross, Richard Fine (Emil Tadros either, for that matter) and other places.   Somehow that information isn’t worth informing Moms of, which results in Uninformed Moms, wondering why things aren’t changing.

You see, professionals (and I was one in one or two fields) know they’re not expert in other fields and so tend to defer to people presenting as the experts in a different field.  This works REAL well when mothers in panic, danger, or serious trauma go for help to DV experts who are hired (or volunteered) with agencies which do not themselves see fit to look at the larger picture AND TELL THE MOMS ABOUT IT.

Moreover, once a case — or person — moves out of their area of “expertise” — meaning, case in point for mothers, into the family law system — it becomes “not my problem” and they can, I suppose, somehow sleep with themselves at night (those who actually have functional consciences) without drugs or sedatives, by saying – it’s out of my hands now, I did my part!

Ay, there’s the rub.  It’s a win-win for the civil restraining order (DV agency) field AND for the Family Law Field, because no one “out-ed” either field’s collaboration and centralization over the years.  No one has done this much to date  because so few people follow the funding, particularly experts protesting “Child abuse, Domestic Violence” and so forth.

RE:  “IS What We’re Doing Working”

Here’s a short answer:   “ExcUUse me?   You  * #$!- ing (kidding) me, right?”

Slightly Longer answer, Fresh kill, two children (10 & 14) into someone else’s care (foster?  relatives?)  this week in California.  The woman showed up, obediently, for a family court hearing, and was murdered in cold blood, in her car.

HEMET: Estranged couple die in courthouse murder-suicide

Authorities say the man shot his wife, gave chase to police, then shot himself; they were scheduled to appear in family court for a hearing

BY JOHN ASBURY AND KEVIN PEARSON

STAFF WRITERS

kpearson@pe.com | jasbury@pe.com

Published: 04 January 2012 08:42 AM

A man at the Hemet courthouse for a child-support hearing calmly walked up to his wife’s car and fired two fatal shots, then led police on a car chase before killing himself Wednesday morning, according to witnesses and police

. . . .

Costales had no criminal record in Riverside County, and the couple had no history of domestic violence with each other, nor was there a restraining order in the case. However, Costales was accused of domestic violence in a previous divorce.

The two children now aged 10 and 14, we don’t know who their biological mother was –whether the woman slumped over in her car that day, or the former Ms. Costales:  However, they were born (do the math, see article) prior to this marriage:  2012 January minus ten, minus fourteen years.  Mr. Costales prior marriage had mutual restraining orders as of the year 2000.

‘A HORRIBLE SIGHT’

Kimberly Jones, 45, of Hemet, said she was in her car when she heard the first gunshot, which she thought was a firecracker. She looked back to see Schulz back away quickly.

Jones ducked as additional shots were fired, then ran over to find Schulz bleeding and slumped over in the driver’s seat. Jones, who is a nurse, said she tried to resuscitate the woman in the parking lot as Costales casually walked back to his car.

. . . She moved out, not him….

Schulz told the court in September that she was unemployed and receiving $550 in monthly aid. She asked for Costales to be required to make child and spousal payments and to make payments on their Honda Pilot until she could afford to get her own vehicle.

“I need hearing because of no income but aid,” Schulz wrote in court documents. “Living on my brother’s couch, looking for work daily, been unsuccessful. Children need their own home and stability.”

The age difference:  Him vs. Her — was 17 years.  We don’t know this situation, but here’s a woman who never apparently even SAID “domestic violence” — and yet still died asking for something reasonable.  Did she bring children into the relationship (was he their father?).  Did he seek a needy woman with children to make up for loss of his first wife and two sons (now adults)?

Do second wives EVER believe the record on the first wives’ court docket?

I went to look this one up at the Riverside Court, but found out that it’s not even free to view the images, and in doing so, they will know who is looking.  So much for public oversight from a safe distance!

Police closed off a portion of the courthouse parking lot, stranding about 50 people who were unable to get to their cars to leave, but the courthouse remained open. The Hemet branch of the Riverside County courts handles family law cases in addition to civil, small claims and traffic issues.

Why did she leave?  Who knows?  Was this unreported violence, nonsupport, or what?  Where are the children going to live now?  Who HAS them now?

This was a TANF case.  She was on aid — that means that only if there has been violence, or some severe extenuating systems, is she allowed some sort of diversion away from seeking child support from the father.  The county wants its programs funded.  If “aid” goes out, the County controls the collection of child support.  This was likely an administrative hearing — there seems not to be any discussion over custody or visitation.    This woman didn’t know, and now never will, what receiving welfare from anywhere in California puts one at risk of.  Had it not ended this way, it might have stretched out for years in the courts as well.

Suppose this man had not been just Mr. Costales, but Mr. DeKraii, and been in a real bad mood that day?  Who else might have died?

Hence, we have to re-think this phrase:  “Clear and Present Danger.”  It has 3 usages.

1.  In the law, unless it’s been rescinded by now — in California, a Batterer is a “Clear and present danger to the mental and physical health of the citizens of California.”  If one continues reading the law, they then talk about something like a task force at the District Attorney level.

2.  In Usage by AFCC,  “Lack of Resources” to the family courts is the “Clear and Present Danger.”

3.  I feel it’s safe to say now, clearly, and quite presently, that “the family courts are a clear and present danger to the citizens (not just parents) of the state of California.”

So much for the domestic violence industry.  It doesn’t hold water once it’s in “conciliation court.”  They just forgot to tell the mothers this, evidently.

I fully realize that’s “heresy” (but the courts themselves are based on psychological theory and clear intent to undermine the meaning of criminal law and drive business to therapists, etc.) but anyone concerned about my POST-battering relationship, POST-family law custody matters (like we say, it goes, so long as minors and two parties are all alive, until the children reach majority) — I have no criminal record and no criminal intents either.  I showed up to court hearings no matter how scared I was, and was forced to sit at the table with my ex, and from this close range, somehow “negotiate.”

People want to “reform” Family Court.  That’s crazy thinking.  It doesn’t account for the roadkill.

Although I can’t blame the average citizen, who thinks that his /her taxes are going to support something noble or good when it pays these salaries for family courts throughout the land, and more.  When the situation hits them, personally (evidence is that not all close relatives or friends figure it out, either), perhaps the 2 + 2 will = 4.    Who has it helped, and what’s the ratio of helped to roadkill, to children being tortured, children sent into foster care, parents experiencing MIA children, etc.?   That’s a system someone can supposedly MANAGE?

Here’s a summary, a post from long ago (about 1.5 years ago) which I’m amazed it still gets attention, and was today:

Toms River NJ femicide/suicide post-mortem concludes strangled DYFS worker should’ve hooked up with “agencies such as ourselves”

I posted this on August 17, 2009

This detailed a murder/suicide which occurred FIVE HOURS after the man posted $1,500 bail and was released.  The woman did everything right — almost.  She didn’t leave her job and the area, she didn’t evidently know to insist that if this man was released, she be notified (nor was she, apparently) in fact, perhaps she didn’t have a fast enough learning curve to understand that once provoked by resistance, some men become extremely dangerous, at which point in time, it is imperative to stay alive — and anything short of ENSURING that is risky, even putting job retention ahead of it.

I then in the blog talk back to the various circus of people saying “it spiraled out of control” and so forth, essentially failing to analyze.  THEN I go back approximately 10 years and look at DV murders in that area and in NJ, compare it to the money spent to stop domestic violence, and have to ask, HUH?

There are a few things I noticed on the re-read of my older post, which I may get out later.  For example — that the Prosecutor quoted had been Presiding Family Law Judge, and it had been a civil restraining order.

Is it possible that this very system of civil restraining orders, although they jumpstart safety, are themselves a fail-safe, which still end up with dead bodies afterwards?  How sad – in that this young? woman wasn’t a mother yet, either- – she really could’ve possibly relocated.  It is easier for a single person who doesn’t have to deal with ongoing visitation, custody orders, the children’s change of schools, etc. — to locate, than a woman with children attached.  Not that it’s easy, but it would seem LEGALLY easier.  If she wants to go, they were not married, have no property in common — what could LEGALLY prevent her from leaving?

But it’s not that way when there is a family around, in the eyes of the state.

Meanwhile:  We have a 7500 word post here, and below are the listed (possibly not the latest list, but from the website) PRESENTERS at BMCC IX.

I have to go now, but will comment another time on those that I know of.   It is not an alpha list and I notice that Jennifer Collins (who is a young woman and associated with or running “Courageous Kids” — daughter of HOlly Collins) is on their twice.

Several of these people, I have personally and sometimes several times, talked to about why there is so little tracking of AFCC, fatherhood funding and other things, in their advocacy.

2012 PRESENTERS   Bios to be added shortly Jennifer Collins Carly Singer Michael Bassett, J.D. Carol Pennington Liora Farkovitz Lundy Bancroft- author Barry Goldstein – author, former attorney Joan Zorza  – DVLeap, doesn’t blog family law matters Kathleen Russell* — *of Center for Judicial Excellence.  Won’t report on AFCC, barely reports on fatherhood funding, but loves high profiles.  Not a mother. Connie Valentine  (CPPA) Karen Anderson  (CPPA and her case is detailed in Johnnypumpandle — but this crowd simply ain’t interested.) Phyllis Chesler   (if there were better company I’d try and get there this year, to meet her) Gabby Davis Loretta Fredericks Loretta Fredericks in my opinion should not be allowed to present.  She should be put on the spot and have women fire questions about her.  Unfortunately, so few women know ANYTHING about MPDI, Duluth Abuse Intervention Programs, Battered Women’s Justice Project, how much TAGGS says the MPDI (etc.) got (HHS funding) — or the infamous collaboration with the AFCC in “Explicating Domestic Abuse in Custody” (or similar title) which was also public funding.   She also is featured in AFCC as a presenter, i.e., on the conference circuit?   Has she influenced them to understand abuse — or vice versa.  This situation (not her personally — we’ve never spoken) PERFECTLy represents what Liz Richards of NAFCJnet has correctly (my research validates this) calls a DV expert functioning as a “heat shield” for fatherhood providers.  They lend legitimacy where there is non. Michele Jeker Maralee Mclean Angela Shelton Wendy Murphy Jennifer Hoult Sandy Bromley Renee Beeker  (advocates court watch) Joshua Pampreen Nancy Erickson Karin Huffer Jason Huffer Crystal Huffer* *Huffers talk about and help women deal with Legal Abuse Syndrome). Holly Collins Jennifer Collins Zachary Collins Garland Waller **Collins and Waller are central to the conference and high-profile, I believe people know about them.   Dara Carlin* *Formerly DV advocate from Hawaii, then it happened to her.  Didn’t notice that the legislator she was sure was on women’s side actually had close ties to a Fatherhood Commission in Hawaii (a What?).  This was how I learned about Fatherhood Commissions, actually.  She didn’t “Get” it.  Also hadn’t noticed that AFCC was presenting — in Hawaii — on PAS, etc. Toby Kleinman Linda Marie Sacks (mentioned in my 2nd “About This Blog” — how to get to the Supreme COurt citing Dr. Phil, Oprah, and a Radio show onesself was interviewed on, thereby giving the rest of mothers protesting abuse a nice reputation for not being too bright.  Seriously!) Rita Smith*   (NCADV Leadership.  NCADV is atop the pile of statewide Coalitions Against Domestic Violence which are state-funded, although not too much funding.  It takes fees from these organizations and sells things, has conferences, etc. Was cited positively by Women in Fatherhood, Inc. which I find interesting …..) Eileen King  (“Justice for Children” also I think on Linda Marie Sacks case, which Supreme Court refused to hear). Mo Therese Hannah (self-explanatory — and running the conference, with help It says from Ms. Miller.  I don’t recoqnize the other names). Liliane Miller Raquel Singh Tammy Gagnon Louise Monroe Chrys Ballerano

Hopefully publishing this post won’t cost me what friends or colleagues remain (which is few anyhow), but I always am favorable to truth over friendship, when the latter compromises it and so much is at stake.  This conference, unless it exposes the operational structure, financing, and purposes of the entire family law business enterprise, can probably not help mothers win their court cases, u9nderstand the situation, and will redirect their activism towards asking for more task forces.  We just got this — and not one family law spokesperson on the last one (for Children Exposed to Domestic Violence).

Perhaps they all need a year off, and to go take a starter course from H&R Block, spend some time on their state corporate and charity websites, learn how to write a FOIA, WRITE some, and look at what comes up.  NOTE:  That’s not Rocket science, doesn’t require a Ph.D. and they won’t perish if they actually learn from sources, in tead of as interpreted through people who have things to sell.

I reserve judgment (any further judgment) until I find out who the other presenters are.  Meanwhile, say some prayers for the two children of Mr. Costales and his “estranged wife” he just murdered, while she was complying with a court order in order to have enough to live on after leaving him, this past week in Hemet California — which is in Southern, CA, Riverside County.

An Interlocking Directorate of Associations and Foundations, AFCC forward….[Publ. Dec. 12, 2011]

This post came up in my own 3/25/2018 blog search for Open Society Foundations.  It wasn’t the top search result but because this post’s contents from 2011 are still so relevant I decided to add some formatting to make for better viewing.

The blog appearance (background color especially, border, and width limits especially) changed years later during an upgrade, so I am adding those formatting changes to this older post for better viewing.  Another habit I also developed later was adding complete post title with “shortlink” to it at the top of posts, and including for clarity, the publication date in the actual title itself. The shortlink is for convenience of blog administrator and anyone else who might be copying a link to the post for use elsewhere under full (or shortened) title.

This is not a complete post review for broken links or images that don’t display (If image was provided by a link to an on-line url, that link has probably changed since.  I now do this differently so it happens less often…//LGH 3/25/2018.

Post formats now (March 2018) look more like this, including full title with link, date published and approximate length typically at or very close to the top:

An Interlocking Directorate of Associations and Foundations, AFCC forward….[Publ. Dec. 12, 2011] about 9,900 words; case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-WA”

Readers (such as you be) no doubt realize I’m pretty jaundiced about how many associations are simply duplicates of each other, and how many of the same types of associations were, somewhere in their murky origins, related to Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Children’s Rights Council (or both), associations for mediators, dispute resolution practitioners, and now– (association for) conflict resolution.

(The terms have to be refreshed periodically to reflect the expanding purposes of the same basic set of people).  Parent coordinators obviously fits in here somewhere (it’s an AFCC project) and because it takes money to do all this — and not all money going THROUGH the courts comes FROM the courts — we can see today where a particular foundation played a role in expanding AFCC.

For this post, I’d meant to fill in some of the background for this ACFLS (see yesterday’s post) and relate it to AFCC.  Then I felt it would be appropriate to look at the AFCC tax returns, in general — and next thing you know, in explaning Peter Salem’s $130K salary, I ended up looking more at  — first the AFCC/Peter Salem / Andrew Schepard Hofstra University Connection.

After which a simple look at the elements of the AFCC description of Mr. Salem’s credits revealed a certain award (John M. Hayne) from the “Association for Conflict Resolution.” . . .. Because I read so (damn) much, I picked up that “ACR” is the new “ADR”.  And that organization appears to have been following true AFCC style –issuing awards to people on its own board, and sho ’nuff at least one of them was in trouble with the state for nonfiling of tax returns.  (Kenneth Cloke, below).

And we take a look also at one of the (many) corporations funding the field of “Conflict Resolution” (plus fatherhood promotion), who happen to be SF Bay ARea based — and pack a lot of clout, too — the Hewlitt Foundation.

All in all, I find it fascinating, and like to engage in conversations with — the material.  However, the format of this blog is less than fascinating.  I’m actually very tired of looking at it and dealing with its idiosyncrasies (plus techniques I don’t know yet to how to handle — for example, around issues of pasting information from other sites, and the ever-disappearing paragraph spacing.

SO — FamilyCourtMatters is not about to get a facelift — it’s about to get pre-empted by another blog platform, or simply dropped.  I have a mental deadline of the end of January 2012, just to handle what comes up at the next BMCC conference.

I am much (MUCH) more interested in the “hard sciences,” than social sciences!  The social science shepherds have a pretty limited vocabulary, which is continually elaborated — but not that solid to start with.  This vocabulary and mindset are at odds — at “high-conflict” as it were — with the language of the US Constitution, concepts of freedom of choice, liberty and justice as a process.   They do not deal with the spiritual matters central to humanity, but instead set up more and more demonstration projects to test their theories, forcibly, on others, and at public and corporate expense.

It’s not NATURE:

This is absolutely not true when one begins to examine the sky, the ground, the water, or things with a microscope.  Those things become more fascinating.  The closer I look at these “corporations” and nonprofits, the more they behave similarly — and crooked.   This is also true with the writing — it’s not even good writing, but mostly rhetoric borrowed from each other.  Then, as if to give it more merit, citing each other.  I don’t know when the last individual in the whole field had an original idea.  It’s mostly groupthink.  Where the real creativity comes in is ways to hide the flow of finances among and between the different corporations.

It’s not ART:

It’s also for the most part, not that true when one deals with (the best of) the arts:  music, literature, drama, architecture, dance, etc.  There is enough interest and genuine expression in there for a lifetime of experience, study,and participation.

Even the study of MONEY is more interesting, when viewed as how it circulates and affects others over time, and in different forms  There’s something of a mathematical principle to this.

it uses Technology, but it’s not Technology:

But the Family Courts + Federal Funds + Faith-Based Pooh-Bahs + various Institutes (etc.) are  Basically CROWD CONTROL, Population Management from Afar.  It reminds me of the Nazis discussing what to do with the inferiors, and this comes through in the language also.   The one thing that is NOT taking place in the multiple conferences, and tax-evasion and supposed public benefit operations — is a fair and real engagement with any of the public supposedly benefitted.

Those talking conciliation, conciliation, are actually engaged in a hierarchical manipulation — they wish to rule and change the world, they promise heaven (and demand support to bring it to pass) while delivering — as to the family courts at least, plus the squandering of public funds — hell and in justice.  And I know men and women both will agree on this.

One Promise of “Heaven” as follows, and grandiose aspirations:

NATIONAL PEACEMAKER MUSEUM:

Not to be confused with the B36 Peacemaker Museum in Ft. Worth Texas (a 501(c)3) which concept is about maintaining a balance of powers

	National Peacemaker Museum
	Divorce Legal Services Family and Civil Mediation Mediation and Collaborative Training Books by Forrest S. Mosten Woody’s Biography
	Mission Statement (Approved June 29, 2009) The National Peacemaker Museum Constellation will encourage peaceful conflict resolution between human beings in every corner of the world. It will honor those courageous and innovative individuals and institutions who work toward peace rather than conflict, foster harmony amongst humanity rather than division, and embrace the rich tapestry of human difference while building bridges upon our commonalities. The National Peacemaker Museum will challenge, inspire, educate, and enable visitors from around the world to be peacemakers themselves, to contribute as they can to the ability of the human race to solve our problems creatively and collaboratively, and to craft solutions that are fair, compassionate, and wise. National Peacemaker Museum will accomplish this mission through a diverse array of partnerships and outreach techniques, both virtual and tangible, in an ongoing effort to reach the full diversity of humanity, speaking in a way that each listening ear can hear. The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is supporting a coalition of organizations to establish a National Peacemaker Museum. In November 2007, ACR Immediate Past President, Marilyn S. McKnight established a Taskforce to launch this effort and appointed Forrest (Woody) Mosten to serve as Chair. This Taskforce recognizes that there is an exciting, vibrant peace community comprised of a diverse array of organizations and individuals. The Taskforce is committed to reaching out to these organizations and individuals and to exploring the possibilities building a coalition comprised of a broad array of partners. Since its inception, the Task Force has established dialogue with the United States Institute of Peace which is building a Peace Educational Center on the Mall in Washington D.C currently in construction (opening scheduled for 2010-2011) and is exploring funding for on-line exhibits as a first step to a web-based museum as well as regional and traveling exhibits.

The Goals of the National Peacemaker Museum Taskforce (of the organization, Association for Conflict Resolution — see below) shall be to (partial list):

• Support Development of Model Peace Education Courses, Modules, Writing Contests and Other Public Peace Education Activities
• Support ACR Conference Keynote or Plenary Program for ACR 2010 ACR Annual Meeting in Chicago. Keynote/Plenary with following workshops would be a call to action and formation of a concrete agenda by the field for increased Public Education on Peacemaking.
• Identify Potential Partner Organizations
• Build a Coalition of Museum Partners and Supporters
• Identify and Cultivate Potential Funding Sources

The Task Force:

Who is on this Task Force?  here’s the list of 23 individuals.  Notice most of the affililations.  Number 23, I ran across below and it turns out while his organization “Mediators Beyond Borders” seems legitimate, his own “Center for Dispute Resolution” — incorporated in California in 1987 (per Secretary of State) has NEVER filed — til threatened in the year about 2011 — its annual returns, either with the state or with the IRS.   When threatened with a hefty fine by the states’ Office of Attorney General/ Charitable Trusts Registry, it appears he forked over a bunch of RRF (state-level returns) stating the organization made absolutely nothing — 0 –  since its inception.  It has no assets or income.

This didn’t stop (Mr. Cloke) from referencing his “Center for Dispute Resolution” all over the place, and having a website up that is advertising, in the year 2011, some expensive trainings he is to be holding through its website registration and contact.  Moreover, in the year 2010, this organization (that’s sponsoring the Peacemakers Museum) ACR gave him an award, in a series of awards since 2001 designed to puff up the groups’ credibility and public image.

Quite frankly, as a “commoner” watching all this, I’m getting real tired of it.  Anyhow, here are the 23 “taskforce” members:

• Michael Aloi, ACR President

• Doug Kleine, ACR Executive Director
• Forrest Mosten, Chair, Task Force
• Jerome Barrett, Author and ACR Archivist
• Mark Bramford, Public Policy Mediator
• Guy and Heidi Burgess, Co-Directors, Colorado Conflict Research Consortium
• Rita Callahan, ACR Board Member
• Marci DuPraw, Facilitator and Mediator
• Katrina Everhart, Museum Consultant
• Fernaunda Ferguson, ACR Board Member
• Francisco Laguna, International Legal and Business Mediator
• David Matz, Professor of Dispute Resolution, University of Massachusetts, Boston
• Marilyn McKnight, Past President, ACR  (see immediately below here**)
• Josh Moore, Associate Director, International Education at Beloit College in Beloit, Wisconsin
• Catherine Morris, Director, Peacemakers Trust, Canada
• June O’Connor, Professor of Religious Studies, University of California, Riverside
• Jim Rosenstein,  Immediate Past ACR President
• Jocylen Wurtzburg, Mediator, Memphis, Tennesee
• Lela Love, Liaison, ABA Dispute Resolution Section
• Ronald Supancic, Liaison, International Academy of Collaborative Professionals
• Andrew Schepard, Liaison, Association of Family and Conciliation Courts
• Ken Cloke, Liaison, Mediators Beyond Borders

**Marilyn McKnight, I just found: (missing image. <==Broken link updated to “Mediators & Staff” submenu March 2018, but the quote is from earlier website)

 

Marilyn S. McKnight, M.A.

Marilyn S. McKnight, M.A., director and co-founder

Marilyn is a mediator, trainer, parent coordinator and author who has practiced exclusively in the field of mediation since 1977 after an extensive career in public social work.

In the early 1980s Marilyn began workshops on mediating divorces where there is domestic violence. She received a Bush Leadership Fellowship Award in 1987. In 1988 Marilyn was elected to the Board of the Academy of Family Mediators where she began work toward the voluntary certification of mediators and later, served as President of the Academy.

{{Timing:  In 1994 the VAWA, Violence Against Women Act, was passed, and around this time it was becoming clear that medation is NOT advisable (due to power imbalance) when there’s been assault and battery, in effect, domestic violence.  IT was fought hard against, and made mandatory in certain areas, as partially enabled by access/visitation grants during welfare reform.  It was identified as a way to get more NONcustodial parenting time — when other means, such as the legal process, or the fact that one parent may have been a criminal, which possibly caused separation — wouldn’t get the same result.  In short, Mediation was viewed and funded as a PAID SOURCE to turn justice into an OUT-COME BASED proceedings, with one party (the custodial parent) not knowing what hit (her) in the proceedings!  It also turned anyone who’d been on TANF and involved in this, into an at-risk for supply social science material for the head of HHS — and what litigants even thinks about checking a federal agency for information on WTF happened to their due process rights, or other Constitutionally provided Bill of Rights!}}

In 1996 she and her partner Steve Erickson were awarded the Distinguished Mediator Award by the Academy for their outstanding contributions to the field of mediation.

Marilyn has been an adjunct professor teaching divorce mediation at the University of Minnesota Graduate School of Social Work, and at the William Mitchell College of Law.

In May 2006 Marilyn was elected to the Board of Directors of the Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR)._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

UPDATE/2018 INSERT: Images of other “Mediators & Staff” at this Minnesota-based organization shows McKnight, Steve Erickson (his daughter?), Solveig Erickson, two other (male) mediators, and an office manager/client services specialists (scheduling and taking calls mentioned) who is a woman:  The font size is uneven in the home page, and Steven McKnight’s (though listed second) has larger font and longer bio blurb. Viewing: Click any image to enlarge, and navigate from one to another with arrows or (I think) another click. This is a four-part “image gallery.”

Erickson Mediation (MN) image update for 12/11/2011 post “Interlocking Directorate…” /FamilyPeacemakers Museum task force, ACR, etc.

[[Returning to 2011 post text:]] Apparently the Task Force (above) was her idea too (see description).  A little more:

Articles and Video:

Marilyn McKnight: Belief that Mediation Needs to be Separate from Courts – Video
Marilyn McKnight discusses how court-connected mediators’ first duty is to the court, not the client.

{{Clients go in unawares, believing that their first duty is to the truth — facts of the case, rules of civil procedure pertaining to them, and honesty.  Usually, we are sorely disappointed.  I’ve yet to run across a mother whose custody mediator showed evidence of having even read the case file…. Mine even admitted he didn-t — but still made recommendation to the courts.}}

McKnight, Marilyn: Mediate.com Interview
This is the complete interview with Marilyn McKnight, former President of the Academy of Family Mediators and Association for Conflict Resolution, filmed as part of Mediate.com’s “The Mediators: Views from the Eye of the Storm” Series.

(Interesting;  “a Vibrant Community of Peacemakers.” )

So that’s where this Mother, Woman, and Person is, in my almost 20th years since the first blows started landing on me pregnant, all the way through to fighting the second half of my kids’ minority through this system, only to find, partly through, that almost every group and professional I stood before, hired, or dealt with, has been a liar, and simply perpetuating their own particular job in their own particular system — while this same system destroyed lives and jobs for those it was supposedly helping.

Give me an honest enemy any time than such a system of helpful people and institutes!  I will respect the enemy for honesty in his/her/its position and then engage (and ideally, defeat).  

To go into a family courtroom and confuse what’s supposed to happen in there (you think) with LAW, or that it somehow relates to whether one was a good or not so good parent — is a serious mistake.  These seem far less relevant that which programs the practitioners are jacked up on, these days, and which rhetoric.

I accept there are plenty of cases where mediation — real mediation, not what we see in the family law racket — is important and useful.  But until one recognizes WHO  has been pushing this, and just how much most of their talk is about each other (in glowing terms, complete with awards and honors, and long lists of professional accomplishments), but when it comes to the parents, their clients (without whose distress and troubles, the fields wouldn’t even exist), then the terminology switches (when talking to each other) about “managing difficult parents in the court system” or similar phrases.

Of course it helps the speciality of family law if one of your promoters long ago was a legislator, then a judge (or vice versa) (Pfaff), not to mention sizeable donations in THIS century from the William and Flora Hewitt Foundation to increase membership, as a Five-Year Retrospective of the AFCC claims (2002-2007 years).

FIVE-YEAR REPORT

Bear in mind this report is now 4 years old, and if it’s news to you, you are seriously behind whassup in the courts.  Don’t feel bad, most people follow the mainstream and the veteran reporters on the AFCC are most definitely not welcome in mainstream — unless they collaborate.  Which of course would likely compromise the message, and has (cf. Battered Women’s Justice Project et al.)

Association of Family & Conciliation Courts	WI	2005	$929,894	990	17	95-2597407
Association of Family & Conciliation Courts	WI	2004	$636,483	990	17	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	WI	2010	$2,192,367	990	28	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	WI	2009	$1,720,844	990	27	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	WI	2008	$1,743,428	990	26	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	WI	2007	$1,403,917	990	25	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	WI	2006	$1,158,339	990	20	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	WI	2003	$467,421	990	16	95-2597407
Association of Family and Conciliation Courts	AZ	2005	$19,149.31	990EZ	9	86-0578107

 

2018 UPDATES/INSERT: A search on the bottom row above’s EIN# 86-0578107 shows this is the Arizona Chapter of AFCC (AZAFCC.org), with last three tax returns showing its very small size.  This happens to have been over time, however, a very active chapter (it seems) and with its proximity to California, well, interesting.  For example Philip Stahl (formerly of Northern California and well known for his promotion of “parental alienation” remedies — i.e., standard AFCC purposes) at some point had moved to Arizona.  I DNK where he presently is, but probably still an active member):

Total results: 3. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
ARIZONA CHAPTER-ASSOC OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS	AZ	2016	990	32	$4,273.00	86-0578107
ARIZONA CHAPTER-ASSOC OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS	AZ	2015	990	25	$38,378.00	86-0578107
ARIZONA CHAPTER-ASSOC OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS	AZ	2014	990	26	$54,867.00	86-0578107

(Below:  exact same search results, but in image form (I provided copy & paste above table so interactive links could be clicked on) as it shows in actual search results.  The database provider changed its color scheme years ago, but because I’d already manually (boilerplate copied into each example) maintained the above color scheme to represent Form 990 tables in this blog (which now has 769 posts and over 50 pages!) as opposed to charity registration (California) tables which have similarly light-blue, gray, white colors, I maintained the color scheme from earlier…). (Back in 2011 I obviously didn’t know how to “paint” background colors into tables).

Search of EIN# associated with AZAFCC.org, done 3-25-2018 by blog author LGH

Don’t let the small size of top row (FYE2016) mislead you.  It still received $73K revenues, claims to have spent over $111K on “Other expenses” (mostly conferences), despite having only 3 independent board members (all unpaid, and some of the with the title “Hon.,” i.e., likely judges), and “0” employees, it (a) left page III (which is not optional to leave blank) blank — except to say “Program Services” this year — none.  However, under “functional expenses” page, it listed a grant of $1,500, which should be reported on that Part III (page 2).  Under “Board Members” section, despite only three independently voting, it said “see additional table” thus keeping the existence of judges (and current AFCC — parent organization — President? Annette Burns) further away from the top of the tax return (i.e., less visible) and not on any IRS form, pre-printed or electronic. (click any image to enlarge.  I annotated but did not “caption” the next three from AZAFCC.org.

I should probably blog this in a current year; have other posts since (use “SEARCH function on the blog to find, enter the word “AFCC chapters” to find) have more detail on these chapters than I listed here in just December 2011.//LGH 3/25/2018

[Back to Dec. 2011 texts, and referring to the table above showing the same organization name but different EIN#s in that columne, not the one on Arizona I just provided].

---

---

(from the Foundation Center.  I always wonder why some years don’t show in chrono order, does it relate to when the organization filed?)

Something was prospering:   2003__$467K;

2004 __$636K

2005___$929K

2006___$1158K 9 ($1.158 mil)

2007_ _ _ $1.403 mil;

2008___  $1.743 mil, …2010____$2.192 mil, and so forth.  And that’s income that IS reported…..

Tidbits from the tax returns (one really should browse some of these — very informative).  For year 2007:  Two of the Board members are judges.   The Exec Director Peter Salem makes $130K.

• $790,306 = Program service revenue, including government fees and contracts
• $512,473 = Membership fees.
• $65K = dividend interest from securities;

Under Parts VII & VIII, Analysis of income-producing activities, &  Relationship of Activities to the Accomplishment of Exempt Purposes 

• (lines 93a, 93B, 93C & 94 on the tax return)

1.  REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF PUBLICATIONS ON DIVORCE, SEPERATION AND FAMILY DISPUTE RESOLUTION  ($74,970)
2. REGISTRATION FEES TO ATTEND CONFERENCES AND TRAINING SEMINARS TO SHARE IDEAS ON RESOLUTION OF FAMILY DISPUTES AND TRAININGS TO ASSIST CURRENT PROFESSIONALS  ($703,976)
3. MISCELLANEOUS FEES AND CHARGES FOR SHIPPING AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS  ($11.400)
4. MEMBER DUES RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FOR DISCOUNTS ON CONFERENCE REGISTRATION, MEMBER NEWSLETTERS AND OTHER MEMBER BENEFITS ($512,473)

Judges on the board (that year) included the Hons. William Fee *(IN), Emile Kruzick (Ontario, Canada), Hugh Starnes (FL), and Graham Mullane (Australia, ret. 2008, now consulting) — all listed at the WI address, although, not their home courts.

INDIANA AFCC 2007 Board Member Judge Wm. Fee — Positioning:

*The Hon Wm. C. Fee happens to currently chair the Domestic Relations Committee of the Indiana Judiciary.  “The Domestic Relations Committee is working on revisions to Indiana’s Child Support Guidelines. They previously completed a Domestic Relations Benchbook and child-centered Parenting Time guidelines. They also established recommended standards for countywide domestic relations ADR plans.”  Let’s hope (?) He kept his AFCC agenda and motivations (to help families resolve disputes by selling them — or other government entitities — products & services) separate from the oath of office, which I presume has something to do with uphold and preserving the state constitution.  As AFCC has openly stated its intent is to change the language of criminal law, there would seem to be a built-in conflict of interest.  But I have noticed that when money, and children, are involved, concerns about conflict of interest tend to go out the window.

 For a glimpse at types of inbound grants to courts, see “Grant Programs Administered by State Court Administration and the Indiana Judicial Center“

FLORIDA AFCC Board Member 2007 Judge Hugh Starnes — 2010, 2011:

Judge Starnes (among many other things, such as forming a nonprofit group Association of Family Law Professionals with local lawyer, and being infamously involved in Foreclosure Rocket Dockets, where some judgments were signed before the hearings, and so many hearings scheduled in one day that it was foregone that they’d not all be heard: ” More Perverse Procedures in Ft. Myers”  This article talks about over-scheduling of dockets, fully knowing they won’t all be tried, in a “total lakc of respect for the parties and their lawyers . . .  These judges have elevated their own desire to clear the dockets a bove all else…Judge Starnes likes to talk about how the foreclosure crisis has forced courts to employe procedures like this. ” (but only his county does it){{Same reasoning — and results — used in the family law arena also.}}    “

LEE COUNTY (FL)— For the past few years, Lee County’s busiest court docket has also been the most notorious in the state.  Dubbed the ‘rocket docket’, the county’s foreclosure track cruises through several hundred cases daily, many ending in judgments for the lender and the subsequent scheduling of a foreclosure sale.

In the process, critics say, the docket tramples basic rules of civil procedure and due process. They point to the speed with which judges move cases along, and the emphasis on an expedited trial or summary judgment versus discovery.  “It’s just a lack of, I don’t know, respect for the defendant by the court,” Naples attorney Todd Allen said.

 Bear with me — this article (cited by Stopa — but I don’t see from where) tells how a clever attorney tried to get a judge to commit to a verbal statement — by the head judge — that they don’t follow FL rules of civil procedure.  The opposing side OK’d the draft, too.  As it turned out, the head judge didn’t sign it — but Judge Starnes did!

His case turned heads last year after a clever order drafted by Allen made local news and several foreclosure blogs. Frustrated when Lee (Lee County, FL) Senior Judge James Thompson rejected a motion in December to toss what Allen considered a flawed affidavit by a bank employee, the attorney drafted the resulting order to explicitly state what he says Thompson told him — that Lee County does not comply with Florida Rules of Civil Procedure.  The attorney for lender HSBC signed off on the draft, Allen said, and it went to Thompson’s office.

“I knew one of two things was going to happen,” Allen said. “Either he was going to read it and sign it, which is bad because it means it was policy, or he wasn’t going to read it and sign it, which is even worse.”  Instead, the other senior judge on the docket, Hugh E. Starnes, signed the order.  “Blown away,” is how Allen described his reaction.

(further anecdotal shows the traffic there.  In family law hearings (those that aren’t ex parte) a custody decision could be switched in 20 minutes or less; the child goes to the other household, stamped, ordered. signed & sealed.  THat is not justice, and the other parent (til broke or defeated in spirit not just in the issue at hand) is going to come back for another attempt at it — that’s another reason the dockets get crowded!)

Around 11:40 a.m., Starnes completed the docket, more than 100 cases by his count. With another 104 slated for the afternoon session and little time for lunch, he postponed Shinneman’s trial.  “I’ve got to object,” Allen protested. “That’s completely prejudicing my client.”  “I understand,” Starnes replied.

Here’s another nonprofit this Judge was involved with, which a mother in a custody battle from Florida (not Linda Marie Sacks — not her line of approach!)  asked me to research:  (link provided, image updated, by text search + memory of having been asked to look this up, plus specific participating professionals (Judge Starnes, Shelly Finman, etc.) I know it’s the same one.  (2011 post originally had a large blank image here, and no link):

http://aflpnetwork.com/history/

Association of Family Law Professionals website (viewed 3/25/2018)

History of the above group:

“We are Judges, lawyers, mental health and financial professionals, Judicial Assistants and Court staff members, mediators, school counselors, educators, and other professionals working to help families through the maze of marital and family law matters.”

YES — and many of you are already public employees.  So why form more nonprofits than AFCC — which already meets this definition — to do your jobs?  Did the families ask your help in navigating the custody maze (your groups helped create by trying to put psychology on a par with law)?

Well, the motive was obviously helping and public service:

1. A committee formed {{spontaneously?}} in the mid-1980’s with a diverse membership, co-chaired by Mary Robinson, Solomon Agin and (Family attorney) Shelly Finman, tasked {{by whom?}} with determining whether or not our community was in need of Court sponsored mediation.  After 2 years of regular morning meetings at the old Snack House Restaurant at the Collier Arcade, it was decided we did.  {{ANY OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS INVOLVED?}} However, there was no budget.  Therefore, with the support of a “shoe string” budget from the office of Court Administration (Doug Wilkinson) and Judge Hugh Starnes, we began training volunteer mediators at the HRS offices in the evenings.

2. A committee, called the “cooperation committee” consisting of Judge Lynn Gerald, Judge Starnes, Steve Helgemo, George Kluttz, Gail Markham, and Shelly Finman met at the Veranda Restaurant in the mid to late 80’s, discussing ways to change some of the adversarial methods, resulting in local orders and posturing the Bench and Bar with non-adversarial, more conciliatory methods of practicing in Court

Gee golly ding, gosh darn, gee whiz — where did they get THAT radical concept from (and how long were the members also AFCC members??)  etc.

(One can search Starnes & Finman @ Florida’s sunbiz.org — I did  — for more info.  Probably blogged it here somewhere, too.  Groups like RESTORATIVE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROJECT, INC. (never got an EIN, dissolved for failure to file), the family law association in question (shelly finman shows on earliest on-line report, 1995).  Clearly restorative justice is an ongoing field, to be countered, however, with awareness of places like Luzerne County, PA in which kickbacks were involved, violation of due process extreme, and finally some judges caught in RICO over the matter, — or 2008 Congressional Oversight of the HEAD of the OJJDP (Flores) because of grants-steering to faith-based professionals.   In this context, forming a nonprofit to get a grant is like — pretty much what they do.

Or, in the case (TBA _- I haven’t checked all 50 states, only some of the states in which they are advertising trainings..) institutes, like “Cooperative Parenting Institute” etc. simply post the website references, with glorious self-referential credits & titles,  and skip the incorporating part entirely, which would require filing tax returns somewhere along the way, and conceivably letting the public look at them, without the subpoena, FOIA and all that.

RE:  Peter Salem – the Hofstra Connection:

2007 Exec Director of AFCC  — Peter Salem, and his ($130K) = $10,00+/month salary in that capacity:

He has many accomplishments, including teaching mediation at a law school — but he is not an attorney; he has an M.A.   Lets review this again:  the head of the AFCC is not an attorney, his specialty is NOT law.

Before I go into this too much, let’s look at the “Hofstra Connection” which I feel too few people notice, when it comes to AFCC.  Of course, most people complaining about problems with family law   – – –    – – – –    – – –    are so busy with that narrative they completely ignore the existence of organizations where the people running it plan their Standard Operating Procedure.  In otherwords, they completely ignore the AFCC as well.

However, when I found out it was publishing most of the materials in local courthouses (self-help centers, etc.), not to mention that as an organization, it began in a corrupt manner, and many of its members continue in that corruption — I got fairly more interested!

Hofstra University in NY has a School of Law and as of 2001, it also has a CCFL, similar idea to UBaltimore’s School of Law “CFCC” (which I blogged):

The Center for Children, Families and the Law was established in 2001 in response to the urgent need for more effective representation for children and families in crisis.

Its unique interdisciplinary program of education, community service and research is designed to encourage professionals from law and mental health to work together for the benefit of children and families involved in the legal system.The Center’s training program is one of the most comprehensive child and family advocacy curricula offered in the United States. Its interdisciplinary approach is designed to better prepare a new generation of legal and mental health professionals to promote appropriate and effective justice in both the juvenile and family court systems. The Center’s community service programs provide direct assistance to New York area children and families in need and serve as models for states across the country.

To carry out its mission, the Center partners with the University’s Department of Psychology, and health and human service agencies and law associations, including the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC), the American Bar Association (ABA), the National Institute for Trial Advocacy (NITA), and the New York Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children.

AFCC cannot be considered a “law association,” given its membership and its stated intent to change the language of criminal law into a more “therapeutic” framework.  But where does Peter Salem & AFCC fit in?  Which came first — the (AFCC) chicken, or the (Family Court Review joint-published with AFCC) the egg?

Welcome

Family Court Review (FCR) is a peer-reviewed, quarterly journal published under the auspices of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC). Family Court Review is an international, interdisciplinary family law journal — a forum for the exchange of ideas, programs, research, legislation, case law and reforms. The journal’s editorial staff, under the direction of Faculty Editor-in-Chief Andrew Schepard*, is based at the Law School. Its fundamental premise is that productive discussion of family law is facilitated by a dialogue between the judiciary, lawyers, mediators, mental health and social services communities. AFCC is an interdisciplinary, international association of judges, counselors, evaluators, mediators, attorneys and others concerned with the constructive resolution of family conflict.

Schepard, Parent Education Promoter, AFCC-approved.

Professor Schepard is a founder and project director for Parent Education and Custody Effectiveness (P.E.A.C.E.), an interdisciplinary, court-affiliated education program for parents to help them reduce the difficulties their children experience during divorce and separation. P.E.A.C.E. has produced an award-winning video for parents, and has been recognized by the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts for its “ongoing contribution to improving the lives of parents and children.

He and Mr. Salem are on an AFCC Task Force together.

After all, if one wishes to entirely develop and steer the field of family law, one must definitely get to the education of family lawyers.   One cannot change practices from the outcome end only; obviously one has to get a the new, fresh-faced graduating class of attorneys, in fact get to them before they graduate and are faced with the bedrock of experience, which  may counter some of that theory before it’s solidifies.

Well, so does this group:  from the AFCC site:

Task Forces and Initiatives   Family Law Education Reform Project  (“FLER”)

Co-sponsored by the Hofstra Law School 
Center for Children, Families and the Law

Andrew Schepard, J.D., Co-Chair  
Andrew Schepard

Peter Salem, M.A., Co-Chair
Peter Salem

Project Information:  Family Law Education Reform Project Final Report (PDF)

They work together.  Apparently he joined AFCC as staff in 1994; two founders (Meyer Elkin, 1994 and Stanley Cohen 1995) died around this time.  It seems Mr. Salem was working in Wisconsin in the same fields.  This summary from AFCC History seems so relevant.  In maroon font:

1993—AFCC’s 30th Anniversary

AFCC celebrated its 30th Anniversary in New Orleans in May 1993.  The conference theme and opening night videotape, “The Economic Impact of Divorce,” provided an opportunity for more than 700 delegates to look at the big-picture impact of divorce and celebrate the largest conference attendance to date. 

In 1993, the association received a major grant from the Hewlett Foundation that enabled AFCC to add additional staff and absorb some of the work of AFCC’s many hard-working volunteer members.  In 1994, Peter Salem joined the AFCC staff to become AFCC’s associate director. Conference planning was centralized in the administrative office and AFCC began to offer additional training and consulting services. 

Database records from usual sources don’t go back that far.  But obviously the Hewlett Foundation has some similar interests in family matters.  Their history page can be read; sons managed it until 1981, In 1974 that they hired an executive director, and this gives a scope of the influence (like, having the President of the University of California as President of the Foundation, etc.) (section here in BLUE)

http://www.hewlett.org/about-the-william-and-flora-hewlett-foundation/william-and-flora-hewlett-and-the-hewlett-foundation

By the time Roger Heyns retired in 1992, the Foundation’s assets had increased more than thirtyfold – to more than $800 million, and the Hewlett Foundation was highly respected for its work in the fields of conflict resolution, education, environment, performing arts, and population, and was a key source of funding to a host of institutions that provide vital services to disadvantaged Bay Area communities.

In 1993, former University of California President David P. Gardner succeeded Roger Heyns as president of the Foundation, and served for six years, during which time the Foundation’s assets increased to more than $2 billion, and annual grantmaking rose from $35 million in 1993 to $84 million in 1998

Sooner or later we all have to ‘fess up to (admit, to ourselves and each other) how great an influence foundations (personal corporate wealth transferred into foundations) have upon this country and what its government and nongovernment programs and culture looks like.

---

This foundation was interested in conflict resolution and helped develop it as a field, and (in AFCC’s 5 year retrospective, 2002-2007, below, it acknowledged their help.  Sounds like they got in on the last round of Hewlit Foundation grants in this field):

The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation played a major role in developing and supporting the conflict resolution field for nearly two decades. During that time, the field grew and matured and achieved considerable acceptance and self-sufficiency across various areas of practice. While recognizing the continuing value of conflict resolution and peacemaking in the United States and internationally, the Foundation decided to wind down its support for this area and to deploy its resources to other pressing social issues. The Conflict Resolution Program made its final grants in 2004

They are also big on promoting and enabling fatherhood involvement, as is AFCC also:

Responsible Fatherhood and Male Involvement. The Foundation supported programs that enabled fathers to participate actively in the emotional and financial support {{CHILD SUPPORT, got it?}} of the family and that promote adult male involvement in teh lives of children and youth from father-absent environments.

Someone has to deal with the domestic violence issue sooner or later.  This organization did so by funding Family Violence Prevention Fund (already deep into fatherhood as a tool to prevent violence, sure, that’ll work) and funded a report on preventing teen violence, with phraseology like this:

Other gaps must be closed as well. More attention and resources should be focused on men, on the low-income communities that have disproportionate experience with abuse, on promoting economic independence, and on ending the exclusive reliance on punitive responses such as incarceration, which is intolerable to many communities of color and immigrant communities.

With characteristic “modesty” FVPF introduces its 2003 report:

Foreword

The Family Violence Prevention Fund is proud to issue this unprecedented Report, which provides the most comprehensive analysis to date of the status of domestic violence prevention efforts. This Report does more than examine our nation’s considerable progress in understanding and stopping domestic violence. It takes a close look at what strategies have and have not worked, identi- fying the most promising approaches and making recommendations for how to expend energies and allocate resources in years ahead.

(I just searched.  There is zero mention of family law, custody, visitation, fatherhood barely, and/or access visitation, even though many teens have children, as mothers or fathers.   The word   “fatherhood” (incl. programs) shows up 5 times, and it’s somehow suggested that Child Support Enforcement is a means to provide opportunities and incentives for DV prevention. (p. 19).  I have already blogged on this group (see “About this Blog”), but as I have been living and working in the same general area, am more aware than most of just how much they are (deliberately) ignoring; actually the more people drop like flies in the immediate neighborhood (and often this is around the divorce issue or a custody battle), the better it looks for justifying more grants of this sort. )

Back to AFCC describing itself:

Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth 

In 1997, AFCC partnered with Australia’s World Congress, Inc. to host the Second World Congress on Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth.  Chaired by AFCC’s first non-North American president, Hon. Alastair Nicholson, Chief Justice of the Family Court of Australia, the three-year planning effort involved hundreds of AFCC volunteers and culminated with more than 1,500 delegates from more than 50 countries participating in the five-day extravaganza.  The lengthy list of luminaries included First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, who served as honorary chairperson; renowned pediatrician Dr. T. Barry Brazelton; San Francisco Mayor Hon. Willie Brown; Nobel Peace Prize Recipient Dr. Jose Ramos-Horta; and former U.S. Congresswoman Hon. Patricia Schroeder.

By 1998, mediation had established itself as a professional field of practice. 

NO field of practice establishes itself.  Fields of practice have people promoting them, through membership associations (very often) which then solicit funding.  As I showed above, the Hewlitt Foundation was one promoter of “conflict resolution” (which includes mediation) as a field of practice and takes credit for it.   This is so typical of AFCC prose — they like to claim that some field established itself, like the flowers come out in spring, just naturally.  There’s nothing further from the truth!!

Executive Director
Peter Salem, M.A.

Peter Salem has served as Executive Director since 2002 and was Associate Director from 1994-2002.

I’m guessing he didn’t join AFCC and immediately become Executive Director; i.e., the involvement is longstanding (1994-2011 is 17 years), and either he has influence it, or its agenda and operations– including emphasis on mediation — are in agreement with his life’s work.

He taught mediation at Marquette University Law School for ten years and served as mediator and director of Mediation and Family Court Services in Rock County, Wisconsin. Mr. Salem is a former president of the Wisconsin Association for Mediators and is co-editor of Divorce Mediation: Models, Techniques and Applications. He has provided training and technical assistance to family court service agencies throughout the United States since 1990. {{Probably also for free. . …}}

He is author of numerous articles and videos on mediation, domestic violence and divorce. He received the [[1]] John M. Haynes Distinguished Mediator Award presented by the Association for Conflict Resolution** [[2]] in 2008 and received a William T. Grant Foundation Distinguished Fellows award in 2009. He holds an M.A. in Communication and Mediation Management from Emerson College in Boston [[3]] and a B.A. in Political Science from McGill University in Montreal.  [[4]]

I decided to look these up.  Fnotes in order in text, but below, out of order, they are filed in chrono order, i.e., undergraduate comes before graduate references.  The biggest “find” is the (ridiculous) Association for Conflict Resolution.  I’ll back up the “ridiculous” under that footnote.  I have found that when AFCC (and related organizations) begin to pile on the titles and awards, well-earned though they may be, it pays to look up who’s awarding what, to see if it has some significance.  Most people know awards like Nobel Price, Fullbright or Rhodes Scholarship, etc. — but as almost every new nonprofit in the courts (schools, etc.) mediation fields tries to pump up its credibility by setting up awards, they need more scrutiny.

[[4]] McGill (see link) is more wide-ranging; it’s undergraduates (now) are 417 women/164 men).  Apparently Mr. Salem is from Canada? which may explain AFCC’s large Canadian component?  Looks like a well-respected university, with a variety of programs, but my point is, Mr. Salem’s interest was political science, i.e., interest in how society works and potentially changing it.  See next degree:

[[3]] Emerson College in Boston:

Emerson College, located in the heart of Boston, Massachusetts, is the nation’s premiere institution in higher education devoted to communication and the arts in a liberal arts context.

Emerson is internationally recognized in its fields of specialization, which are communication studies; marketing communication; journalism; communication sciences and disorders; visual and media arts; the performing arts; and writing, literature and publishing.

I don’t see any legal, or any really “hard sciences” study — here’s the list of science course minors for “communication sciences” majors.

Here’s a typical “Political Communication” UNDERgraduate coursework (understanding it must have changed over time, I wonder what year Peter Salem got his M.A. in….):

A major in Leadership, Politics, and Social Advocacy will prepare you for such careers as communication advisor, press secretary, governmental relations officer, nonprofit leader, and cultural affairs advocate, among many others. The program’s core curriculum balances the theory and the practical skills necessary for effective, ethical communication in a changing and complex media environment.

And GRADUATE coursework:

Communication Management

The Master of Arts in Communication Management provides students with the knowledge, theory, and skills necessary to design and execute strategic, integrated communication plans for public and private organizations. In addition to honing your speaking, writing, listening, and negotiating skills, you will develop expertise in web-based communication and learn how to adapt to and utilize new media to the advantage of your future employers or clients. The program is divided into two academic tracks:

• Human Resources & Employee Communication
• Public Relations & Stakeholder Communication

Our graduates have achieved professional success in a variety of industries including pharmaceuticals, political communication, event planning, travel and tourism, public advocacy, health care, among many others.

And this is the current Emerson graduate program director’s background, with degrees from Texas and North Carolina, heavily into social science, and mediation.

[[1]] John M. Haynes Distinguished Mediator Award :

The John M. Haynes Distinguished Mediator Award is presented annually to a prominent and internationally recognized leader in mediation who demonstrates personal and professional commitment to finding mediation solutions to conflict while balancing therapeutic and legal perspectives. John M. Haynes was a pioneer in the field of family mediation, a respected author and practitioner, an international trainer, and the first president of the Academy of Family Mediators.

(sigh).  Mediation, having a problem with “conflict” and trying to balance therapy (outcome based, analysis = psychology, pathological emphasis) with law (process based, with reference to written standards voted into law by citizens in various states, to protect them from EXACTLY what happens when institutionalizing and labeling/medicating are used to oppress and control unruly reformers or those who challenge the status quo, i.e., Archipelago.  In short, these characteristics basically define AFCC to start with.)

The list of recipients speaks loudly, lots of them are simply AFCC hotshots:

• 2011: Christine Coates, J.D.  [[AFCC]]
• 2010: Kenneth Cloke  [[Santa Monica, Center for Dispute Resolution, Pepperdine, you name it]]  SEE ~**~, I looked this one up

Why should this one get an award when the state of California OAG/Trusts had to chase him down over zero income, or filings,  for the past 24 years?  After they threatened him with $800 fine and more, he responded. …. Yet the nonprofit website is still advertising some very pricey trainings!  ($200, $1,000, etc.)

• 2009: Robert D. Benjamin  [[Currently in Portland.  Pepperdine.  Mediation etc. since 1979, and he practiced law.  Columnist and advanced practitioner in ACR]]
• 2008: Peter Salem   [[AFCC]]
• 2007: Jim Melamed, J.D.  [[Oregon Mediation Center, which he founded in 1983, he is CEO of “Mediate.com,” ADR, etc.  See “history” at N2N, here — shows they borrowed the idea from SF, and eventually got funding]]
• 2006: Arnie Shienvold, Ph.D.  [[AFCC.  Scranton, PA parents had this name on posters recently protesting family court corruption.  I blogged it recently, see tags]]
• 2005: Nina R. Meierding, MS., J.D.  [[FT private mediation since 1986, former family law attorney, Certificate in Dispute Resolution from Pepperdine (like others on the list) and — get this — yet another who is per mediate.com now, past board member of ACR!
• 2004: Zena D. Zumeta, J.D.  [[From Michigan, since 1981, ADR, and get this — she gets the award from ACR and “She is currently on the Association for Conflict Resolution’s Membership Committee, and sat on the Advisory Council to its Family Section.”  Works from a Dispute Resolution Center (one of several in state) that takes business from courts, gov’t, social service etc., and has two judges on its advisory board and is a trainer]]
• 2003: Barbara Landau, Ph.D., LL.B., LL.M.  [[Worked in Toronto Court, has a business, ADR, Mediator, Trainer, etc.  “Dr. Barbara Landau’s company “Cooperative Solutions” continues to expand. Please see information below on our two Associates, Daryl Landau, and Mary-Anne Popescu.”]]
• 2002: Donald T. Saposnek, Ph.D.  {{since 1983, appears to have made a good living off the family courts as mediator & trainer, typical}}
• 2001: Larry S. Fong, Ph.D. (2005 AFCC conference on Solving the Family Court Puzzle shows him as President of the ACR, and Canadian, another conference in 2011 on Advanced Mediation Issues — when one parent is Gay))

DIVERSION:  A Nonprofit around since 1987, high-profile speaker, zero income reported?

~**~ re:  Kenneth Cloke, Center for Dispute Resolution  (How many more fit this description?  It was Calif, so I looked it up quickly.  “Center for Dispute Resolution” search brought up 5 corporations, only 2 of which were active.  This one, b. 1987, was active.  Its title includes the word “foundation.”  I hopped over and looked up the charity and found it hadn’t been filing IRS forms and its Dissolution is “Pending” — an usual situation.  EIN# 546565246

(FYI, Santa Monica is within Los Angeles County)

After a particularly stern letter from the OAG (Kamala Harris, Jan. 2011), Kenneth writes in response:

This is a request to obtain a dissolution waiver and to dissolve a California nonprofit corporation, the Center for Dispute Resolution Foundation, #C1583109.

The corporation was never operational, and neither raised, received or spent any money at any time. There are no assets to be distributed. There are no financial statements, and the corporation never had any income or assets since incorporating.

If you have any questions or 1 need to do anything further, please contact me at. . .

I just looked up the address at the bottom of the letterhead — which is “Kenneth Cloke Law Offices.”   His DisputeResolutionCenter claims to be very much up and operating (perhaps it’s just not getting any takers, any customers?)  It lists Training for FALL 2011:

http://www.kennethcloke.com/training.htm

 

Kenneth Cloke will conduct a four day training for beginning, intermediate and advanced mediators who are interested in improving their conflict resolution skills. Please see the printable course description, registration form and book list here.

Classes begin at 9 am and end at 4:30 pm
Classes are held at the Center for Dispute Resolution, 2411 18th St., Santa Monica, CA 90405
Phone: (310) 399-4426 | FAX (310) 399-5906 

Each participant will receive a Mediation Certificate on completion of the training, along with a Training Manual that includes basic forms that are useful in starting a mediation practice.

Cost is $250.00 per class or $1000.00 for the series.
Click here to print the Registration Form with Course Description and Book List

For a group that began with several people on the board in 1987, that’s quite an accomplishment!! to earn absolutely nothing while having such a fine website.  Kind of reminds me of the Termini/Boyan combo — only it looks like they actually had some takers.

What does it say about ACR to give this person its 2010 award?  Yet in January 2011, the OAG got on their case.  Perhaps the award is what drew its attention — who knows?  Note:  this 2009 speaker engagement as co-founder of “Mediators Beyond Borders” lists the above outfit first in his credits.  I wonder how many of the other fantastic credits below check out.  Either he is doing that all — and earning no money at it, so not filing taxes– or he’s doing all those things, making a living and too busy to comply with state charitable registration laws, while promoting himself and his work & books.

Join us as Kenneth Cloke discusses his most recent publication titled “Conflict Revolution: Mediating Evil, War, Injustice and Terrorism.”

Wednesday, March 11, 2009
12:00 PM
Public Affairs Room 2355
Los Angeles, CA 90095

As Director of the Center for Dispute Revolution, Kenneth Cloke has served as a mediator, arbitrator, attorney, coach, consultant and trainer.

Mediators Beyond Borders incorporated in PA in Oct. 2006, per Corporations search:

Name	Name Type
Mediators Beyond Borders International	Current Name
MEDIATORS WITHOUT BORDERS	Prior Name
Mediators Beyond Borders	Prior Name
Non-Profit (Non Stock) – Domestic – Information
Entity Number:	3686096
Status:	Active
Entity Creation Date:	10/19/2006
State of Business.:	PA

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Mediators Beyond Borders	PA	2009	$40,949	990EZ	18	20-5716275
Mediators Beyond Borders	PA	2008	$38,013	990EZ	30	20-5716275
Mediators Beyond Borders	PA	2007	$13,946	990EZ	16	20-5716275

Robert A. Creo (attorney) (hover cursor over link for a sample) seems the professional heavy-lifter in this relationship, and business is registered out of his law offices. MBB International has a project to rehabilitate child soldiers of Liberia. . . .   Creo and associate McKay operate “Mastermediators.com” and of course a Master Mediator Institute to go with it, much of which deals with training.  It says, he has an ability to “create, organize and lead” ADR organizations (which seems obvious).  Mediators Beyond Borders and Master Mediators Institute both show his office address, i.e., he’s operating a number of nonprofits out of his own offiice:

About MMI

A belief that conflict resolution requires an integrated knowledge of law, neuroscience, neurobiology, psychology, economics, communications and other disciplines led to the creation of the Master Mediator Institute. MMI offers Immersion Courses to allow mediators, advocates and other professionals to connect with leading scientists and academics to explore cutting edge knowledge about the mind, the brain and the science of decision making.

The website looks great (both websites); better than average and easy to negotiate, and professional in design and color.  MMI has only been around for two and a half years; it was incorporated in 6/2009.  I wonder what nonprofit is next!

The Master Mediator Institute 3889281 Non-Profit (Non Stock) Active 6/22/2009

R

Colleague Monique MacKay (I found through linkedin) shows up in Virginia — so the corresponding LLC to the nonprofit is in a different state and was incorporated the same month, 6/3/2009.  So let’s say they had a plan up front, and the websites plus testimonials show it as (unlike Mr. Cloke’s) a going concern:

The Master Mediators LLC

SCC ID:		S2941864
Business Entity Type:		Limited Liability Company
Jurisdiction of Formation:		VA
Date of Formation/Registration:		6/3/2009
Status:		Active

He seems less interested in family law, which means I’m less interested in this case, other than what it says about the Association for Conflict Resolution.

[[3]]Association for Conflict Resolution:

**”Association for Conflict Resolution” is an expansion of, &/or where “Alternate Dispute Resolution” went, linguistically.  That’s a planned language shift, necessary because periodically people start to catch up faster with what groups named after the prior AFCC-linguistic-labels have actually been doing.  Including with their money.

The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is a professional organization enhancing the practice and public understanding of conflict resolution.

We are the nation’s largest professional association for mediators, arbitrators, educators and other conflict resolution practitioners. ACR works in a wide range of settings throughout the United States and around the world. . . .Our multicultural and multidisciplinary organization offers a broad umbrella under which all forms of dispute resolution practice find a home.

This group maintains a “special interest section” called ADR, which reads the typical fashion and like AFCC, and the ADR groups, seeks to promote their own interests and profession, including to judges and legislators:

ACR Court Section

The Court Section provides information and best practice information for resolution of court disputes ranging from small claims to family.

MISSION STATEMENT

The mission of this section is to foster and facilitate the development and implementation of quality court-annexed ADR programs throughout the country and to provide support to all individuals interested and involved in Court ADR programs such as Court ADR administrators, judges and dispute resolution practitioners working in a court setting by providing a forum that addresses issues concerning court-annexed ADR programs through information sharing, networking, identification of resources, development of model practices, and training programs.

Kind of a run-on, redundant sentence, much?  But of course let’s focus on COURT-annexed programs, because this is guaranteed income.  if not from the parents themselves (etc.) — from a federal program.  MUCH better chance of selling this as in the public’s interest.  But in reality – -it’s in the profession’s interest.

OBJECTIVES

• To promote the development of court-annexed dispute resolution programs around the country, at all levels of court.
• To serve as a clearinghouse of relevant information and resources for court administrators, dispute resolution practitioners, and judges.
• To assist in educating the public, attorneys, judges, legislators and other constituencies about the value of court-annexed dispute resolution programs.
• To provide a venue for communication and networking opportunities [[AWAY FROM THE PARTIES MOST AFFECTED BY THE PRACTICE!!]] among court ADR administrators, dispute resolution practitioners and judges.
• To identify policy issues important to court-annexed programs and provide guidance/best practices with respect to those issues.

This organization wants to feed information direct to judges.  They want to be a “clearinghouse.”  They want to facilitate the communication with judges. Flattery will probably facilitate the process, accordingly AFCC’s Peter Salem gets a 2008 award from this group.   AFCC (which already does this – -not to mention has plenty of judges IN it and some running it, too) then proudly adds another credit to it’s director’s cap, which is a win-win situation for those involved.

The ACR “Family Mediation” special interest section looks all up and running, and has  avery detailed, neatly tabbed, web presence with the same types of activities the AFCC does — publication, training, conferences, budget, member committees, plus facebook page, etc.   And Marketing Mediation Training

So — let’s go to Virginia and look up the corporationSo — let’s go to Virginia and look up the corporation (it lists a virginia address).  OK, here we go:

	SCC ID	Business Entity Name	Entity Type	Entity Status
	05660642	ASSOCIATION FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION – VIRGINIACHAPTER, THE	Corporation	Terminated

(none with just the name alone — vs. “Virginia Chapter” — shows up.  Last registered agent, 2007.  Don’t see any filing history(i.e., annual reports) beyond the initial filing, and there are no “efiling” transactions registered.

The Association for Conflict Resolution -Virginia Chapter

SCC ID:		05660642
Business Entity Type:		Corporation
Jurisdiction of Formation:		VA
Date of Formation/Registration:		10/11/2001
Status:		Terminated

A 990-finder (i.e., nationwide search for a nonprofit) search shows it in several states, as well as the same EIN in two states and name, in more than two.

Association for Conflict Resolution	VA	2009	$336,780	990	51	23-7251385
Association for Conflict Resolution	DC	2008	$503,647	990	21	23-7251385

same name, different states and separate EIN#s:

Association for Conflict Resolution	TX	2008	$0	990ER	5	20-2124912
Association for Conflict Resolution	MA	2007	$24,629	990EZ	13	04-3465101
Assoc…

After click on dropdown option just above orange section, more fields (like EIN#) and ZIP now display [“990 Finder Widget This (pretty precisely) dates URL redirect by FoundationCenter to Diff’t User Interface….]“WHY IT MATTERS: Names are so often wrong on this database! Use EIN#, although occasionally even a filing entity will get it wrong by a # also.

New look and URL, click on dropdown just above orange section for more fields (like EIN#)!! [“990 Finder Widget This (pretty precisely) dates URL redirect by FoundationCenter to Diff’t User Interface. Must use DropDown menu to access other options (such as EIN#)]“

{{2018 UPDATE:  NOTICE THE DIFFERENT EIN#s.  THIS TIME, I HADN’T CAUGHT UP TO JUST HOW OFTEN THE DATABASE  PROVIDER (nonprofit now called simply “Foundation Center”) search results get entity names wrong.  I don’t know how these odd results continue to show so often, and whether it’s a matter of software, or human error/data entry (unlikely…).  A letter should be written them; I just haven’t yet. (See nearby added images with orange-background captions):User interface field for this now looks different and to get to the (more accurate) EIN# searches requires use of a drop-down (“more fields”) indicator. Name search ONLY on this website can’t be trusted.  (“990finder.foundationcenter.org” which I’ve used for years, currently redirects to their new site..)Tbe Virginia one, above, “ACR EMBRACES AND ACKNOWLEDGES THE FULL SPECTRUM OF PEACEFUL CONFLICT RESOLUTION AND RECOGNIZES THE VALUE OF CROSS-DISCIPLINARY AND CROSS-CULTURAL CONNECTIONS TO ENHANCE CONFLICT CHOICES UNIVERSALLY.”(and with  just a few grants, over  700 volunteers, and 13 employees, has over $1 million of revenues yearly. Executive Director Douglas M. Kleine (address WDC) gets $95K salary (moderate) and I think — but don’t know without more checking– this is him, too:  Worked in HUD, Train the trainer activities, Virginia Legislature Congressional Agency (staff positions), plus Democratic Precinct caption.   Expert nonprofit management experience, highly placed.Here we go — the ACR wants to erect a National Peacemaker Museum and nominated Family Law Collaborative Professional Woody Mosten (who?) to chair that taskforce.  Maybe Futures without Violence (ca. 2010 formerly family violence prevention fund) was simply competing with this group for THE most grandiose, pretentious and let’s not forget, nonprofit,noble purpose around — and so practical, too!

Mission Statement (Approved June 29, 2009)

The National Peacemaker Museum Constellation will encourage peaceful conflict resolution between human beings in every corner of the world. It will honor those courageous and innovative individuals and institutions who work toward peace rather than conflict, foster harmony amongst humanity rather than division, and embrace the rich tapestry of human difference while building bridges upon our commonalities. The National Peacemaker Museum will challenge, inspire, educate, and enable visitors from around the world to be peacemakers themselves, to contribute as they can to the ability of the human race to solve our problems creatively and collaboratively, and to craft solutions that are fair, compassionate, and wise. National Peacemaker Museum will accomplish this mission through a diverse array of partnerships and outreach techniques, both virtual and tangible, in an ongoing effort to reach the full diversity of humanity, speaking in a way that each listening ear can hear.

The Association for Conflict Resolution (ACR) is supporting a coalition of organizations to establish a National Peacemaker Museum. In November 2007, ACR Immediate Past President, Marilyn S. McKnight established a Taskforce to launch this effort and appointed Forrest (Woody) Mosten to serve as Chair.

🙂  Just felt we should get a picture of some of the influence that our AFCC Board Member Judges (the US ones) wield, and some local feedback.

So what is this membership trade nonprofit private nonprofit group AFCC — with many of its influential members holding public office, like judgeships and county-level work such as custody evaluators, mediators, and of course Parenting Coordinators,  doing with this income?  . . . .

Besides inventing new terms and providing an on-going membership role model for how to form lots ‘n lots of nonprofits, while on public payroll or getting referral business from the courts, and lobbying legistors to do things like running Justice Initiatives to “Change the Culture of Custody“** (Pennsylvania) and trying to get states to mandate parenting coordination appointment — lots of it.  In Pennsylvania, they are Initiating, but I guess here, they are describing the “New Frontier” as if it just developed and showed up all by its wild-west lonesome, see 2012 AFCC-California Conference images for: “The New Frontier:  Exploring the Possibilities and Challenges of the Changed Landscape for Children and the Courts“***

[[**in which the AFCC is only directly cited a few times, but “parenting coordination” 14 times, “parent education” 10 times, “high-conflict” (with hyphen) 4 times, “high conflict” (no hyphen) 11 times, “dispute resolution” 63 times, a plug for a parent education “Kids First,” (used in 8 PA counties at the time, and already likely part of an FBI of investigation financial abuse in billing & multiple service referrals  by a GAL in one of those counties) and the first person mentioned in the “Chairman’s Introduction” just happens to be (now) President-elect of AFCC]] 

[[***Gee, who changed it?]][[check out item 12, presenter.  Same individual from ACFLS — yesterday– who declared that a few hours on-line would qualify someone to write a great appellate brief about domestic violence, and maybe even save a client’s life.  Tell that to Michelle Fournier’s son  when he grows up, without her.  Tell that to the relatives of the 7 other people that died as collateral damage in her “custody dispute” this past fall.  On the other hand, when the boy grows up, maybe he could do a speech on what such violence is like OFF-line….]]

Well, read on, to see some of the strategic planning from 2002-2007:

FIVE-YEAR REPORT

{{This is most of the first page of the report, for reference:}}

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report chronicles the development of AFCC for the fiscal years 2002-03 through 2006-07, the first five years of the current administration. It addresses AFCC initiatives and special projects, organization- al development, membership, conferences, resource development, publications, administration and finance, Web site, technology and collaborating organizations. Comparative data and narrative are offered to provide historical context.

AFCC Initiatives and Special Projects

Between 2002 and 2007, AFCC initiatives and special projects played a growing role in the day to day activities of the association. Eight special projects were initiated between 2002 and 2007, funded through a mix of contracts, small grants, the operating budgets of AFCC and its collaborating organizations and participating individuals and organizations.

(1) Connecticut Family Civil Intake Assessment Screen (2) Guidelines for Parenting Coordination (3) Court Services Task Force (4) Model Standards of Practice for Child Custody Evaluation (5) Family Law Education Reform (FLER) Project

(6) Educator’s Guide to Working with Separated and Divorcing Parents

(7) Domestic Violence and Family Courts Project (8) Developing Nations Libraries Project

The Family Law Education Reform Project and Domestic Violence and Family Court Project were anchored by the first two AFCC-sponsored conferences at the Johnson Foundation’s prestigious Wingspread Conference Center.

Organizational Development

AFCC completed three major projects in the area of organizational development:

• • •

A five-year strategic plan An organizational effectiveness project, funded by the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation Identity branding

And from a little further in the report:

Web Site and Technology

• Redesigned Web site to enhance usability and member benefits.

• Google grant increased average monthly Web visits from 16,500 to 42,700.

• The bi-monthly AFCC eNEWS debuted in February 2006 and now has more than 10,000 subscribers.

• Parenting Coordination Network (group email) implemented.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

And so on, and so forth. . .

1996-2010: How “Ending welfare as we know it” morphed to [so far…] Statewide Marriage and Relationship Education –for Everyone

Some of my friends scold me for showing too much and not just telling.  They’re right.    But as I like to SHOW (and then TELL, too) — posts run to triple-length size,  then I split them up with new — and long — titles.

(Those of you who know me — this is a “Conversational Public Data Dump.”  You are forewarned!)

(see also my comment — it has a major double-pasted section in it, too.  I will printout & purge the duplicates….  The value of this post is in the narrative, plus the links).

This post began as a TANF introduction to another one on a specific Healthy Marriage Grantee.

You may not think this information relevant — but, it has already landed in your back yard; it is restructuring the United States; it is a financial issue with global ramifications.  The story of HOW this happened (and through whom) will help us pay better attention in the future, and should rule out certain distractions — such as choosing which battle to fight, and which diversionary propaganda to ignore.

However, someone has to protest the incremental removal of civil liberties going along with incremental spending down of public dollars, diverted to . . .. for lack of a better word . .. Bush appointees, and Obama cronies.  And when it comes to THIS category, I don’t hear a lot of specific protests.

Want to Occupy Something?  Occupy This — your senators and representatives voted welfare infinite expansion, for private profit actually, into being through public laws.  How could that be?

Well, we have  public school systems that still (apparently) teach U.S. Mythology, not Accounting, that are places for Values & INdoctrination Wars.  Somehow, the importance of the House Ways and Means Appropriations Committee — let alone about how corporations and government actually interact, were not considered pre-requisites for graduation. Meanwhile,  people LIVE in neighborhoods where they can observe this discrepancy, know that the common explanations do not hold water, but may not have a coherent explanation of what does, of what happened (historically).

Moreover, there is a digital divide and closed-doors deliberations.   We are not [certainly anyone ever on welfare is typically not] given or pointed to the best tools to finding out how things work. The cult is of the experts — who teach the uninstructed and presumably not smart enough to “get it.”

The tools available to the unfunded public (like TAGGS) have been also tinkered with, obfuscated and otherwise screwed with, to beyond credibility (accuracy) – although they do reveal traits and patterns to a degree.  TAGGS cannot be reconciled with USASPENDING.gov (and isn’t) even when just looking up HHS grants only on the latter.  I have not made up my mind yet which is more in error, but USASPENDING.gov already has its accuracy critics –and so few people seem to ever USE TAGGS, that leaves me.

Name me ONE other blog or public website that began posting those HHS grantee & project charts before this blog did (earliest, 2009) and recommending their use.  Yet its data goes back to 1995.

Now a point has been made, by the structure AND content of this resource — well read, clearly understood — that this information is NOT reliable; moreover that it’s not reliable — or in really useable form — is no accident.

For example — a big stink since 2001 has been made about laying down the red carpet for (and building capacity for) the faith-based organizations to go help the poor hungry, under-educated slobs get some jobs and visit their sons and daughters, and be taught how to “relate” better to the other parent.

YET — TAGGS has no designation (or classification) for  Faith-based organization.  It’s been 10 years since Bush Executive Order, and the word “faith-based” is all over government (federal state, and nonprofit groups, such as CNCS), other sites — and yet no field has been added to the database to designate “Faith-based” or NOT Faith-based.    The same goes for the fine distinction between “Marriage” grantees and “Fatherhood Grantees.”  yet there is one CFDA (93086) for both — and, moreover, marriage and fatherhood activities could be in, literally, almost any category of federal domestic assistance, such as social welfare research and demonstration, which are NOT under “93086.”  Or in Head Start.  So what’s that about, eh?

Is this really about promoting responsible  “Fatherhood”?  I don’t think so.  Responsible Fathers (note:  this does not include Glenn Sacks or Nicholas Soppa!) like some accountability here and there, and deserve resources to get it, just like others do, and can come to a debate that is not predetermined, and occasionally lose a point or two (i.e. humility).  I don’t know any decent father who’d advocate stealing from the public under false pretenses, and attempting to cover one’s tracks, yet this IS what’s happening.  Or a responsible father helping set up any systems which, after about 53 failures, are still going full force, in the same manner – which many faith-based groups are.  Or which INTENTIONALLY undermines separation of church & state, OR the separation of powers in the federal government — and does so for personal sense of power, fame (or for profit).  Responsible fathers are willing to sacrifice, not specialists in sacrificing others, or what’s right.

this entire responsible fatherhood movement is, essentially (to quote Liz Richards/National Alliance for Family Court Justice, in testimony before the House Ways & Means Committee, Appropriations — in June 2010) – An Expensive Solution looking for a Legitimate Problem:

Protective Mother’s Response to Ways & Means Income Security & Family Support June 17, 2010 hearing for re- reauthorizataion of Responsible Fatherhood program funding.

AN EXPENSIVE REMEDY IN SEARCH OF A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM!

The June 17th 2010 “Responsible Fatherhood” hearing testimony supporting the administration’s reauthorization request for $150,000,000 for a program which has failed to offer any verifiable data on program implementation or specific outcomes, such as the easy to verify job skill training and improved child support compliance factors. Program promoters have become defensive, or hostile, when their operations or intent is questioned. They reject complaints from protective mother advocates who describe serious systemic problems occurring with divorcing and “absent” fathers. In short – the Responsible Fatherhood program advocates have never shown any interest toward the very people who they purport to be helping- divorced or separated mothers of the fathers enrolled in their programs..

Responsible Fatherhood programs have been funded since 1996, but have yet to offer any outcome data or analysis verifying positive impact on mothers and children. Instead they rely on vague claims of involvement of domestic violence specialists to claim [their] activities are not causing mothers any problems. HHS ACF officials confirm they do no requirement for collecting or reporting program enrollment or outcome data.

{Heck, HHS/OIG/OAS can’t even keep track of millions of undistributed child support already collected at the state level, and eschews responsibility for doing so — after all, isn’t it TANF blocks to the states, for flexible use? so long as federal incentives are met for their $2 of ours for $1 of yours, and they get some back, who’s going to rock that boat?  Yet in part it’s from child support enforcement funds that Fatherhood Promotion is done!}

Why should they be getting millions more if they won’t verify the millions already spent are producing positive results, or any other performance or outcome information? Why don’t the fatherhood promoters know anything about the protective mother movement, or show any interest in the concerns of divorcing and separated mothers?

(actually, some of these DO know about this movement and viciously attack it in print and on on-line forums — see Peter Jamison, SFWeekly earlier in 2011)

We believe their data omissions are done deliberately to cover up another agenda – which our members observe and are negatively affected by – which is recruiting dead-beat and abusive men into lucrative high-conflict litigation. I alone have over 2000 victim intake contacts from nearly all US states. NAFCJ has state leaders, in over 15 states collaborate with other protective mother leaders. I have been communicating with fathers’ rights and fatherhood leaders and activist since as early as 1992, have attended their conference and have determined the two movements are one [and] the same.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

LGH Note:   Since last June 2010, I have seem more influences than just the fathers’ rights upon these grant series, but still believe it a valid factor nevertheless at the “street” and HHS etc. level)

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

I note that this 2010 testimony (filed on-line) also refers to the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005:

The US Senator who sponsored the earlier $150,000,000 Responsible Fatherhood earmark in the 2005 deficit Reduction Act has been a fathers rights supporter since he was a state legislator and has been collaborating with the fathers right leader and founder from his state from state since the start. This fathers’ right founder also has collaborated with Dr Richard Gardner on specific case litigation. Gardner’s writings included heinous remarks – such as ( in paraphrase): “mothers who complain about father’s sex abuse of children should be told to get a vibrator and become more sexually responsive to her husband so he won’t have to seek sex from his daughter.” This and other sick and deviant opinions from Gardner and other publish pro-incest men (e.g Ralph Underwager and Warren Farrell) are the reason why Responsible Fatherhood promoters conceal their relationship with the father rights people.

In order for the Responsible Fatherhood promoter to conceal their history of collaborating with the deviant fathers rights movement, they use domestic violence counselor as a “heat shield” to make themselves look pro-woman. But our movement of litigating protective mothers, many of whom have been in domestic violence shelters, have never observed any officially designated fathers representatives collaborating with domestic violence representative or producing and positive actions or outcomes for them. What we do hear from d.v. victim mothers who have gone from her home into shelter with her children – only to be arrested and put into jail a few days later for “kidnapping” the children. Most not allowed any contact with their children, because they are then deemed to be a flight risk. An ex- parte sole custody order is establish for the father is without any notification or hearing for the mother. The d.v. shelter people refuse to support them or testify for the mother and ignore her concerned about the father’s abuse of the children. Many of these falsely arrested mothers don’t see their children again for months {{or years…}} on grounds she is a flight risk. Unfortunately our movement is very dissatisfied with the d.v. movement and believe they also need reforming. However, some of their leaders are working with us to correct this part of the system failure

If I get the rest of the follow-up post out — there is a demonstration of this “heat shield” phenomena — at the “Domestic Violence Coalition” level, typically.

and she also wrote:

All the evidence I’ve observed indicates the Responsible Fatherhood programs are merely a cover for recruiting bad dads with offers of child support abatements into high-conflict litigation, giving sole custody of the children to the father and getting the mother out of picture and forcing her to pay excessive child support obligations to him

Then there are (I learned through the Kentucky example:  “Turning It Around”) the times fathers in arrears were, literally, extorted into participating in programs such as fatherhood classes, parenting skills, self-esteem, ABSTINENCE education (for a father?), and more — which have their promoters throughout the system, usually with a for-profit organization selling the materials behind any nonprofit group.   These are not so many or varied that they are hard to locate and recognize the presence of, any more…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _OK, enough of that particular angle . . . . . . .

Personal:

My interests and activism took another “sea change” after documenting (some, at least) of the Sea Changes at for example California Healthy Marriage Coalition, which boasted on outset of its programs of THE largest HHS marriage promotion grant yet ($11 million over 5 years).

Again, at the corporate level (California Secretary of State) a search of the words ‘Healthy Marriage” (singular) produces this chart:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2629035	11/08/2004	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE	CHRIS GRIER
C2896098	06/01/2006	ACTIVE	FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION	ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911	03/07/2001	DISSOLVED	HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION	ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION	DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473	10/04/2006	SUSPENDED	RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745	05/12/2004	ACTIVE	SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304	05/29/2009	ACTIVE	SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238	03/02/2006	ACTIVE	STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION	JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354	08/13/2007	ACTIVE	YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	WILLIAM F JENS

and “Healthy Relationship,” this one:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C3073670	01/16/2008	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528	05/13/2005	ACTIVE	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	PATTY HOWELL
C2790720	06/09/2006	ACTIVE	OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS	** RESIGNED ON 06/20/2011
C2494811	01/06/2003	DISSOLVED	THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	TAMARA ILICH

Meanwhile — as far as the 990 finder (which uses IRS filings) is concerned, the Sacramento Group has indeed changed its name by 2010, and there IS no “California Healthy Marriage” nonprofit around.

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project Dba Relationship Skills Center

CA

2010

$64,938

990

31

13-4280316

Now, on TAGGS, this ONE EIN (13480316) pulls up a slightly smaller set of grants, but two different DUNS# — why? (I put these here for readers to click on)

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	SACRAMENTO	CA	95821	SACRAMENTO	147288935	$ 2,446,593
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	SACRAMENTO	CA	95821	SACRAMENTO	827612631	$ 1,148,512

  

Showing: 1 – 2 of 2 Recipients

Searching by Principal Investigator “Curtis” (within California) we see some — not all — of the grants:

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	NON	Other Social Services Organization	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	93086	CAROLYN CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	NON	Other Social Services Organization	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	93086	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 549,256
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project		Other Social Services Organization	90FE0015	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	93086	CAROLYN R CURTIS	$ 1,647,768
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project		Other Social Services Organization	90IJ0205	COMPASSION CAPITAL FUND (CCF) TARGETED CAPACITY BUILDING PROGRAM – MARRIAGE	93009	CAROLYN CURTIS	$ 50,000

and of course the last one, a new award, goes to — “CAROLYN CAROLYN” (i.e., FN FN)

Grantee Name	City	Recovery Act Indicator	Grantee Type	Award Number	Award Title	CFDA Number	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	SACRAMENTO	NON	Other Social Services Organization	90FM0059	FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM	93086	CAROLYN CAROLYN	$ 798,825

SO, this $3 million plus is going to an organization in Sacramento (California State Capitol) that is not maintaining is nonprofit status with the state of California — is this affecting our budget?  Please also note that of these 5 awards, two are “Recovery” (ARRA) awards — totaling $1,647,768.  In another OMB or GAO report, we found that ARRA awards specifically have been tagged as notoriously NOT paying their still-due payroll and other taxes (even were the nonprofit legitimate):

(posted July 14, 2011 at Patton Boggs, LLP, with the alert that this is general information — and not legal advice)

Federal grant award recipients should carefully review their own federal tax compliance and use vigilance when engaging subrecipients and contractors, based on recent Senate testimony from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

On May 24, 2011, a GAO representative testified before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs that thousands of contract and grant recipients under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) owe hundreds of millions of dollars in unpaid federal taxes. The testimony summarized GAO’s April 2011 report of its investigation of 15 entities that had collectively received some $35 million in ARRA funds despite federal tax delinquencies totaling roughly $40 million. GAO referred all 15 entities to the IRS for possible criminal investigation.

ARRA grant award recipients may face risks to their projects stemming from federal tax delinquencies even though, as the GAO acknowledged, federal law does not generally prohibit applicants with unpaid federal tax debts from receiving federal grant awards. With federal debt continuing to climb, and federal spending far outstripping tax revenues, Congress may at least examine changes to the law to impose new restrictions in this area. In addition, in many cases, the tax delinquencies stem from  unpaid payroll taxes, meaning that even entities exempt from federal income taxes may be affected.

The GAO accounts.  It has no teeth.  Congress has to act….  More from the GAO site indicates that groups such as these may be included, i.e., if they don’t includ amounts from groups that have not filed federal tax returns 

At least 3,700 Recovery Act contract and grant recipients–including prime recipients, subrecipients, and vendors–are estimated to owe more than $750 million in known unpaid federal taxes as of September 30, 2009, and received over $24 billion in Recovery Act funds. This represented nearly 5 percent of the approximately 80,000 contractors and grant recipients in the data from Recovery.gov as of July 2010 that we reviewed. The estimated amount of known unpaid federal taxes is likely understated because IRS databases do not include amounts owed by recipients who have not filed tax returns or understated their taxable income and for which IRS has not assessed tax amounts due. 

(Back to TAGGS and our HM grantees)

And the $15 million went to an organization incorporated by Dennis Stoica (in Leucadia) that had its corporate status suspended, as well as the OTHER two organizations he formed, around the same time.   Patty Howell’s nonprofit, who carried on the name — is still associated with the bad behavior (by association) with CHMC’s originals.

Yet the only one of the BUNCH that I can see actually filed (with California, where they are) with the OAG — as required to — was the Sacramento Healthy Marriage (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.)

The California Healthy Marriage (Stoica, Suspended) became, somehow “Healthy Relationships California” (Howell) — think Leucadia, San Diego Area.

Meanwhile, the SACRAMENTO HM group (Curtis) — not that its ‘charitable status is, er, current — at least created one with the OAG, which looks like this

(on the actual site, the headings background color would be BLUE).  I am coding it GREEN, to match the PATTY HOWELL group – and indeed, the letter on this site (From the OAG) saying’ hey whassup, is addressed to “Sacramento Healthy Marriage”

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity 1

TAGGS grant for This one, EIN# 6806790  (which I believe I’ve gone over before, at some length) shows:

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	LEUCADIA	CA	92024-2215	SAN DIEGO	003664535	$ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	LEUCADIA	CA	92024-2215	SAN DIEGO	361795151	$ 7,142,080

Or, in the latest ACF announcement (just to make life a little harder for the novice in all this) as:

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

Which is it not called, any more — on the TAGGS  – – – OR, on the website itself, because Patty Howell’s  actual organization “healthy Relationships” apparently subsequently bought (or, at least claimed) the registered name “California Healthy Marrriage Coalition.”

Website — not that this group is current as a charity in California any more, but at least Ms. Howell’s nonprofit founded JUST a bit earlier than Mr. Stoica’s, saved the day and kept the name — it’s still showing up as:  California Healthy Marriages Coalition and (I see) features a “Dads & Kids” relationship education initiative, …

stating that this is funded in part by:  “Partial funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant: 90FE0104. “

ward Number:	90FE0104
Award Title:	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1
OPDIV:	ADMINISTRATION FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILIES (ACF)
Organization:	OFFICE OF FAMILY ASSISTANCE (OFA)
Award Class:	DISCRETIONARY

Award Abstract

Title	Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1
Project Start/End	/
Abstract	Healthy Marriage Demonstration, Priority Area 1
PI Name/Title	Howell, Patty   Vice President of Operations
Institution

There are 7 award actions (4 of which read “$0”) and the other three (discretionary) $2.3 million & $2.4 + $2.4 million from 2006, 2009 & 2010= $7,142,080.  The grant is labeled “healthy marriage” and “FE” and the use was for Dads & Kids relationship building — which just so happens to be another business Ms. Howell is in.

Quite honestly, I don’t remember now (or feel like checking) whether it was Howell, or Curtis — on both nonprofits, receiving $32K for work on the one, and $7K for work on the other.

HM/FR GRANTEE BEHAVIORS

I am now learning that their behavior is typical — not atypical– for the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood grantees.  As such, I am starting to comprehend that the entire system wasn’t even nominally set up to promote marriage, but to deconstruct the lines of authority between federal and state, to divert welfare funding SPECIFICALLY from single mothers (who, even when under attack are still a force to be reckoned with) towards fathers, and change language acknowledging us as both mothers and citizens (individuals) with equal rights under the law — which, by the way, we DO have.  But not safely enforceable.

The Child Support monster is just that — and as it feeds gas in to county & state agencies, and (diversionary programs) — it has been spilling, and some of these spills turn into conflagrations where people get hurt.  Men, women and children.   Other than that, it often drains an economy — but DRIVES the bureaucratic economy.  Whatever it may have been, it is now a monster.  It recruits, it solicits — but it does not produce and does not contain viable checks and balances.

WHO VOTED THIS AGENDA IN?  AND WHO PUT THEM IN OFFICE?

I am gradually understanding that it was THE United States Congressmen, and some (not many) women that voted for these laws, from TANF (1996/Clinton), through DRA (2005/Bush) through ARRA (2009/Obama) and through 2010 Claims Resolution Act (also Obama).  It took me a while to realize that these years paralleled the hell extended nightmare of a marriage, followed by what at this point, I’d call worse — because it destroys hope of an off-ramp, EVER, and has definitely altered my family line’s wellbeing — in EVERY measurable category — for the far worse, since we first met the courts.   And people who go through this marginalization tend to listen to others who have; mine is no isolated instance; it’s a systemic situation.

This is relevant history to current history, on its course.   Don’t we want to know who helped set what in motion, and how?  Particularly when history tends to run over the very families (and economy) it is pretending — or purporting — to help?

Normally, this subject matter wouldn’t be on my radar.  It only got there when I demanded a reasonable explanation for a clear double-standard based on gender in what I assumed (wrongly, as it turns out) to be courts of law, i.e., “family courts.”   Of course my opposite gender’s proponents have been saying for decades that these courts are biased against THEIR gender, and must be adjusted to compensate.  They have now (far’s I can tell) been saying this with impunity for FAR too long.

SO — in some detail, and FYI  —

PRWORA 1996, DRA  2005, ARRA 2009 and 2010 Claims Resolution Act.  Slippery slope to evolving definitions of welfare and child support enforcement – incremental tipping of the purposes of TANF from Purpose #1

(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives

towards Purpose #4 — and then expanding the application of Purpose #4 beyond anyone who might have actually needed the resources from Purpose #1.

(4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families. . . .

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

…

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.

The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed:

Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce
Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young people

• Covenant marriages
• Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
• Making laws more “family friendly”
• e laws
• The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
• Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
• Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,

including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKC, Dean Blevins, OKC Music,Oklahoma City Alumni, Oklahoma City Media, Oklahoma City Radio, The Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …

Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.¹ Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways² intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal.  (and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit

So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too, this being 1974;

So in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues.  But wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

Is sponsoring a meeting/conference with the Governor which then results in him intentionally bypassing the Legislator to get this Marriage Promotion Process going — “Christian”??

From OMI site:

• Governor Keating was aware that his support of a marriage promotion agenda was controversial and would not be immediately popular.
• As evidence of his serious commitment to this issue, Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative.  (after committing funds from HHS)  In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts advised various aspects of the Initiative. {{We showed who some of these were, including Wade Horn of National Fatherhood Initiative}} This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. 

At the legislative level, they might have faced a fight, and been forced to justify — TO OKLAHOMA RESIDENTS — the diversion of TANF emergency funds to marriage promotion!

I looked up Jerry Regier, and Voice of Freedom (albeit a gay rights publication?) says “Gov. Bush’s Appointment Of Jerry Regier For The Dept Of Children & Families Is More Than A Right-Wing Extremist; He Leaves A Record Of Increased Child Abuse & Neglect” (apparently from OK he was going — courtesy of the brother of then-President George Bush — to FL).  Look at the commentary: (color:  TEAL)

And what we found is not good for the children and families of Florida. Here is what Oklahoma Governor did not tell Jeb:

August 24, 1999: Secretary for Health and Human Services Jerry Regier is violating both the spirit and the letter of a new state law in his zeal to hasten the downsizing of Eastern State Hospital in Vinita

Sept. 20, 2000: Health and Human Services Secretary Jerry Regier is trying to dodge responsibility for recent problems

April 11, 2001: Associate Press: State Office of Juvenile Affairs charged the state and federal government $1.2 million more than it was eligible to receive during a period of 19 months. Jerry Regier, secretary of HHS, said that once a program is in place, an acceptable error rate would probably be 5 percent or less. Last fiscal year, Oklahoma County had an error rate of 59.2 percent. Tulsa County’s error rate was 26 percent

April 12, 2001: Regier Skirts Competitive Bidding Laws – A controversial political consultant was awarded more than $1.2 million in state contracts without having to compete for the business, according to state records.

(this seems to be a hallmark of certain faith-based groups; I’m thinking of the Governor’s Office of Faith-Based (whatnots) in Ohio, re:  Krista Sisterhen.  It’s all over the web; she was there 2003-2006; eliminated otherwise qualified groups to get a contract to a group (formed only in 2000 and not in-state) called “WeCare” which then screwed up.  And — had ties to Bush Administration. )

Oklahoma KIDS COUNT Fact Book 2001:
     Reveals that 2 key benchmarks tracked worsened when compared to data from a dozen years ago:

• Child abuse & neglect
• More than fifteen thousand (15,518) are abused or neglected
• More than two hundred thousand (210,470) Oklahoma children live in poverty an increase since 1998 (Regier took office in 1997)
  This brief synopsis points to an administrator whose track record is not favorable for the task at hand. Although he received honors as a good administrator, the fact that child neglect and abuse increased while he was HHS Director demonstrates a lack for a sense of priorities, in this case the welfare of our children. Florida does not need more scandal; downsizing or political mismanagement in the Department of Children and Families, Regier has got to go! 

By

• Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. {{YES — as I said, of the four purposes, it as purpose #4 only}} The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

TANF was at this time FOR low-income populations.   FOR helping children be cared for in their own households, as much as possible.  For leaders to say “well TRY to offer them to low-income populations” while targeting the entire state of Oklahoma — NOT the needy populations  (not all of who is poor, but obviously many of who have been divorcing) is OFF-purpose.   $10 million is a LOT of money to set aside, to some families.  How many mouths would’ve been fed, for sacrifice of rhetoric?

• Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today.

More on REGIER — guess where he was in December 2006?  Sitting as “US Department of Health and Human Services Washington, DC 20201

Jerry Regier, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation” {{ASPE == a Program Office or OpDiv of HHS }}and writing a glowing recommendation of the OMI.  In this brochure (which has his name on it), it says that Jerry Regier — as Cabinet Head of HHS — prodeed the Governotr to get this started, citing specifically 1996 TANF reform.  The economic studies were secondary…. 

Nearly eight years ago, Oklahoma’s then-Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, encouraged then-Governor Frank Keating to take action to strengthen Oklahoma’s families, in response to emerging research and the increased emphasis on two- parent families in the 1996 federal welfare reform legislation.

So the REAL question is — where was Regier before this, and how did he get to be in the Cabinet Position in Oklahoma?

This Brief is a good (short read) showing that when the TANF-Reformers come to town (carrying NFI-ideas), they are going to force system change.  For example, the system change in Oklahoma was definitely focused on pushing MARRIAGE to people from ALL sectors of life — not alleviating poverty and helping poor or needy families.  Moreover, there was a connection somehow, to the Denver Crowd (who produced PREP).

The brief comes right from ACF.HHS.GOV/healthy marriage site. In the flow chart, a central square reads ” PRIORITY 2:”  BUILD DEMAND FOR SERVICES”

and from that, arrows to 3 boxes, the top one of which reads:  “TRAIN AGENCIES (like child support!) TO MAKE REFERRALS”

OK (I think I have it).  First, Jerry Regier was formerly president of the ultraconservative “Family Research Council” prior to Oklahoma

But this report (2004) from Florida — where it seems he went next — is scathing, and — in short — read it.    I can’t say it more emphatically.

• How could Bush not have seen this mess coming? Regier was a GOP party hack in Oklahoma with an undistinguished track record in the family services bureaucracy. An ultraconservative Christian, his byline had turned up on two published papers that espoused spanking kids, even if it caused “welts and bruises.”

A scalding report by the governor’s chief inspector general has revealed that high-ranking DCF officials handed out fat and dubious contracts to pals and political cronies, and accepted gifts, favors and lodging from outside contractors.

As a result, three of Regier’s top administrators have quit, and
Regier himself has been reduced to defending his own outrageous
socializing with a DCF contractor.

It’s much more than the mere “appearance of impropriety.” It is the
greedy, rotten essence of impropriety — profiteering at the expense of
Florida’s neediest and most vulnerable children.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars that could have been spent hiring
more caseworkers and investigators were instead doled out to
well-connected firms as part of Regier’s rush to “privatize”
child-welfare services.

In recent weeks, the Miami Herald’s Carol Marbin Miller has documented
the DCF gravy train in infuriating detail. A few of the lowlights:

• —A $21 million contract to fix DCF’s computer system was awarded to
• American Management Services, although another company had been ranked
• first after the initial screening process.
• The lobbyist for American Management happened to be Greg Coler, a
• former chief of the state child-welfare agency and a close friend of
• Regier. Sitting on American Management’s board of directors was former
• Oklahoma Gov. Frank Keating — the man who recommended Regier for the
• DCF job in Florida.

—DCF Deputy Secretary Ben Harris gave out a $500,000 no-bid contract,
split between two of his friends, for computer ‘‘kiosks’’ that
dispense food stamps.

• (Different, 2009 article quoting the 2004 one):  There have been numerous child abuse stories because of neglect from the Department of Child & Families. Jeb hired Jerry Regier to run DCF. Regier spent more time rewarding cronies than keeping children from being abused.

ACTUALLY — WIKIPEDIA pretty much lays it out.  Jerry Regier worked for the elder Bush administration.  Best read in sequence:  (and I now have a 20,000 word post, too….)

Includes this section:

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

(SIGH — I looked up “Family Research Council” and found among its board members, the mother of the man tied to Blackwater, and a board member of

The Council on National Policy among other things — here it goes, a 2008 “Muckety Site” (visual diagram of relationships).  This relates to tracking down a single person influential in starting

the “Oklahoma Marriage Initiative” (Jerry Regier), learning of his former Bush & FRC connections, and looking up FRC.  WHich just goes to show, when is it time to stop!?)

Story by Laura Bennett, Oct. 2008, posted at “Muckety” under “Erik Prince’s Mom gives $450,000 to stop same-sex marriage in California“

I’m less concerned about that than the Blackwater connection, who else this woman is funding.  See Diagram:

Focus on the Family (one of the followers) figured in my life personally, exacerbating already virulent abuse, to the point that I ended up quitting a FT night job, that had been supporting our family.  I’m talking WHILE I was married.  My husband loved James Dobson, and listened to his stuff also

Speaking as a heterosexual Christian — I don’t know WHO these guys are — they do not do a resemblance of what I see in the Bible; and in person, and in influence are virtually terroristic to women.  If I’d NOT been a Christian, I’d probably have bailed out of the marriage much faster — and this might (not sure, but MIGHT) have been better for our kids.  When I hear WHO is behind some of these groups (years later) it somewhat validates the personal experiences (not mine only) that they are essentially domestic terrorists — unless one submits willingly.

Two Voices from a while back warn us on this movement:  Patricia Ireland, (NOW) and Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr. Both are responding to the Promise Keepers’ “Stand in the Gap” rally on the Washington Mall.  Listen to them!  ”

• Viewpoint: Promise Keepers — Watch as Well as Pray, by Congressman Jesse L. Jackson Jr.

We are talking, 1997!….(I don’t have the date of Rev. Jesse Jackson’s speech).

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the Promise Keepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. There is absolutely nothing wrong with acknowledging that we have done wrong, we recognize our weaknesses,confess our sins before God and the public and vow, with God’s help, to change our ways, to do better and to be better men in the future. The genuineness and validity of the religious experience for any of the participants, and any long-range good that comes from it, must be affirmed and respected.

There is nothing wrong with any of that, if that’s all there is to it.

(and he goes to accurately characterize the group):

Women now want to be priests, pastors and preach in pulpits. These demands come from a feminist and womanist theology and biblical interpretation born of experiences of denial and oppression from conservative and non-liberating Christian men.

As Christians, we all read the same Bible, but our biblical interpretations are born of our varied life experiences. It was Martin Luther’s experiences with Roman Catholicism that led to a critique (95 Theses) that began the Protestant Reformation. Similar experiences have led to modern critiques and new interpretive contributions of scripture and theology that run all the way from the birth of our nation — a theology that gave us a liberal democratic and constitutionally-based government to replace a traditional, conservative and God-based Monarchy— to a Latin American-oriented liberation theology; to an African American-originated “Black” theology; to a female-led feminist and womanist theology; to a gay and lesbian theology; all of which respect all religions, advocate for human rights and equal protection under the law for all regardless of race, national origin, sex or sexual orientation, and all of which are liberation theologies reflecting a God of the oppressed.

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally.

QUITE FRANKLY — this is where a lot of “Christian Domestic Violence” (contradiction in terms – the false term there is “Christian”) comes from — it is an outraged insistence on previously inherent male dominance.  Enforced physically and all other kinds of ways, and acknowledged by the male bonding in surrounding institutions, and well-tamed females in them also.  This is why I no longer frequent — or even darken the door of — churches, if I can help it.  Maybe for a music event — not for worship, not for socializing, and not for any form of support.  Life is too short.

That which, in the past, has been identified as “religious” and “Christian” has not always been liberating and quite often has been oppressive. In South Africa it was the Dutch Reformed Christian Church that provided the religious foundation for apartheid. In the United States’ South it was the Southern Baptists and other mainline churches that practiced and theologically justified slavery and Jim Crow. The Ku Klux Klan identifies itself as a Christian organization. It was white Christian ministers who attacked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in Birmingham, Alabama for fighting racism that brought forth his “Letter From A Birmingham Jail.” At our foundation, good Christian men owned slaves and defined African Americans as three-fifths human in our Constitution, they committed genocide against Native Americans and stole their land, and they denied women the right to vote. In Congress today,many who call themselves religious and Christian, vote against laws to provide food, health care, housing, jobs, education and an equalopportunity to millions of Americans. There’s an old Negro Spiritual that speaks to this point. It says, “Everybody talkin’ ’bout heaven ain’t goin’ there.”

The Promise Keepers’ answer to that very real problem is not to look to the future with hope and confidence, confronting the changes needed and reinterpreting male identity in terms of gender equality. Instead, Promise Keepers try to give men identity and, therefore, security, by returning to a familiar past. Their preaching and teaching, mostly subliminal, though not exclusively so, was to reveal a fear of that future. The Promise Keeper answer is to retreat and recapture this biblical past.

SO NOW HERE COMES THIS REVELATION — OF THE CONNECTION BETWEEN FOCUS ON THE FAMILY (Types) and BLACKWATER.  I  can’t say I’m really surprised.

And I do believe — especially seeing the Bush/Regier/OMI/FRC (etc.) connections that when we are looking at any Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood grant, program, or initiative — even though there may be innocent and sincere participants — this is the essence of what we are seeing — which is the intent to dominate, control, force to submit, and (this being a necessary means to dominate in a country with a Bill of Rights — to force institutions to line up, removing the due process and civil rights, permanently.

(to be continued)

(ELSA PRINCE) Broekhuizen is the mother of Erik D. Prince, founder of Blackwater Worldwide, the controversial operation that provides security services to federal officials in Iraq and other countries. Her daughter, Betsy DeVos, is a former Michigan GOP chair and wife of failed gubernatorial candidate Dick DeVos.

Broekhuizen’s first husband, Edgar, founded an auto parts company that was sold after his death for $1.4 billion. She later married her pastor, Ren Broekhuizen.

An assistant told the Grand Rapids Press that Broekhuizen gave to the campaign because the issue is “very important to her. It’s near and dear to her heart. She likes to give from her heart and not for public recognition.”

Broekhuizen heads the Edgar and Elsa Prince Foundation, which had assets of more than $42 million in 2006 (the last year for which tax returns are publicly available). The foundation and Broekhuizen personally are longtime supporters of religious organizations and conservative political groups such as the Haggai Institute, Focus on the Family and the Family Research Council.

BURBRIDGE FOUNDATION — A CHRISTIAN FOUNDATION — helped this happen, then.  Make a note of it, because this was wrong!

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”

Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):

Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

• The Academy of Leadership & Liberty
• Beam’s Industries, Inc.
• Burbridge Foundation
• Cartridge World USA
• Character First
• The Institute for Church and Family
• National Christian School Association
• Oklahoma Christian University
• Oklahoma DHS – Finance Division  *** links to Adoption Announcement, and banner “Stronger Families Grow Brighter Communities.” & “Casey Families Programs” link.
• Salt and Light Leadership Training
  
• TC Magazine
• Wishing Well

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:

OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"

* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%

Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

• Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

We are in the new millennium, which kicked off (after surviving the Y2K scare) pretty much with a possibly stolen election, and a King in the form of a President.  Kings, as their manner is, like to rewrite laws, restrict civil liberties, protect their cronies, equate their causes with “godly” causes, and protect THEIR, not the People’s Interest.  Such was definitely true the moment G. W. Bush took office in 2001, being sworn in to office under the same oath as previous Presidents.

The way was paved before him with 1996 Welfare Reform, which granted to states, allegedly, some of the co-dependent power it took from them, by allowing them “flexibility” (Block grants to states for TANF / welfare) to better address the needs of their citizens and reduce the welfare caseload.  If you are not “up” on this then research it some.  Center on Budget & Policy Priorities gives a brief recap.  These are good basic readings if you are, say, living and working in the United States.  Even if you are not doing this as a legal resident, or permanently, it may potentially affect situations such as were found in Seal Beach, California, when the father of a little boy, having 56% custody (despite prior violence, threats, and significant issues that would otherwise alert a reasonable person to danger) — being an ex-Marine — walked into a beauty salon with guns (and a bulletproof vest) and “offed” 6 people in the room (starting with a man, then his wife, then everyone else in there — a 73 yr old mother I heard survived serious wounds — and, who knows why, another innocent man sitting in a parked vehicle outside.  The joint custody policy comes from a combination of groups such as AFCC/CRC AND policies such as set in welfare reform.   These are not isolated incidences; they are recurring incidents (with more or less victims depending on circumstances) and their occurrences has not modified either welfare reform, or AFCC/CRC policy and agenda one whit, that I can see.  So, as a US resident, you will at some level be both funding these policies — and paying for clean up.   This is what we get for not paying closer attention to our legislatures, and doing WHATEVER is necessary to make time to do so, where at all possible!

From the “Center on Budget & Policy Priorities” whose board includes a person from the Brookings Institute, the Urban Institute (and Marian Wright Edelman of Children’s Defense Fund).  This nonprofit was founded in 1981, it says, and focuses on policies regarding low-income families, among other things.  I may not agree with all the viewpoints, but this outlines some of the facts:

They are going to detail some points about 1996 PRWORA, 2005 DRA, 2009 ARRA, and (let’s not forget the most recent, although I don’t know if this details), 2010 Claims Resolution Act

Sooner or later, (I hope), the public is going to wake up and ask just WHAT is its Congress authorizing when it comes to promoting marriage and fatherhood, and taking away from the original purpose of “AFDC” (Aid to Families with Dependent Children), or even the original purpose of TANF (aid to needy families), let alone the original purpose of the Child SUpport Enforcement (which was, child support enforcement).  Whatever the original purposes were — it’s clear which direction things are heading — which expansion of purposes, programs, and applications, and undermining of the ORIGINAL concept to a more circuitous, theory-based concept of how to help feed hungry children, and adult caretakers (including, like, parents?!)  in the households where they live, in America.

Policy Basics — an Introduction to TANF

What Is TANF?

Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a block grant created by the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, as part of a federal effort to “end welfare as we know it.” The TANF block grant replaced the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program, which had provided cash welfare to poor families with children since 1935.

Under the TANF structure, the federal government provides a block grant to the states, which use these funds to operate their own programs. States can use TANF dollars in ways designed to meet any of the four purposes set out in federal law, which are to: “(1) provide assistance to needy families so that children may be cared for in their own homes or in the homes of relatives; (2) end the dependence of needy parents on government benefits by promoting job preparation, work, and marriage; (3) prevent and reduce the incidence of out-of-wedlock pregnancies and establish annual numerical goals for preventing and reducing the incidence of these pregnancies; and (4) encourage the formation and maintenance of two-parent families.” . . .

The law that created the TANF block grant initially authorized funding through the end of federal fiscal year 2002. After several short-term extensions, Congress reauthorized TANF in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 and made some modifications to the program;**TANF is now authorized through the end of federal fiscal year 2011 (September 30, 2011).

Who Is Eligible for TANF-Funded Benefits?

States have broad discretion to determine who is eligible for various TANF and MOE-funded benefits and services. In general, states must use the funds to serve families with children, with the only exceptions related to efforts to reduce non-marital childbearing and promote marriage . .

. . .

What Level of Funding Does TANF Provide to the States?

The basic TANF block grant has been set at $16.6 billion since it was established in 1996. As a result, the real value of the block grant has already fallen by about 28 percent.

The 1996 law also created supplemental grants for 17 states with high population growth or low block grant allocations relative to their needy population, as well as a contingency fund to help states weather a recession.** Congress regularly extended these supplemental grants, but the most recent extension covered only three of the four quarters of federal fiscal year 2011, and these grants expired July 1, 2011. This year represents the first time since 1996 that Congress has not fully funded the supplemental grants.

As noted above, states must spend state funds on programs for needy families as a condition of receiving the federal TANF block grant.

(Notice the #1 goal.  However, in Oklahoma, Ohio, other states, the emphasis was on goals 4, 3, 2 & 1, in approximate order, as shown by their policies.  I have blogged on the “OMI” before.

Apparently the DRA (2005) allowed states to categorize “MOE” expenses to NON-needy families (this is a footnote to a 2007 CRS [Congressional Research Service — you see their bill summaries also at Thomas.loc.gov) report by the same person, Mr. Gene Falk, Social Policy Specialist):

 FN 15 Prior to the enactment of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA, P.L. 109-171) MOE funds used to achieve TANF’s family formation goals were restricted to expenditures on “needy” families with children. The DRA had a provision that allows a state’s total expenditure on activities to achieve these goals to be counted without regard to a family’s need. However, HHS regulations issued on February 5, 2008, limit MOE expenditures related to the family formation goals except for activities related to promoting healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. (See Appendix, “Families Considered “Engaged in Work” (the Numerator of the Participation Rate)” later in this report for a listing of these activities. For a discussion of this regulatory provision, see Federal Register, vol. 73, no. 24, p. 6517-6318.

THIS, friends, is how one can encounter divorce or custody cases in which one side is a millionaire, but still benefitting from the priorities these programs set up in the courtroom, i.e. promoting more noncustodial (meaning father) parenting time by means of — supervised visitation, counseling, mediation, parent education, etc.  Court-referrals..

Using Federal TANF Grants

Federal TANF grants may be used for a wide range of benefits and services for families with children. Grants may be used within a state TANF program or transferred to either the Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF, the “child care block grant”) or the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG). Unused TANF funds can also be reserved (saved), without fiscal year limit.12

FN12 Before the enactment of the ARRA, reserved funds could only be used for the purpose of providing “assistance” (often, cash welfare). The ARRA eliminated this restriction to the use of reserve funds, so that reserve funds can be used to provide any allowed TANF benefit or service.

**what Oklahoma did with its contingency fund, and other states (or certain appointees in other states) seem to like this model.  The ACF/HHS site mentions Oklahoma Marriage Initiative  as a model of how to use MOE funds, after first asserting that:

Healthy marriages are vitally important to the long term well-being of children. Beyond the economic advantages important for supporting children, the experiences and examples shown to children being raised by parents who enjoy a loving and long-term commitment yields tremendous developmental benefits for children. Forming and sustaining a happy and healthy marriage requires, in part, good fortune and, in larger part, parents possessing the knowledge and commitment to exercise healthy relationship skills that form the basis of healthy marriages.

(From the Director of HHS’s Office of Family Assistance, year, 2004.)

Certainly inherited wealth, circumstances of birth including where and to whom — have little to do with this; really, it’s about skills moreso.  Therefore, forget those other factors, let’s focus on the “healthy relationship skills” Well said, from an organization that distributes, but apparently doesn’t track too well, the funds!

Since the inception of PRWORA, Oklahoma has capitalized on the flexibility of TANF funds by investing $10 million in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (OMI). OMI was established under the third and fourth statutory purposes of TANF. OMI currently delivers marriage and relationship training statewide through social service systems, educational systems and volunteer organizations. Participants access training in diverse settings such as workforce development classes, high schools, military bases, prisons, first time offender programs, churches, universities and many more. In 2003, Oklahoma reported{{who checked??}}  that 938 workshops were conducted, serving 1,250 participants and training 1,200 individuals to provide future workshops. For additional information on Oklahoma’s Marriage Initiative please visit:http://www.okmarriage.org/services/healthyrelationships.asp

As I blogged before, the Governor of Oklahoma pushed this one from the top, with help from “expert speakers” and the head of his HHS, who pointed out there was TANF money sitting around.

The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way [in Oklahoma!] for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

(Child abuse, of course doesn’t happen within marriages, and abuse of one’s kids is not a cause of divorce.) Then “Governor and First Lady’s (day-long) Conference on Marriage” with speaker..

(See, as recounted on a “smartmarriages.com” list-serv in 1999, how Gary Smalley & Wade Horn of the NFI were there…”Marriages must be strengthened for the sake of America’s children”

…

Theodora Ooms with the Family Impact Seminar in Washington
D.C. called the marriage conference historic. "You are pioneers here in
Oklahoma. I have been trying for ten years in Washington D.C. to get this
on the agenda and get some money to work on this issue and no one in
Washington will talk about it.
The Conference also included breakout sessions with attendees discussing
how the various sectors can work together and how government policy can
also impact the success of marriages. Among the items discussed: 

Public education- emphasize the positive aspects of marriage to young
people
Covenant marriages
Emphasis on premarital counseling, possibly even legally requiring it
Making laws more "family friendly"
Tax laws-possibly eliminating marriage penalty
Possible repeal of no fault divorce laws 

The Governor and First Lady¼s Conference on Marriage was facilitated by
Jerry Regier, the Governor¼s Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human
Services. It was privately funded by several groups and individuals,
including the Burbridge Foundation and the Baptist General Convention.

Good grief.   the Baptist General Convention got with the Governor and helped propose taking welfare funds to promote marriage,

since their own Sunday Sermons weren’t persuasive enough?  That’s “ripe.”

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 1:

Burbridge Foundation, I’m going to look up, obviously.  From “TheLostOgle.com” (apparently some Oklahomans having some fund poking fun at their state, although I note, “*.com”)  This foundation was #93 on the top 100 most embarrassing things about Oklahoma (from 2007, its centenary?):

Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments: 100-91

Posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 under Best of OKC, Dean Blevins, OKC Music,Oklahoma City Alumni, Oklahoma City Media, Oklahoma City Radio, The Sports Animal,Top 100 Oklahoma Embarrassments by Tony

For the eight of you out there who didn’t realize it, 2007 marks the 100th anniversary of the state of Oklahoma. To mark this, various publications around the state have been featuring all sorts of Top 100 lists that have provoked virtually no controversy and have not been talked about at the water cooler. In fact, we’ve heard so little discussion about these lists that we wonder if anyone is actually reading them. We sure don’t.

It does seem, though, that the focus has been on the more positive elements of Oklahoma. While we celebrate those things just like the rest of the world, it seems wrong to ignore the more humiliating aspects of the state of Oklahoma. Naturally, we’re here to fill that void, in this ten-part series that will run every Monday. Today, numbers 91 through 100 of Oklahoma’s Biggest Embarrassments..

. . .

93. Bobbie Burbridge Lane

Those commercials for the Burbridge foundation are possibly the most annoying thing on local radio, which is saying something. When listening to Burbridge Lane lecture us about pornography or religion being taken out of public schools or whatever the pet issue of the day is, we’re convinced that Burbridge Lane wants to return the United States to the 1950′s, which probably sucked really bad. 

There’s usually some truth on the heels of humor, and this one rings true:

BURBRIDGE INFO (random, from Internet) — PART 2:  Could THIS be why The Burbridge Foundation is so big on Marriage (dates to 1974).

(read for comic relief): (from “law.justia.com”)

496 F.2d 326: The Burbridge Foundation, Inc., Appellant,

v. Reinholdt & Gardner et al., Appellees

Robert E. Hornberger, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellant.

G. Alan Wooten, Harper, Young & Smith, Fort Smith, Ark., for appellees.

Before VAN OOSTERHOUT, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and ROSS, Circuit judges.

PER CURIAM.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. – 496 F.2d 326

Submitted March 14, 1974.Decided May 15, 1974

. . .(The present suit is basically an action in rem seeking relinquishment of certain stocks held by the stakeholders, Reinholdt & Gardner. The Foundation’s memorandum in the trial court stated that ‘the relief specifically sought is the return and delivery to The Burbridge Foundation of its stock deposited with that defendant (Reinholdt & Gardner). …Upon registry of a personal judgment arising from a divorce decree, Velma Jean Holloway, formerly Velma Jean Burbridge, obtained a writ of garnishment from the Chancery Court of Sebastian County, Arkansas, against Reinholdt & Gardner, a stock brokerage firm, to attach any stocks belonging to her former husband, R. O. Burbridge. The brokerage firm denied holding any stock in Burbridge’s name, but admitted it had an account in the name of The Burbridge Foundation. The Burbridge Foundation intervened in the state court proceedings. Shortly thereafter, The Foundation brought suit in the federal district court against Reinholdt & Gardner, seeking recovery of the stocks. In its complaint, The Foundation made the same allegations it raised as intervenor in state court, i.e., that the stocks belonged to it and not R. O. Burbridge personally. In addition The Foundation for the first time asserted that the Arkansas garnishment statute was unconstitutional in that it sought to deprive The Foundation of its property without due process of law.¹ Reinholdt & Gardner answered that it could not relinquish the stocks until ordered to do so by a court of competent jurisdiction. The Holloways² intervened in the federal action and moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss. The Burbridge Foundation appeal[ed].

(and apparently lost).

(SMILE): [2]”Russell B. Holloway was the divorce attorney for Velma Jean Burbridge (now Holloway) and was awarded $12,000 in attorney’s fees. He was also a party to the state garnishment suit”

So, Velma Jean divorced Mr. Burbridge, eventually married her divorce attorney, and seems to have gotten some of his stock, too.  This being 1974; so in 2000, here is this Burbridge Foundation sponsoring a let’s support marriage (and potentially institute covenant marriage / eliminate no-fault divorce, etc.) in Oklahoma.  Moral:  There is usually a back story to most public policy, somewhere . ..   and more than not, based in someone’s personal issues, but wealth & power tends to think large (how do we think they got wealthy & powerful in the first place?), and the rest of the world should conform to their  theories…

(Is this the same Burbridge Foundation as in Oklahoma, or that sponsored that Governor’s Leadership Conference?  Possibly.  I’m not going to stress over this today.)

BURBRIDGE INFO (Random, from internet) PART 3:   Self-description on website:

The Burbridge Foundation is a Christian foundation dedicated to working solutions to problems impacting our families and our culture. We do this by bringing public awareness to these problems, by working alongside other faiths {{REALLY?  I’d like to see that — because the  “SALT & LIGHT LEADERSHIP TRAINING” below indicates non-Christians need not apply, and the carefully balanced photo on there  (with middle-aged Caucasian an at the front of the pyramid) doesn’t even contain a single African-American woman — does Oklahoma not have any?  There is an African-American male, at the back of the triangle, too….}} and concerned citizens interested in strengthening the fabric of our community character, and by providing leadership support to organizations of like vision.

We continue to work across the country with individuals and organizations combating the scourge of pornography – a deadly and often underestimated cancer assaulting the family. For information on the “WRAP Campaign” and other information on fighting porn go to www.moralityinmedia.org.

Our current effort focuses on Christian leadership development. In 2007, we reached out to several Oklahoma City Christian lay leaders with a vision for the creation of “salt and light leadership training” to leaders of this and other cities. This has now become the “SALLT Fellowship” which can be found at www.saltandlightleadership.com.

Soli Deo Gloria  (Latin: to God only be Glory; JS Bach used to sign his manuscripts with this, hear tell)

“We are not a direct grant-giving organization.”

Also at the same street address is “Character First”

Our Approach

Character First is a professional development and character education program that is delivered many ways—training seminars, books, magazines, curriculum, email—that focus on real-life issues at work, school, home, and the community.

Gee, then why might they NOT sponsor such a conference with the Governor on curriculum-based ways to strengthen marriages?

Communities & Character Councils

Character First works with government leaders and community organizations around the world who want to promote character on a local basis.

[[website says “Character First” began in 1992 at an Oil & Gas-servicing company called “Kimray”]]

To do this, many communities form a “Character Council” (often a non-profit, non-religious charitable organization) to promote character in all sectors of a community—including business, government, education, law enforcement, media, the faith community, and families.

The following communities have taken various steps toward promoting character, such as passing resolutions, forming character councils, implementing Character First, and organizing special events.

AND also at this address (3rd organization):

Strata Leadership, LLC is a small consulting firm located in Edmond, Oklahoma focused on helping individuals and organizations succeed.

And here is where we see some Dispute Resolution background, familiar in the anti-divorce courtrooms around AFCC personnel as well:

hrough Strata’s partnerships with other organizations such as Character First!, our team consists of nearly 15 full-time employees.  Strata is led by our executive leadership team of Strata President, Dr. Nathan Mellor and Executive Vice-President, Wayne Whitesell.

[Photo of young-looking Caucasian guy]

Dr. Nathan Mellor is a co-owner and president of Strata.  He is a popular speaker who makes 125-175 presentations per year across America and around the globe.  He has spoken in over  states and in countries such as: Australia, Belize, Guyana, Jordan, Mexico, Russia and Rwanda.

Dr. Mellor holds the Bachelor of Arts (BA) and the Master of Science in Education (MSE) degrees fromHarding University. He earned the Master of Dispute Resolution (MDR) degree from the Pepperdine University School of Law – Straus Institute for Dispute Resolution and the Doctor of Education (EDD) in Organizational Leadership degree from Pepperdine University.

STrata’s Partners (at least 2 at the same address):

Strata is proud to partner with and promote the work of the following friends:

• The Academy of Leadership & Liberty
• Beam’s Industries, Inc.
• Burbridge Foundation
• Cartridge World USA
• Character First
• The Institute for Church and Family
• National Christian School Association
• Oklahoma Christian University
• Oklahoma DHS – Finance Division  *** links to Adoption Announcement, and banner “Stronger Families Grow Brighter Communities.” & “Casey Families Programs” link.
• Salt and Light Leadership Training
  
• TC Magazine
• Wishing Well

Copyright © 2009 Strata Leadership, L.L.C. All rights reserved.

Products — pricey!

The “other” sponsors of the Governor and First Lady’s year 2000 Conference are not mentioned, but I think we get the general idea…

Choice quote:

Even with a lack of comprehensive data about why the problem exists, the research information clearly demonstrates that something must be done. (: (:

OK -- just DO something -- and afterwards, maybe, look for actual cause & effect connections....  "Lack of Comprehensive Data"

* According to data provided by the CDC, Oklahoma has the 2nd highest
divorce rate in the nation, by state of residence.
   Only Arkansas has a worse divorce rate.
- Only 14% of white women who married in the early 1940's eventually
divorced, whereas almost half of white women who married in the late
1960's and early 1970's have already become divorced. For African-American
women, the figures are 18% and nearly 60%

Presumably some men, then, also divorced.  Any stats about them??  Go figures -- a NFI participatory event is going to
talk about the women! (behind their backs, too).

It’s Oklahoma!  Notice, the emphasis on divorce rate, by race.   …   Here, amazingly, is the 2002 Testimony of that Director of HHS for OK:

United State Senate Finance Committee Thursday, May 16, 2002 10:00 A.M.

Room 215 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Issues in TANF Reauthorization: Building Stronger Families

Testimony of Howard H. Hendrick Oklahoma Cabinet Secretary of Health and Human Services and Director, Oklahoma Deparment of Human Services

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for the privilege of appearing today to share the genesis and status of Oklahoma’s strategy to strengthen marriages and reduce divorce. In Oklahoma, we are spending TANF funds for this purpose because the research clearly shows that child well-being is enhanced when children are reared in two parent families where the parents have a low conflict marriage. …

(Governor Keating):   He hosted the nation’’s first ““Governor and First Lady’’s Conference on Marriage”” in March, of 1999. Based on the information learned there, Oklahoma’’s Marriage Initiative was launched. The Governor took key steps to ensure that the goal of reducing divorce and strengthening marriage was more than simply a political statement. Specifically the governor:

␣ Took the bold step of setting a specific, measurable goal – to reduce divorce in Oklahoma by 1/3 by the year 2010.

Question:  What right does any Governor have to even TRY and do this?  (Notice, by this time both houses of US Congress had already voted National Resolutions to Support Fatherhood:  1998, 1999).  By 2002, they had already chosen a curriculum, “PREP(r).”  This curriculum, well — as 2002 testimony says:

We selected PREP® (the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program) as the state’’s curriculum because of its research basis and its evaluation record. It is a curriculum that has been used in the military for many years. PREP can be tailored to a variety of constituencies and the long-term efficacy of the twelve hours of education has been validated in a variety of research settings.

We are presently in the training stage of implementing the service delivery system. These skills are beginning to be offered in workshops throughout Oklahoma. The training includes identifying substance abuse risks and presentations by the Oklahoma Coalition against Domestic Violence. . .

(Concluding statement):

Based on what we’’ve learned so far, we continue to support the use of TANF funds to fund activities that strengthen families by growing healthy marriages.

GROWING HEALTHY MARRIAGES?  Then, literally, they are farming their populace — which is objectionable!

The input of “Theodore Ooms” of “Family Impact Seminars” was noted.  Here is the “Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars (PINFIS).  “Surprisingly” it is funded by many of the responsible fatherhood grantees I have come to recognize over the years, such as the Annie E. Casey Foundation:

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars aims to strengthen family policy by connecting state policymakers with research knowledge and researchers with policy knowledge. The Institute provides nonpartisan, solution-oriented research and a family impact perspective on issues being debated in state legislatures. We provide technical assistance to and facilitate dialogue among professionals conducting Family Impact Seminars in 28 sites across the country. If you are a PINFIS Affiliate, please click here to login.

The Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars is currently funded by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation and the William T. Grant Foundation. Past supporters include the David and Lucile Packard Foundation and the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Copyright © 1993-2011. Policy Institute for Family Impact Seminars. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy.

26 States + D.C. get seminars from this Wisconsin-based (presumably nonprofit) group based at UW-Madison/Extension.  “The Seminars target state policymakers, including legislators, legislative aides, governor’s office staff, legislative service agency staff, and agency representatives. The traditional format of the 2-hour seminars consists of three 20-minute presentations given by a panel of premier researchers, program directors, and policy analysts. For each seminar, discussion sessions are held and a background briefing report summarizes high-quality research on the issue in a succinct, easy-to-understand format.”

UMichigan reveals they’ve had 16 Family Impact Seminars since 2000— and that the Kellogg Foundation is helping them receive this also.  This 2000 report, on one page sites a survey of “9 barriers to employment that single mothers face” and doesn’t mention — domestic violence at all.  However, on page 17, in a page dedicated to Domestic Violence, the two authors note:

Background Data and Research

Families who experience domestic violence are often also victims of poverty. Studies examining the association between domestic violence and poverty have found:

• Of current welfare recipients in Michigan, 63% have experienced physical abuse and 51% have experienced severe physical abuse during their lifetimes[12].

• Physical abuse/being afraid of someone was cited as the primary cause of homelessness (in a survey of homeless adults in Michigan) [7].

• Half of homeless women and children report being victims of domestic violence [5,7].

AND,. . . . well, here is the rest of the page:

These barriers consist of:

• Psychological effects of domestic violence (Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, depression, or anxiety)

• Sabotage by the abuser (destroying homework assignments, disabling cars and alarm clocks, interference with child care efforts, or harassment at work)

• Manipulation by the abuser (leaving marks and/or bruises that prevent the woman from attending work or an interview, or undermining self-confidence

These employment barriers can lead to tardiness, absenteeism and lack of productivity. Research shows that between 23% and 42% affected by domestic violence report that the abuse had an impact on their work performance [4,5,12].

A study conducted by the University of Michigan suggests that domestic violence by itself is not a barrier to employment,** but that the more barriers one has, the more difficult it is to leave welfare for work [2]. Further research is needed on multiple barriers to employment resulting from domestic violence.

**personal.  True, it’s possible to work — at times, and as allowed by an abuser — with domestic violence.  I have done many things competently immediately after and immediately preceding devastating attacks, some physical, some threats, some involving threats to our children, and once even after they were removed illegally, overnight, and despite law enforcement having been alerted to the threat shortly (same season) before.  Yes it is possible, depending on the person and the relationship, to hold down a job or series of jobs and simply take the abuse at home going or coming.  But, over long-term, the violence does escalate, and a person has to take action on it.  And it DOES cut down on productivity.   It is also possible to work, and in a relationship, not be able to spend the proceeds from one’s own work on one’s kids’ welfare.  Also because work tends to empower women, with men threatened with that independence, it is sometimes a time of increased harm, as he’s torn between wanting the money from that work, but realizing that “his” woman is going to have some work relationships he may not be able to utterly control.

A recent study found that approximately 70% of domestic violence victims did not disclose the abuse to their TANF caseworkers [10]. The same study found that 75% of those that did reveal information about the violence did not receive the appropriate support or services. These results imply that without the proper services, many victims of domestic violence and their children are forced to return home to their abuser.

(from page “Domestic Violence and Poverty Deborah Satyanathan and Anna Pollack”)

In a climate (see Oklahoma Marriage Initiative) where the powers that be believe — or say they do — that it’s lack of marriage (and not really, violence in marriages or other forms of abuse impacting work & home life) causing poverty, the only alternative individuals have, who are caught up in that — is to request the state to honor its laws against such abuse.  If the state, based on ITS own decisions made with help from The National Fatherhood Initiative and others, based on their theories — chooses to overstep Executive Authority, as Governor Keating of OK specifically intended to, and did, do — then he just weakened the very state (as a member of states under the US Constitution — at least at some time in the past century or two, we were) in the name of “strengthening families.”

This Study quotes the “Center for Budget & Policy Priorities” I cite also for a TANF summary (above).  They cite 4 barriers to work, NONE of which applied to many of the women I knew in DV support groups in the 1990s and have known since (to this day) in custody battles for their children, in the 2000s, where judicial discretion wins the day, and judges sit on the boards of nonprofits taking business from access visitation and other TANF-funded activities!   This study from a group named in influencing the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, relates:

Four of the major barriers identified by analysts at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities include [2]:

1. Little or no employment skills or education

2. Little or no prior work experience

3. Substandard housing conditions or lack of affordable housing

4. Having a child with special needs

I am sure these are relevant areas — but NOT for all families that are being driven ONTO (not helped OFF) TANF!  None of these applied to my case, nor many women I network with.  They are women (at least one, homeless), some have done jail time over failure to pay allotted child support (after being stay at home mothers, then forced to fight for custody), others have had to drop out of school; whatever it was they were doing in life — had to STOP to accommodate the machinery of the courts, and with activists and attorneys — neither of them — telling which end was up, until common sense said, those were poor answers (to the circumstances) and some began looking other places for rational explanations of the behavior of those making critical decisions about our lives and our kids.

It makes zero sense to at least acknowledge the role of DV in work sabotage, sometimes long-term, and not continue to insist that to receive help, someone absolutely needs coaching.  I had work experience AND degrees, and as it happens, many educated and/or professional women leaving abusive relationships, where part of this abuse was economic control under duress, did not need more “job skills.”  What we needed was quite different, namely a SAFETY ZONE with which to rebuild.   However, thanks to dynamics, and Governors like Governor Keating in OK, or any other Governor who is enabling some administrative or executive agency to undermine legal rights of the states’ citizens (regardless of race, gender but with regard to marital status), women like us, mothers innocent of child abuse or any criminal wrongdoing — have been literally destroyed and taken out of the work force, while the concept that somehow faith-based organizations give a damn, and deserve special-status red carpet in order to grab those grants and ram marriage & relationship education down peoples throats — and from a VERY narrow range of potential marketeers, several of who already receive federal funding to run demonstration studies on citizens in the military, in prison, on welfare, paying child support (or not, as case may be), in schools — and even in Head Start — to fine-tune how to produce THEIR desired result in society!

Public Strategies Inc. of Oklahoma continues to get its share — $2.5 million, this last round — of GRANTS (not just contracts) to do more of the same and expand it — as the situations in which TANF funds may be applied to form two-parent families continues to expand.  The OMI knew — from the start (Testimony in 2002 shows) that the curriculum of choice, PREP(r) was going to be used.

Notice who paid for that first “Governor and First Lady’s Conference.”

The phrase “low conflict” is typically an AFCC one.  Wonder what there input was here.

More — this is not a half-bad summary:

The amount states must spend is set at 80 percent of their 1994 contribution to AFDC-related programs. (In some cases this “maintenance of effort” (MOE) requirement can be reduced to 75 percent.) In 2009 states spent roughly $15 billion in state MOE funds. The amount states are required to spend (at the 80 percent level) in 2009 is about 45 percent below the amount they spent on AFDC-related programs in 1994, after adjusting for inflation.

* * *The Deficit Reduction Act also provided $100 million per year to support programs designed to promote healthy marriages.

When TANF was created in 1996, Congress provided $2 billion in a contingency fund; this fund was not used much until the current recession but a number of states have received contingency funds for one or more years between 2008 and 2011. The fund is now depleted and states only received partial allocations for 2010 and 2011. In the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act {{ARRA}} (sometimes referred to as the “stimulus” bill), Congress created a new and temporary Emergency Funddesigned to provide aid to states that see increases in assistance caseloads or certain program costs as they address the needs of families during the economic downturn. Congress appropriated $5 billion to this new Emergency Fund for 2009 and 2010 — by the time the fund expired in September 2010, the $5 billion had been fully used.

Another Summary, from CRS (Congressional Research Service), prepared in 2007 — this is an outline

However, money taken from the public, collected in the U.S. Treasury, and reallocated out from there, usually has strings attached.  The strings attached to the restructuring of the child support system (Title IV-D) were significant; i.e., states needed to centralize their child support distribution system, and they were blessed with access visitation grants from a $10 million/year pool, proportionate to some stipulations based on their population, by Congress somehow, and this could be maintained IF the states were GOOD boys and complied.

The states have NOT been complying, but they are still getting the money, so I am presuming that there is some mutual benefit involved between state and local government stakeholders.  By the way, the word “Stakeholder” never usually applies to the people most drastically affected by policies set by stakeholders — which is those not at the table when policies are set, and likely in need of the services being restructured, recirculated, reframed, and redirected.

Here’s a 2010 (June 24, 2010, to be specific) Heritage Foundation article complaining about increasing entitlements Obama’s escalation of welfare roles (true) and how the “success” of TANF should be applied to other federal programs.

Confronting the Unsustainable Growth of Welfare Entitlements:

Principles of Reform and the Next Steps

June 24, 2010

• Do you know who the Heritage Foundation is?
• Do you know who funds them? or where to find out?
• Do you know who they fund, or where to find out?
• Could you participate pro or con in this argument, supporting it with any facts?
• Do you agree or not?
• Can you put those arguments in a different context than they do?

They proclaimed:

Abstract: The growth of welfare spending is unsustainable and will drive the United States into bankruptcy if allowed to continue. President Barack Obama’s fiscal year 2011 budget request would increase total welfare spending to $953 billion—a 42 percent increase over welfare spending in FY 2008, the last full year of the Bush Administration. To bring welfare spending under control, Congress should reduce welfare spending to pre-recession levels after the recession ends and then limit future growth to the rate of inflation. Congress should also restore work requirements in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program and apply them to other federal welfare programs.

They also said of TANF that it was a success.  Yet — in reality — it is the means by which expansion of the welfare state — particularly after faith-based organizations were invited in — was assured.   The track record is that MANY of these are not just incompetent — but chronically dishonest, and when caught (as I tend to stay) in one state, simply hop over to another.  I can name names and organizations and dates, sometimes States, of the “hops.”   They obtain web resources through HHS “compassion capital” or other grants, and this last season, our government just gave over $1 million GRANT to ICF International, LLC (or whatever it’s proper current name is) a group currently doing $1 BILLION business with the Feds, and with an agenda to transform communities through (basically, media domination).

Listen to this:

Reform should be based on five principles:

1. Slowing the growth of the welfare state. Unending government deficits are pushing the United States toward bankruptcy. The U.S. simply cannot afford the massive increases in welfare spending planned by President Barack Obama. Welfare spending is projected to cost taxpayers $10.3 trillion over the next 10 years.[1] Congress needs to establish reasonable fiscal constraints within the welfare system. Once the current recession ends, aggregate welfare spending should be rolled back to pre-recession levels. After this rollback has been completed, the growth of welfare spending should be capped at the rate of inflation.
2. Promoting personal responsibility and work. Able-bodied welfare recipients should be required to work or to prepare for work as a condition of receiving aid. Food stamps and housing assistance, two of the largest programs for the needy, should be aligned with the TANF program to require able-bodied adults to work or to prepare for work for a minimum of 30 hours per week.  (see ## my footnote)
3. Providing a portion of welfare assistance as loans rather than as grants. Welfare to able-bodied adults creates a potential moral hazard because providing assistance to those in need can lead to an increase in the behaviors that generate the need for aid in the first place. If welfare assistance rewards behaviors that lead to future dependence, costs can spiral out of control. A reformed welfare policy can provide temporary assistance to those in need while reducing the moral hazard associated with welfare by treating a portion of welfare aid as a loan to be repaid by able-bodied recipients rather than as an outright grant from the taxpayer.
4. Ending the welfare marriage penalty and encouraging marriage in low-income communities. The collapse of marriage is the major cause of child poverty in the U.S. today. When the War on Poverty began, 7 percent of children in the U.S. were born out of wedlock; today, the figure is over 40 percent.[2] Most alarmingly, the out-of-wedlock birthrate among African–Americans is 72 percent. The outcomes for children raised in single, never-married homes are greatly diminished.Current means-tested welfare programs penalize low-income recipients who get married; these anti-marriage penalties should be reduced or eliminated. In addition, government should provide information on the importance of marriage to individuals in poor communities who have a high risk of having children out of wedlock. Particular emphasis should be placed on the benefits to children of a married two-parent family.***
5. Limit low-skill immigration. Around 15 percent ($100 billion per year) of total means-tested welfare spending goes to households headed by immigrants with high school degrees or less.[3] One-third of all immigrants lack a high school degree.[4] Over the next 10 years, America will spend $1.5 trillion on welfare benefits for lower-skill immigrants. Government policy should limit future immigration to those who will be net fiscal contributors, paying more in taxes than they receive in benefits. The legal immigration system should not encourage immigration of low-skill immigrants who would increase poverty in the nation and impose vast new costs on already overburdened taxpayers.

**Never mind that this has been done now — for years — and at statewide level.  Can we reasonably assume that no one at the Heritage Foundation knows this?

##FN2 — how about requiring recipients of diversionary programs from child support and TANF to document that THEY worked at least 30 hours a week?  And have incorporated, and that their incorporations have actually been proper, are current, and if required to, filed a 990?  I’ve seen dropped loose ends of $50K a pop (SolidSource in Van Wert, OH comes to mind) or others have found dropped loose ends of $227,000.  MOreover, we have child support privatized to outside organizations, such as MAXIMUS — themselves caught in fraud and overbilling — and THEY continue to receive government benefits from the US in the form of renewed contracts, even after paying, for example $30 million in settlement fees over these matters.

So I say, let’s put the focus on the MACRO-ECONOMIC trends — namely allowing corporations and HHS / DOJ /DOE to get in bed with them to determine whether future employees of these corporations eat, have safe drinking water, and have access to decent educations (not just skills training for globally noncompetitive jobs in the same corporations!)

POINT 4, above:

. . .encouraging marriage in low-income families.   The Collapse of Marriage is the Major Factor in Child Poverty Today.

No it’s not.  That’s a single-source, single-interpretation of the causes of poverty.

Now, I could debate that at least logically, following the words “Sez who?” and “Who Sez those are the only experts?” and then poke some holes in the rhetoric.

Could You? Should You?  Or don’t you care about the use of taxes and public policy any more?

Go to the actual laws:

THE LAWS IN QUESTION:

PRWORA link:

PUBLIC LAW 104 – 193 – PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY AND WORK OPPORTUNITY RECONCILIATION ACT OF 1996

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA,Pub.L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, enacted August 22, 1996) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract With Americaand was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.^[1] Bill Clinton signed PRWORA into law on August 22, 1996, fulfilling his 1992 campaign promise to “end welfare as we have come to know it”.^[2]

H. REPT. 109-276  – DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005 Back to search results

(Wikipedia note — TANF Reauthorization was contained in this);  

 The reauthorization of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program was also contained in the bill, as was the provision for the Digital Transition and Public Safety Act of 2005. Part of the TANF reauthorization reduces the threshold for passport denial for child support arrearages under 42 USC 652(k)to $2,500.

 

 

Senate bill S. 1932 passed the Senate, with a tie-breaking vote cast by Vice PresidentDick Cheney, and House bill H.R. 4241 passed the House 217-215. The Senate bill was signed by PresidentGeorge W. Bush on February 8, 2006.^[2]

[Dispute over legal status

A dispute arose over whether both houses of Congress had approved the same bill. Those contending that the bill is not a law argue there were different versions of the same bill, neither of which was approved by both the House and the Senate. They argue that the document signed by the President would not have the force of law, on the ground that the enacting process bypassed the Bicameral Clause of the U.S. Constitution.  (For what wikipedia is worth, find this interesting….)

 

P.L. 109–171, Approved February 8, 2006 (120 Stat. 4)

Deficit Reduction Act of 2005

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SECTION 1. [42 U.S.C. 1305 note]  SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005”.

Has sections on TANF & Child Support.

SEC. 7101. TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES AND RELATED PROGRAMS FUNDING THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2010.

(a) [None Assigned]  In General.—Activities authorized by part A of title IV and section 1108(b) of the Social Security Act (adjusted, as applicable, by or under this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005^[275]) shall continue through September 30, 2010, in the manner authorized for fiscal year 2004, and out of any money in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, there are hereby appropriated such sums as may be necessary for such purpose. Grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority on a quarterly basis through fiscal year 2010 at the level provided for such activities for the corresponding quarter of fiscal year 2004 (or, as applicable, at such greater level as may result from the application of this subtitle, the amendments made by this subtitle, and the TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005), except that in the case of section 403(a)(3) of the Social Security Act, grants and payments may be made pursuant to this authority only through fiscal year 2010^[276] and in the case of section 403(a)(4) of the Social Security Act, no grants shall be made for any fiscal year occurring after fiscal year 2005.

*    *    *    *    *    *    *

SEC. 7301. ASSIGNMENT AND DISTRIBUTION OF CHILD SUPPORT.

 (etc.)

PRESIDENT BUSH’s REMARKS ON SIGNING DEFICIT REDUCTION ACT OF 2005:

The Deficit Reduction Act also reauthorizes welfare reform for another 5 years. Welfare reform has proved a tremendous success over the past decade. By insisting on programs that require work and self-sufficiency in return for Federal aid, we’ve helped cut welfare cases by more than half since 1996. Now we’re building on that progress by renewing welfare reform with a billion-dollar increase in child care funding and new grants to support healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs.

One of the reasons for the success of welfare reform is a policy called charitable choice which allows faith-based groups that provide social services to receive Federal funding without changing the way they hire. Ten years ago, Congress made welfare the first Federal program to include charitable choice. The bill I sign today will extend charitable choice for another 5 years and expand it to the new healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood programs. Appreciate the hard work of all who supported the extension

of charitable choice—including the good- hearted men and women of the faith-based community who are here today. By reauthor- izing welfare reform with charitable choice, we will help millions more Americans move from welfare to work and find independence and dignity and hope.

The message of the bill I sign today is straightforward: By setting priorities and making sure tax dollars are spent wisely, America can be compassionate and respon- sible at the same time. Spending restraint de- mands difficult choices, yet making those choices is what the American people sent us to Washington to do. One of our most impor- tant responsibilities is to keep this economy strong and vibrant and secure for our chil- dren and our grandchildren. We can be proud that we’re helping to meet that respon- sibility today.

Now I ask the Members of the Congress to join me as I sign the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

NOTE: The President spoke at 3:31 p.m. in the East Room at the White House. S. 1932, approved February 8, was assigned Public Law No. 109– 171.

{{He also began by distinguishing between DISCRETIONARY and MANDATORY spending:

At the same time, my budget tightens the belt on Government spending. Every American family has to set priorities and live within a budget, and the American people expect us to do the same right here in Washington, DC.

The Federal budget has two types of spending, discretionary spending and manda- tory spending. Discretionary spending is the kind of spending Congress votes on every year. Last year, Congress met my request and passed bills that cut discretionary spending not related to defense or homeland security. And this year, my budget again proposes to cut this spending. My budget also proposes again to keep the growth in overall discre- tionary spending below the rate of inflation

AND ARRA:

Wikipedia:

 (Pub.L. 111-5) and commonly referred to as the Stimulus or The Recovery Act, is an economic stimulus package enacted by the 111th United States Congress in February 2009 and signed into law on February 17, 2009, by President Barack Obama.

To respond to the late-2000s recession, the primary objective for ARRA was to save and create jobs almost immediately. Secondary objectives were to provide temporary relief programs for those most impacted by the recession and invest in infrastructure, education, health, and ‘green’ energy. The approximate cost of the economic stimulus package was estimated to be $787 billion at the time of passage. The Act included direct spending in infrastructure, education, health, and energy, federal tax incentives, and expansion ofunemployment benefits and other social welfare provisions. The Act also included many items not directly related to economic recovery such as long-term spending projects (e.g., a study of the effectiveness of medical treatments) and other items specifically included by Congress (e.g., a limitation on executive compensation in federally aided banks added by Senator Dodd and Rep. Frank).

The rationale for ARRA was from Keynesian macroeconomic theory which argues that, during recessions, the government should offset the decrease in private spending with an increase in public spending in order to save jobs and stop further economic deterioration.

TEXT of the LAW:

H.R.1 — American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Enrolled Bill [Final as Passed Both House and Senate] – ENR)

(thomas.gov)

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 – (Sec. 5) Designates each amount in this Act as: (1) an emergency requirement, necessary to meet certain emergency needs in accordance with the FY2008-FY2009 congressional budget resolutions; and (2) an emergency for Pay-As-You-Go (PAYGO) principles.

TITLE II (Commerce, Justice, ….)

Makes supplemental appropriations for FY2009 to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for: (1) the Office of Inspector General; (2) state and local law enforcement activities; (2) the Office on Violence Against Women; (3) the Office of Justice Programs; (4) state and local law enforcement assistance; and (5) community oriented policing services (COPS).

. . .

Subtitle B: Assistance for Vulnerable Individuals – (Sec. 2101) Amends part A of title IV (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families) (TANF) of the Social Security Act (SSA) to establish in the Treasury an Emergency Contingency Fund for State Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Programs (Emergency Fund). Makes appropriations to such Fund.

Directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to make a grant from the Emergency Fund to each requesting state for any quarter of FY2009-FY2010 if the state’s average monthly assistance caseload for the quarter exceeds its average monthly assistance caseload for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year. Requires the amount of any such grant to be 80% of the excess of total state expenditures for basic assistance over total state expenditures for such assistance for the corresponding quarter in the state’s emergency fund base year.

. . . .

(Sec. 2102) Extends TANF supplemental grants through FY2010.

(Sec. 2103) Makes technical amendments to the authority of a state or Indian tribe to use a block grant for TANF for any fiscal year to provide, without fiscal year limitation, (carry over) any benefit or service that may be provided under the program funded under the block grant, including future contingencies.

(Sec. 2104) Amends SSA title IV part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) to suspend for FY2008-FY2010 the prohibition against payments to states with respect to their plans for child and spousal support collection on account of amounts expended by a state from support collection performance incentive payments received from the Secretary of HHS (thus allowing such additional payments during such period).

(just pointing out, from the CRS summary, that certain parts affect TANF & Child Support, I.e., TITLE IV-A, IV-D of Social Security Act. 

 

CLAIMS RESOLUTION ACT OF 2010 (passed one year ago — 11/19/2010!)(you may need to re/search from Thomas.loc.gov)  111th Congress, H.R. 4783

Title VIII: General Provisions (AND YOU”LL SEE WHY FATHERHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, PLUS MARRIAGE EDUCATORS, WERE REJOICING OVER THIS ONE):

Sec. 802) Amends part D (Child Support and Establishment of Paternity) of title IV of the Social Security Act to require an employer to report to the state Directory of New Hires, in addition to other information, the date services for remuneration were first performed by a newly hired employee.

Subtitle B: TANF – (Sec. 811) Amends part A (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families [TANF]) of title IV of the Social Security Act to continue grants to states for temporary assistance for needy families programs through September 30, 2011.

(WONDER WHERE WE’RE AT ON THIS NOW …..)

Requires preference for healthy marriage promotion and responsible fatherhood grants to be given to entities that have previously: (1) been awarded funds; and (2) demonstrated the ability to carry out specified programs successfully.

WHAT ARE THE CHANCES, DO YOU THINK, THAT (2) WILL BE MONITORED?

Directs an entity seeking funding for both healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood promotion to submit a combined application assuring that it will carry out such activities: (1) under separate programs; and (2) without combining funds awarded to carry out either such activities.

Revises the definition of “healthy marriage promotion activities” to include marriage education and other specified programs for individuals in addition to nonmarried pregnant women and nonmarried expectant fathers.

THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MARRIAGE AND FATHERHOOD ACTIVITIES DOES NOT REALLY EXIST.  FOR EXAMPLE, HEALTHY MARRIAGE GRANTEE (I THINK IT WAS ORIGINALLY “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D.) was characterized in a recent AZFFC.org publication as the “Sacramento affiliate” of this fathers and families coalition — although the title then said “Healthy Marriage” and recently reads something like (last I heard) “Relationship Education Institute” or such.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) for FY2011: (1) $75 million for healthy marriage promotion activities; and (2) $75 million for promotion of responsible fatherhood activities. (Current law authorized $150 million, combined, for both programs in specified fiscal years.) Limits appropriated funds awarded to states, territories, Indian tribes and tribal organizations, and public and nonprofit community entities, including religious organizations, for activities promoting responsible fatherhood to $75 million (current law has a $50 million limit). Requires amounts awarded to fund demonstration projects testing the effectiveness of tribal governments in coordinating the provision to tribal families at risk of child abuse or neglect of child welfare services, and other tribal programs, to be taken in equal proportion from such separate appropriations for healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood activities.

Appropriates (out of money not otherwise appropriated) to the Contingency Fund for State Welfare Programs such sums as necessary for payment to the Fund in a total not to exceed: (1) for FY2011, such sums as are necessary for amounts obligated on or after October 1, 2010, and before enactment of the this Act; and (2) for FY2012, $612 million. (Current law reduces such appropriations by specified amounts.)

Well, I may regret hitting “PUBLISH” on this one, but here goes. . . . .

“TAGG” you’re It: CFDA 93.086 Grantees– Let Me Count The Ways (to distribute $121,077,648 on the same old theme, re-shrinkwrapped)…

The Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council (HFTCCC) brings together community leaders to create and sustain a District-wide network that empowers families and communities to improve their quality of life.

Perhaps it would be wiser to figure out what “disempowered” families, including mothers, — confront it, and stop it.  As Washington, D.C. is one of the most powerful places on the planet (not including the centers of Finance…), in one of the formerly? most powerful countries in the world, one wonders how, when, and why it became filled with such disempowered families.  Apparently there was a power grab somewhere along the way.  Address that — and families will be more empowered.

{{Judging by the HHS funding, the word “families” means “fathers” which is common usage among grantees.]]

We are a 501(c) (3), organization that provides leadership, advocacy, resource development, technical assistance, and training to the six Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives. The six Collaboratives are independent nonprofit organizations that operate across the District of Columbia in communities facing intergenerational economic, social and safety challenges. Since the mid 1990s, the Collaboratives supported by the Collaborative Council, have joined with community members – residents and institutions alike – to re-weave the social fabric. Each community solution is tailored to the needs of the community with Collaboratives and their partners offering a range of unique services and supports to children and families.

If they are being trained — and the purpose of most HM/FR grantees can be summarized in one word:  TRAINING — then they are not independent, but just have the appearance of it, any more than your local county child support agency is independent of the others, rather than connected also at the HHS/ACF/OCSE level and by welfare law….

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…[First Published Oct. 20, 2011]

….

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense… First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words

BLOGGER’s UPDATE MESSAGE Aug. 15, 2018: First published Oct. 20, 2011, not updated since except to add post title w/short-link label (a more recent admin. habit) and change the background color to white (necessitated when blog upgrade retroactively changed the default background color to “yuck pale green”), add a post border line and my now standard font: fairly routine changes.

Otherwise I’m not attempting to improve its curb appeal, not even for quotes (now I often add boxes around them), missing or expired images to logos (now I often take screenshots to avoid that happening), and especially not trying to correct TAGGS.HHS.Gov margins; TAGGs itself has had a major restructure since them).  My purpose is for quoting on Twitter.  I think the message is still relevant, still “missed” by too many, and worth repeating.

Some terms, individual and nonprofit or program names now much more mainstream as specific public policy models, I was questioning this far back; just over two years after the entire apparatus was cracked open on comprehending the basic concepts behind “Federal incentives to States” under Welfare Reform (two specific funding streams) + where groups like Association of Family and Conciliation Courts’ cult-like, court-connected, nonprofit-spawning  group behaviors style=”(it being a membership association primarily of judges, family lawyers, mediators, custody evaluators, and such — people MOST likely to make a FINE living from family court referrals, if not already public civil servants in that capacity!) fit in.

Not including this message and above label, the post is still About 21,000 words (note: that includes all words within all TAGGS tables too)..

---

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

First published Oct. 20, 2011 | Short-link ends “-Tb”| about 21,000 words, by LGH (“LetUsGetHonest”)

(Today [Oct. 2011], I simply blogged, and continued — incorporating some discussion about our two main databases, about access/visitation grants, demonstrating the importance of doing trademark registration searches on groups (as in Colorado) and following up on a California-based group (influence found in Colorado by way of Washington) which, having been formed in 1970 as “Mothers Anonymous” and intended to help mothers involved in child abuse stop it, was within one year of incorporation changed to “Parents Anonymous,” got its stuff trademarked, was already, or got “in” with the HHS & DOJ — and is doing, currently about $18 million worth of business with HHS & DOJ combined.

The influence of fatherhood promotion is definitely showing in its materials, as well as the habit of marketing, marketin g, getting the trademark licensed, certifying accreditation to teach one’s own private curriculum brand — AND with close ties to Los Angeles County Judicial System among its board members.  This group was THE top grantee of a certain category (in the year 2002), and I hadn’t even heard of it before.

I did not finish with the El Paso County, Colorado information (at bottom), and connecting the work of CPR & PSI to actual Child Support Enforcement Groups (via a different, trademarked name), but although it’s LONGwinded — I guarantee you, taken in small installations, this IS a very informative post.

I also catch TAGGS omitting DUNS# (such that many, many grants will remain unseen) and usaspending.gov doing the exact same thing — with the DUNS#, $697K grants showed (for parents anonymous).  Omitting the DUNS$ the $18 million surfaced.  O Mi God . . . ..

I am publishing without apologies:  Read at your own risk!

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

Oct. 21, 2011 update:

Concern #1:

March 9, 2009 letter from the Executive Office of the Massachusetts, Dept. of Environmental Protection, a 6-page letter to the US Office of Inspector General, expresses concern that ICF was used to evaluate.  Troubling 2009 protest of ICF assessment (topic:  drinking water contaminate perchlorate, as to cumulative effects on fetus, infants, and children’s neurodevelopment / hypothyroidism; article was “rushed out the door” (full of errors), potential conflict of interest, etc.) – – –

The letter is signed by:  Tzedash Zewdie, Ph.D./Toxicologist; Carol Rowan-West, MSPH/Director, Office of Research and Standards, and C.Mark Smith, Ph.D.,SM/Deputy Director of Office of Research and Standards, and Toxicologist.  Among other concerns were the dumping of the responsibility for protection from water contamination upon the most vulnerable sectors of the public (young children), to take iodide supplements, and not on the polluters.  The letter recommends the OIG make available the drafts from which the OIG (using ICF) got its conclusion.

[article abstract from link to Dr. Zewdie, above): Perchlorate inhibits (blocks, slows, lowers etc.) iodide-uptake in the thyroid.   Iodide is required to synthesize hormones critical to fetal and neonatal development. Many water supplies and foods are contaminated with perchlorate.  Massachusetts has stricter and more protective standards than other “regulatory agencies”].  

(If ICF fudges on something this basic to health of fetuses, infants, and young children, how are they going to be handling the more general, marriage & fatherhood factor?)

Concern #2:

A Wikipedia article (flagged by Wikipedia as probably less than objective) shows how many firms ICF began acquiring, and notes that its CEO is from MIT.  What I’m concerned about is why HHS lists this corporation as “City” and not a contractor…..  And its habit of acquiring company after company….  Reminds me of Maximus, the child support giant…

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

We are still on this topic:  Who are the groups that got these grants?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Monday, October 3, 2011
Contact: Kenneth J. Wolfe
(202) 401-9215

ACF announces over $119 million in Grant Awards for Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood

HHS’ Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance (OFA) today announced $119,393,729 in grant awards to 120 grantees to promote healthy marriage and responsible fatherhood. Authorized by the Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (CRA), the grant awards will help fathers and families build strong relationships to support the well-being of their children.

As ever, the missing noun, “mothers.”  Leaving it out is accurate, as these do NOT help mothers build strong relationships with their kids, rather, it helps completely eliminate contact with the children in some cases, in order to be more fair to fathers (supposedly) in the courts.  Once a family court has eliminated such contact, including by refusing to do anything about ongoing violations of existing court orders, or ongoing threats making attempts to re-establish broken contact a Russian Roulette for some mothers, many, many of the organizations set up to help “BUILD STRONG RELATIONSHIPS” for the kids, refuse to help mothers — at all — even contact them.  It is a win-win situation for any substandard father whose real goal is to hurt that mother through taking her kids.

It is a lose-lose situation for the taxpayers, who will have clean-up duty, or pay for ongoing monitoring procedures (supervised visitation centers) which themselves sometimes come up fraudulent.

“A strong and stable family is the greatest advantage any child can have,” said George Sheldon, HHS acting assistant secretary for children and families. “These grants support programs that promote responsible parenting, encourage healthy relationships and marriage, and help families move toward self-sufficiency and economic stability.”

The Healthy Marriage program awarded a total of $59,997,077 in grants, which include 60Community-Centered Healthy Marriage grants and a National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage grant. The Responsible Fatherhood program awarded a total of $59,396,652 in grants, which include 55 Pathways to Responsible Fatherhood grants and four Community-Centered Responsible Fatherhood Ex-Prisoner Reentry Pilot Project grants.

THE PRESS RELEASE LIST OF GRANTEES:

After painstakingly comparing the recent ACF announcement on how and to whom it scattered $119 million (more) of “healthy marriage  / responsible fatherhood” grants, in a press release which listed no contact, no grant award number, and did not even use the same Grantee names as the database on which one can look these up does (http://TAGGS.hhs.gov, which I keep promoting and quoting on this blog), I have found a 1:1 correspondence to my “90FM” series and the list — with 3 exceptions.

My comment to the last post, I named the few exceptions (including $1.2 million omitted, and about $800K under-reported as to ANTHEM, and this group “ICF” which I had found on-line, but nowhere in the TAGGS database.  Til just now.

I also started a new page on this blog (2011 Healthy Marriage Grantees . . . Speed- Dating), but its layout isn’t much better.

I uploaded my printout (which is horizontal and wont fit on this post).  Using the TAGGS list, instinctively having discovered the grants series, only to discover that someone had fudged entering the “principal investigator’s” last names – – I had only one group left to locate:  ICF, Incorporated out of Fairfax, Virginia, which got a $1.5 million grant to push marriage education, presumably.

Finally I googled the ridiculous set of initials “NRCSPHM” after speculating on their potential meaning (looks like I didn’t read the press release carefully enough, having just skipped to the list of grantees), and found a grants opportunity announcement from San Bernadino County, CA — leading to the interpretation:

NATIONAL

RESOURCE CENTER

for

STRATEGIES

to

PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE

= NRCSPHM, “obviously”

How grandiose.

Is it not enough to let corporations form, dissolve, and reform to make nonprofits (that don’t report properly to the IRS, or their local state registry of charitable trusts, as required to by law, from the same, fairly narrow set of marriage promoters with government contacts in HHS and/or to the National Fatherhood Intiative, plus those working in the child support and welfare  fields, plus anyone whose gut instinct leads them to join some of the right-wing, mega-churches that advertise their wares on-line and run off to Uganda and other sub-Saharan Africa countries to make sure the gays are not getting out of hand, and support leadership who recommend handling this by killing them?

Or groups that believe the best way to stop the spread of AIDS is by persuading hormone-ridden teenagers in school systems which do NOT challenge them adequately to refrain from sex (while failing to account for middle-aged or other adult males who cannot refrain from having sex with THEIR KIDS, or other kids). . . . ..

Just for the record, some marriages need to be broken up because they are just a little to close for comfort, either for the person being assaulted, or for the inappropriate sexual relationships with minors in the family.  And those of us who have gotten OUT of some of those situations, and family lines where this was occurring, do not appreciate standing by for the next decade and watching public funds to used to propagate ridiculous practices based on paid-for theory that doesn’t account for exceptions, doesn’t require grantees to really even be legal entities, doesn’t MONITOR the funds from start to finish, and can’t show any results more than accounts of warm bodies who ALLEGEDLY sat through their classes.

We are having ongoing murder/suicide around custody “disputes,” while the groups running the thing run off and meet in exotic or plush conferences, tax-deductible, to run mutual trainings, tax-deductible, and make up new themes to describe the “flawed parents” they are (sigh) forced to deal with in the process of rescuing children and eliminating the concept of crime as crime, to be replaced with new definitions they have (privately) agreed upon, and how to get these “solutions” voted into state laws.  If you’re lost, this paragraph was talking about the AFCC; any paragraph about the related CRC would have to talk about the practice of financing this through child support and welfare diversions.  That was called “Welfare Reform,” FYI.

There was already a “NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER” in California — Dennis Stoica, registered agent:

OK, I let off enough steam (don’t worry, I’m pissed, but not armed, except with information) to get to the point of this post.

I finally found the missing $1,500,000 grant, and grantee.

Do you know why earlier search hadn’t located “ICF, INC”??  Well, looks here like someone decided to put spaces inbetween the initials in the name, although in the ACF press release the acronym for the project award had no spaces:

ICF Incorporated, LLC (NRCSPHM)

Fairfax

VA

$1,500,000

			Award Title	Sum of Actions
2011	ACF	I C F, INC	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE	$ 1,500,000

Then I looked up the name, with its idiosyncratic TAGGS database entry, spacing between the letters of the name.  OH — there was about another $1 million of grants?

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
I C F, INC	FAIRFAX	VA	22031-6050	FAIRFAX	072648579	$ 2,477,256

The company under which Healthy Marriage (a.k.a. “Responsible Fatherhood,” same diff…) shows as “ICF International” (see below).  But 

under ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.” in Bloomberg  (Businessweek/Investing), after noting “no key executives listed,” and a 1969 founding, shows why we should be giving this company a financial boost, with a $$5.5 million start-up grant, rather than an actual contract:

ICF Incorporated, L.L.C. Wins $107,631,975 Modified Federal Contract

02/1/2011

Office of Acquisition Management (Environmental Protection Agency), EPA/Headquarters, has awarded a $107,631,975.00 modified federal contract on Feb. 1 for professional, administrative, and management support services to ICF Incorporated, L.L.C.

ICF Inc Win $8,462,890 Federal Contract

12/25/2010

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., announced that it has won a $8,462,890 federal contract from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Acquisition Management, Cincinnati, for technical and regulatory support for the development of criteria for water media.

ICF Inc. Wins $4.92 Million Federal Contract

09/30/2010

ICF Inc., Fairfax, Va., won a $4,919,708 federal contract from the U.S. Department of Education’s Contracts and Acquisitions Management for race to the top technical assistance network under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.  [“ARRA”]

Well, no, actually more like $3,656,370 million since 2007, and this organization is categorized as “City Government,” although it’s a private, for-profit corporation, from what I can tell in the real world outside TAGGS:

Recipient:	I C F, INC
Address:	9300 LEE HIGHWAY FAIRFAX, VA 22031-6050
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	FAIRFAX
HHS Region:	3
Type:	Supplier Organizations ( Service, Supplies, Material and Equipment )
Class:	City Government

AWARD ACTIONS

Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2011	90FH0002	NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	00	ACF	09-28-2011	072648579	$ 1,500,000
2011	90PD0271	SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARNINGHOUSE	1	0	ACF	09-27-2011	072648579	$ 977,256
Fiscal Year 2011 Total:								$ 2,477,256

 

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2010	90PD0270	SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE	2	0	ACF	09-17-2010	072648579	$ 500,000
Fiscal Year 2010 Total:								$ 500,000

 

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	@@##Amount This Action
2009	90LH0001	NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE	1	2	ACF	06-15-2009	072648579	$- 702,966
2009	90PD0270	SELF-SUFFICIENCY RESEARCH CLEARINGHOUSE	1	0	ACF	09-18-2009	072648579	$ 500,000
{{LGH:  See FOOTNOTES}} Fiscal Year 2009 Total:								$-202,966

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2007	90LH0001	NATIONAL CHILD CARE TOLL-FREE HOTLINE	1	0	ACF	09-21-2007	072648579	$ 882,080
Fiscal Year 2007 Total:								$ 882,080

 

Total of all award actions:

$ 3,656,370

{{{FOOTNOTES:  These comments appeared in FY2009 Total “Amount” column.  Unclear whether they’re HHS’ or mine.  Probably mine, from 2011 post..quoting from ICF International website at that time}}

Also in 2005, ICF International acquired Caliber Associates, a Fairfax, Virginia, firm that provided high-end consulting services, primarily to U.S. federal clients.In 2007, ICF International acquired Energy and Environmental Analysis (EEA), Advanced Performance Consulting Group (APCG), Z-Tech Corporation, and SH&E.In 2008, ICF acquired Jones & Stokes.^[3]In 2009, ICF International acquired Macro International Inc.^[4] and Jacob & Sundstrom, Inc.^[5]

In 2010, ICF acquired Marbek Resource Consultants Ltd.^[6]

In 2011, ICF acquired AeroStrategy LLC

---

This is a major corporation doing major business with the US Govt and others; it was founded originally by a Tuskeegee airman, and has deep connections to the defense industry and technology.   (read up from its site).  It went public (Trading on NASDAQ) as of 2006 for $12.00 a share and is danged impressive!

This is the “SHORT” description.  AGAIN, I note that the TAGGS database did NOT give its accurate name (omitting the “INTERNATIONAL”) for some reason spaced out the letters of its name (which the company, obviously, does not do) and so forth.  Here is website description from the news release on its going public in 2006

ICF International (Nasdaq: ICFI) partners with government and commercial clients to deliver consulting services and technology solutions in the energy, environment, transportation, social programs, defense, and homeland security markets. The firm combines passion for its work with industry expertise and innovative analytics to produce compelling results throughout the entire program life cycle, from analysis and design through implementation and improvement. Since 1969, ICF has been serving government at all levels, major corporations, and multilateral institutions. More than 1,800 employees serve these clients worldwide. ICF’s Web site is http://www.icfi.com.

CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS in Fairfax, VA

 

Here they are describing their “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD” work (no mention is made of “marriage” in the overview).  They are experienced in transforming communities, and no doubt, their work will indeed continue to give father(hood practitioners and promoters) the PR edge and corporate influence, plus public presence through social media, that mothers — who are losing their kids to these fatherhood programs in droves, now — do not have someone doing for our cause, although we give birth to these children, after 9 months (Usually) sometimes nurse them, alter our lives to take care of them, and have a President who has only expanded the programs that his Presidential forebears put in place, which cause this trouble to women leaving abuse while there is a family court system waiting, with open jaws, to direct traffic to one of their family-strengthening programs…

ICF helps U.S. federal and state agencies, grantees, nonprofit agencies, and service providers in reaching communities, fathers, and families with the message of how responsible fatherhood is critically linked to nearly every aspect of a thriving community.

Our experts bring skills from the fields of youth at risk, education, children and youth, poverty, and family strengthening and can see the links among these areas. Although the issue has been recently spotlighted in the media and in policy, ICF’s work in this area spans years.

ICF contributes toward finding ways to help providers implement programs that improve outcomes for children and families. We have helped service providers implement systemic changes to bring men into mentoring, civic life, and neighborhood stabilization efforts in ways that have wide-ranging impact.

We help organizations get the information that they need to develop programs that support fathers and families through a range of services including:  (See site for the list):

… CLIENTS (and we see it’s not the OCSE, but the OFA)

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

• Administration for Children and Families (ACF)
  • Office of Family Assistance (OFA)

The most recent one they are doing acknowledges — taking TANF monies and trying to direct traffic to a FBCO (Faith-based group) — which in the case of women trying to leave abuse, which SOMETIMES includes abuse by priests, preachers, or pastors, or at least coverups of this BY them, after being made aware of it (it’s part of the religious territory) will then have the same types of groups rooting for the men they are trying to keep a safe distance from.  I”m going to post the list of projects, current and past, done by this organization.  (No WONDER things are getting rough around the edges in family courts!)

PLEASE NOTE:  the ACF Press release mentions this $1.5 million grant going to the “healthy marriage” grantee portion (as if this wasn’t primarily promoting paternalism anyhow) — but as far as I can tell, ICF International considers the project to be filed under “RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD.”  That is the program link.

http://www.icfi.com/markets/families-and-communities/responsible-fatherhood#tab-2-projects

• Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and Faith-Based Community Organization (FBCO) Collaboration

  With our strong research capacity and experienced practitioner-consultants, ICF is improving state and local TANF services by connecting local programs with high-performing FBCOs already serving similar populations.

• Welfare Peer Technical Assistance (WPTA)

  ICF administers technical assistance to WPTA, which facilitates the sharing of information between and among States, Territories, Tribes, and localities and helps establish linkages between organizations serving the needs of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) participants.

• National Healthy Families Technical Assistance Project

  ICF supports OFA and its technical assistance teams in providing seamless, comprehensive technical assistance (TA) to support the needs of Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood Education grantees.

• National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse (NRFC)

  ICF leads content management and direction for the National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse, which serves as a national repository and distribution center for information and research relating to responsible fatherhood programs, initiatives and activities.

• Office of Family Assistance (OFA) Targeted Technical Assistance

  ICF provides technical assistance planning and delivery, research, writing, training, and wraparound product development to OFA Targeted Technical Assistance, an innovative technical assistance and project support contract.

{{Sev’l expired-link logos from 2011 were removed during 2018 quick-edit update//LGH}}

 

Now that I have a DUNS#, let’s see how much business other than HHS grants, they do with us, meaning the U.S.

ICF INTERNATIONAL INC.

Healthy Marriage Grantee does over $1 BILLION Of BUSINESS with the US Government.

(notice its name shows different here, too).

USASPENDING.GOV:

• Total Dollars:$1,116,743,207
• Transactions:1 – 25 of 6,935

For example, this grant:

Transaction Number # 5

PIID: HHSP23320110015YC (Definitive Contract)

Recipient: ICF INTERNATIONAL INC. 9300 LEE HWY , FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA Reason for Modification: Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Office of Asst. Sec. for Health except national centers (disused code) Product/Service Code: R408 : Program Management/Support Services Description: CHILDREN’S BUREAU CLEARINGHOUSE SERVICES

Date Signed: September 30 , 2011Obligation Amount:  $9,481,719

(NOTICE the other database {{USASPENDING.gov}} doesn’t add the spaces between initials of the group’s name). . . .HHS is a world unto itself, for sure…)

From the TIMELINE tab (on this DUNS# for ICF, INC) it shows that 2003 was a low, 2009, a substantial jump, and 2011 looks to be a banner year for the company.

Of the $1 billion plus of business, $32 million were received in 84 grants, the most (or, largest amount) in 2009.

• Total Dollars:$32,702,456
• Transactions:1 – 25 of 84

NOT that you can rely on this database, either (i’ve found by experience, but here’s the other acknowledgement — it aint’ complete, or accurate, or reliable);

I checked “Health and Human Services” (5 grants) and came up with a smaller number than are on the TAGGS database, by about $1.5 million:   The last reward does not show yet.  (however in other searches, I’ve found grants in prior years, over $1 million, that didn’t make it onto USASpending ever, apparently.  I have typically thought of this as USASpending UNDER-reporting, and only recently (when associated with all the other “anomalies” of the TAGGS database) considered the possibility of HHS OVER-reporting, which would be consistent with the practices of some of their court-affiliated grantees, a few of who have been caught (I’m thinking particularly in the supervised visitation field:  Karen Anderson, Genia Shockome cases .. … )

• Total Dollars:$2,156,370
• Transactions:1 – 5 of 5

COMMENTARY on USASPENDING.GOV (various, random):

OMB falls short on USASpending.gov data, GAO says

OMB has not included subcontracting award data on USAspending.gov and has no specific plan for collecting such data.

• By Matthew Weigelt
• Mar 15, 2010

The USASpending.gov Web site has been live for more than two years so the public can see where its tax dollars are going, but the site’s data has not been complete nor accurate, according to a new report.

USASpending.gov went live Dec.13, 2007–a month earlier than the legislated deadline. It’s a Web site compiling a comprehensive list of the more than $1 trillion in financial assistance awarded through contracts, loans and grants. Congress mandated such a site in its Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA), which became law in September 2006.

Since the Office of Management and Budget launched the site, OMB has fallen short of several of program requirements, the Government Accountability Office [“GAO”] reported March 12.

Or, from 2011, from “SUNLIGHT FOUNDATION”:

House Oversight Subcommittee Discusses Problems with USASpending.gov Data

Kaitlin Lee

March 15, 2011, 4:46 p.m.

On Friday, Ellen testified in front of the Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and Procurement Reform, a subcommittee of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. Her testimony mostly focused on the findings from our Clearspending project, which assessed the data quality of the grant programs in USASpending.gov. It was heartening to see the committee taking the issue of data quality in USASpending.gov so seriously. While admittedly not a sexy topic, this issue has serious implications in decisions that the government makes about our federal spending. To quote Rep. Issa’s (CALIFORNIA) opening statement, “The failures to make the data right is the reason we’re not getting a responsible government”.

Clearspending found nearly $1.3 trillion dollars in misreported spending in 2009. This includes spending reports that were late, incomplete or inconsistent with other information sources that track federal spending. In Ellen’s testimony, she discussed two specific examples of poor data quality in USASpending.gov: the Department of Education reported over $6 trillion in student loans for 2010 and the Department of Agriculture did not report any spending for the National School Lunch Program, which obligated $8 billion in grants last year. The CIOs from both these agencies also testified on the panel, and were given a chance to respond to our critiques during the committee Q&A.

Chris Smith, the CIO of the USDA, testified that the reason the grants were not reported was because they went to individuals, and the law governing grant reporting does not require reporting for grants to individuals. However, the actual program description describes these grants as formula grants to states. The entity receiving the grant is a state, not an individual, and therefore the grant is subject to the reporting requirements. Smith also mentioned that the transactions were under $25,000 and therefore not subject to the reporting requirement. While this may be the case, it seems unlikely. The program in question has a $10 billion bu

You Will Be Watched on USASpending.gov…Maybe Even Prosecuted SUNDAY, JANUARY 13. 2008 AT 01:32 PM | BY COBY LOGEN IN BREAKIN’ THE LAW I intended to write about how innovative and exciting USASpending.govis, because it opens up extensive government budget databases: you can search, browse, and even write programs to query the system.But, that changed when I read this on the home page:WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information. Wow.I guess Uncle Sam doesn’t really want to open up his budget for public review.

dget. Let’s say that each state gets an equal payment once a month. That would still be over $16 million dollars per transaction–not even close to the $25,000 minimum. It seems that the reporting guidelines have been misinterpreted in this case.

and, a rather frightening 2007 article on USASPENDING.gov from “DOTGOVWATCH.ORG” indicates, while we are flopping around hoping to get some sensible information, or doing so is likely to be watched, and that the home page contained this warning:

WARNING: This is a United States Federal Government computer system that is “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY.” This system is subject to monitoring. Therefore, no expectation of privacy is to be assumed. Individuals found performing unauthorized activities are subject to disciplinary action including criminal prosecution. Click here for more information.  {link has moved since….}

GRANT ANNOUNCEMENT for this NRCSPHM:

National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage  HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207

Summary

Funding Opportunity Title:	National Resource Center for Strategies to Promote Healthy Marriage
Funding Opportunity Number (FON):	HHS-2011-ACF-OFA-FH-0207
Program Office:	Office of Family Assistance
Funding Type:	Discretionary
Funding Category:	Cooperative Agreement  (WITH WHOM??)
Announcement Type:	Initial
CFDA#:	93.086
Post Date:	06/28/2011
Application Due Date:	07/28/2011

Description

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Family Assistance (OFA) is announcing the solicitation of applications to competitively award cooperative agreements for demonstration projects that support “healthy marriage promotion activities” as authorized by The Claims Resolution Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-291).The cooperative agreement awarded under the Funding Opportunity Announcement will support the development, implementation, management of a National Resource Center for Marriage and Relationship Education (NRCMRE).The NRCMRE will support marriage and relationship education (MRE) program development, implementation, and integration. ACF is responsible for Federal programs that promote the economic and social well-being of families, children, individuals, and communities.  The NRCMRE will provide MRE information, resources,and technical assistance designed to assist in the development of a broad approach to serving families and children by incorporating MRE into already existing services.

WHAT”S NEW?  Welfare Reform has always supported DHHS running social science experimentations on the American Public, and required states receiving assistance — access visitation assistance — to help the Secretary of HHS (NOTE:  Presidential appointee, not elected) — run them:

This SEpt. 1999 “ACTION TRANSMITTAL” (internal HHS document posted on-line) regarding 45 CFR 303.109 shows that there was not even a requirement to monitor what happened to the grants added until 2 years after they’d been in operation!  Nor was there a stipulation for protection procedures.  It provides a nice history of the Access Visitation procedures, which apparently started in 1988 with $4 million and have been at $10 million/year since 1996 or so.  Obama Administration likes to stay on the good side of the fatherhood movement and so has been promising to increase and expand this.

Recommended browsing for review, and for newcomers to the concept that the Federal Government is interested in your family court case, and tweaking the outcome of it through federal incentives to the states.

Apr 28, 1999

AT-99-007

Final Rule – Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

The intro gets a little technical, but read it anyhow:

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
Administration for Children & Families
Office of Child Support Enforcement

AT-99-07

ISSUED: April 28, 1999

TO: STATE AGENCIES ADMINISTERING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT PLANS UNDER TITLE IV-D OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERESTED INDIVIDUALS

SUBJECT: Final Rule 150 Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting

BACKGROUND: Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs is a recent program to enable States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate noncustodial parent’s access to and visitation of their children. $10 million per year has been granted to States since 1997; it is a continuing capped appropriation. Funds are granted to states based upon the number of children in single family households, a $50,000 minimum per state will be increased to $100,000 this year. The range of grants is from $100,000 to nearly $1 million per year. State programs are managed by agencies designated by the Governor; many states do not operate the program through the IV-D agency. Funds may be used for the following activities: mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pick up), and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

ATTACHMENT: Attached is the final rule published in the Federal Register on March 30, 1999 (64 FR 15132-6). This is a new regulation mandated by Section 469B(e)(3) of the Social Security Act which was enacted by Section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996. This rule is consistent with the President’s Memorandum of March 4, 1995 to the heads of Department and Agencies which announced a government-wide Regulatory Reinvention Initiative to reduce or eliminate mandated burdens on States and others.

REGULATORY REFERENCE: 45 CFR Parts 303.109

DATES: This regulation is effective April 29, 1999

INQUIRIES: ACF Regional Administrators

__________________________
David Gray Ross
Commissioner
Office of Child Support Enforcement

. . .

SUMMARY: This final rule implements provisions contained in section 391 of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 and establishes the requirements for State monitoring, reporting and evaluation of Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs. Access and Visitation programs support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ access to and visitation of their children by means of activities including mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision and neutral drop-off and pickup) and development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements.

In Trumbull, OHIO — very recently — a young girl (13 months old) was RAPED by both her parents in a supervised visitation facility; which was discovered not by the supervising facility (obviously) but by a relative who caught images on the cell phone. The same mother’s prior daughter, “Tiffany” had been snatched by the foster care system at birth, and — in a foster home with mother and father — had been in 2009, killed by ‘asphyxiation associated with blunt trauma.”  This was not a custody situation, but a CPS-type situation. . . . .

To show their appreciation for reporting something they had missed, the system ALSO took the two-year old son of the relative who did the right thing and reported — called the police, disowned the relative who had perpetrated this horror.  Ohio is up in arms about this, and I have a post in draft format exploring how the funding works in OHIO to enable this kind of “protection” of children.  I found out that (speaking of incentives to break up families — while HHS pays other people to strengthen them) the Ohio DJFS (Dept of Job & Family Services) or whatever it’s called, got $206 MILLION — in 2011 alone — for Adoption Incentives, and $191 MILION for Foster Care (or vice versa).  Maybe these were support payments to foster care families and not just incentives, but the amount clearly trounced other payments under the same DUNS# for this major department.

All the fatherhood fundings seem to come to this dept. as well as the access visitation fundings.  I found it tied into the Marriage Education stream as well, at the sate level, and linked to a TENNESSEE group selling curricula, a (nonprofit?) called FIRST THINGS FIRST.  The item in question was trying to encourage black families to get and stay married, specifically.  I think OHIO is a bit afraid of black people; they should move to East or West Coast (or Chicago) and “get real!” vs. trying to regulate breeding behaviors through selling marriage education!

Let me quote this 1999 HHS Action Transmittal (of a final rule regulating access/visitation grants) — because it’s not a half-bad summary, or birds-eye view of how some of these programs (including the healthy marriage system also) really got entrenched and became the norm:

AT-9907, Issued April 28, 1999

History of Federal Involvement in Access and Visitation

The Federal financial involvement in access and visitation began when the Family Support Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-485) authorized up to $4 million each year for fiscal years 1990 and 1991 for State demonstration projects to develop, improve, or expand activities designed to increase compliance with child access provisions of court orders.

Typically the process of encouraging someone to comply with a court order is contained right in the legal process.  You file a contempt order with the court, and the judge rules on this, or sanctions someone.  What necessity was there to develop programs to “encourage” U.S. citizens to comply with rule of law, or a court order?  I do not believe this could’ve been the genuine purpose, just the alleged purpose.  Designing programs to manipulate people’s behavior is manipulation, period. using public money to do so, I say, is wrong.  We EXPECT people to adhere to a common standard, and then use the existing state and local court systems, so all know what the standards are, and there can be a common expectation of ethics.  Alas, this system was much more distant from the people affected (i.e. voted on in washington; but some of us live on the other coast).

The legislation required an evaluation of these projects and a Report to Congress on the findings. In October 1996, the Department of Health and Human Services transmitted to Congress the report entitled, “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects”. The report indicated that requiring both parents to attend mediation sessions and developing parenting plans was successful for cases without extensive long-term problems.

In September, 1996, the U.S. Commission on Child and Family Welfare submitted a report to the President and Congress which strongly endorsed additional emphases at all government levels, especially State and local levels, to ensure that each child from a divorced or unwed family have a parenting plan which encourages and enables both parents to stay emotionally involved with the child(ren).

Finally, PRWORA added a new provision at section 391 to award funds annually to States to establish and administer programs to support and facilitate non-custodial parents’ (fathers or mothers) access to, and visitation of, their children. Activities funded by this program include mediation (both voluntary and mandatory), counseling, education, development of parenting plans, visitation enforcement (including monitoring, supervision, neutral drop-off and pickup), development of guidelines for visitation and alternative custody arrangements. States may administer programs directly or through contracts or grants with courts, local public agencies, or nonprofit private entities; States are not required to operate such programs on a statewide basis. Under this provision, the amount of the grant to be made to the State shall be the lesser of 90 percent of State expenditures during the fiscal year for activities just described or the allotment to the State for the fiscal year. The Federal government will pay for 90 percent of project costs, up to the amount of the grant allotment. In other words, States are required to provide for at least ten percent of project funding even if they do not spend their entire allotment. The allotment would be determined as follows: an amount which bears the same ratio to $10,000,000 for grants as the number of children in the State living with only 1 biological parent bears to the total number of such children in all States. Such allotments are to be adjusted so that no State is allotted less than $50,000 for fiscal years 1997 and 1998 or $100,000 for any succeeding fiscal year.

As you can see, Congress wants these programs in operation. As it says, they are directed towards fathers (admittedly then, and probably still (though less so now, about 15 years later) who are the main noncustodial parents and ones paying child support (although — is anyone keeping track??))  So right here, unknown to me (I was in a marriage, getting assaulted at the time, like many other women), my government was setting up programs to encourage INCREASING noncustodial parent time beyond whatever we would eventually decide ourselves, without these programs’ involvement.

Personal/Anecdotal re:  Mediation:

This also resulted — in my case — of going straight to mandated mediation upon a restraining order having been made permanent, and in that condition (while I was still in shock, and probably he was also) a court order was figured out in a VERY short time frame (one appointment), where I was not in shape to protect my boundaries, informed of the access visitation programs, or knowledgeable even about the rules of court for DV cases.  Our mediation almost completely defeated the prime stipulations of the restraining order.  Bad idea!   But because a restraining order was such a huge leap, at the time, our family didn’t know what it’d just been cheated out of, on the basis of anticipation that their father was going to bail out on child support (before any was really set, even!), and needed more policy to encourage him to pay.

Here is how this Action Transmittal responds to comments raised by DV advocates, or at least some, as to safety issues.  Please note that this is 1999, and only NOW has any provision whatsoever regarding safety to the custodial parent been raised:

Comment: There was a concern among commenters that the regulation contains no requirement to monitor whether States are screening potential clients for domestic violence (spousal or child abuse) to ensure that the battered spouse is not put at further risk.

In 2006 (10 years later) and in countless instances inbetween, a woman was murdered during an exchange of children.  However, as her husband had buried her, and no body was found, it was an unusual high-profile trial:  Two children (6 & 8) were there when she was murdered during the routine, court-ordered exchange.  Finally, the man was convicted, and as part of his plea-bargain, helped the police by leading them to the (shallow grave) 3 miles from his home:  Hans & Nina Reiser case.   DastardlyDads blogspot keeps count (I couldn’t handle doing this, have no idea how the person in question does):  see (February 2011 post)

175 Killer Dads: Fathers who ended their children’s lives in situations involving child custody, visitation, and/or child support (USA) An update to our previous 76 Killer Dads, 88 Killer Dads, and 138 Killer Dads lists.

“This is NOT a comprehensive list of all U.S. fathers who have killed their children in situations involving domestic violence and/or child abuse. This list is limited to articles I have found where there is an identifiable child custody, visitation, and/or child support angle in the children’s deaths. Even then, I can’t claim that this is a comprehensive list of child custody, visitation, and or child-support- related murders. Quite often, newspaper articles just don’t provide enough information to make a judgment call.”

This person was simply reading the newspaper accounts, and keeping a count.  Notice — PLENTY from 2008 – 2010.  There is no question that the presence of these access and visitation grants  enabled and encouraged some very bad behaviors, such as murder.  It has also made it nearly impossible for marriages which really should have been split up and NOT have continued involvement by a perpetrator of violence upon mother Or child(ren) — to become separate entitities.

 Why?  Because sometimes the child support arrears literally extorts the father into waging a custody battle he may not even want.

Recently (for Pete’s sake!) an assistant deputy attorney (I forget exact title), a mother working for the California Attorney General, had her little girl abducted on a court-ordered (?) visitation, and despite her frantic calls to get the baby back, FBI didn’t issue the Amber Alert (per procedures to WAIT LONGER when it’s parental involvement) and there was a murder -suicide.  GUESS WHAT:  THIS POLICY ENABLED THAT (Samaan/Fay).  If even someone working in this arm of government cannot save her own child’s life, what have we come to?

IF they do persuade/encourage/facilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their children in cases where there were BAD, VISITATION-OBSTRUCTING MOMS (and NOT prior abuse, violence, or threats in the relatioship) —

ANYHOW, here was the 1999 response to what I’d call women’s rights organizations to this policy and these grants:

Response: We share the concerns for safety expressed by commentators who wrote about domestic violence.

No they don’t.  Not really.  I do not believe the people responding here were themselves in situations where a life was at risk, possibly theirs, possibly their offspring’s, around custody issues.  If it had been, the response would’ve been less “detached” and “handsoff” in nature:

Access and visitation by a non-custodial parent can lead to dangerous situations for some parents and their children. The safety of the custodial parents and their children must be addressed when it is a problem.

CAN?  It already had been; the wording should have been “has led.”  And “dangerous situations” doesn’t use the word “lethal” in any way, which it should’ve.

But — because of child suppport ,and because of child psychologist reports about continuing contact, there MUST be no complete separation from the criminally behaving parent.

It is our intent to encourage States to ensure safety when necessary in implementing grants under this program. States should develop procedures to assess the degree of danger, weighing sensitively the assertions of both parents.

“Weighing sensitively” replaces, evaluating the truth of . .. But the, we’re talking family courts…..

In response to the comments, we have added to the regulation a new requirement under Sec. 303.109(a) requiring States to monitor programs to safeguard against domestic violence, as follows: “(a) Monitoring. The State must monitor all programs funded under Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs to ensure that the programs * * * contain safeguards to ensure the safety of parents and children.”

Comment: Several commenters suggested that the regulation require specific approaches for addressing problems that may occur in activities funded by these grants. Concerns were noted regarding mandated mediation and supervised transfer and visitation of children.

Response: Since we wish to provide maximum flexibility to the States, we have not required specific approaches to dealing with issues of domestic violence. Consistent with our authority under the Statute to regulate what the States need to monitor, we require States to monitor their grantees to ensure that there are procedures in place and being used to ensure safety.

Regarding mandated mediation, we wish to make clear that the statute does not mandate mediation for any particular clients. Mediation mandated by the courts for contending parents is one service that the States may chose to fund. We recognize that in some cases, mediation may be dangerous for the victim of abuse. There is also evidence that in some cases involving partner abuse, mediation has been effective. This is a service that warrants careful monitoring by States to ensure that safety assessments are conducted. When it is determined not to be warranted, alternative forms of conflict resolution should be used.

Alternative forms of conflict resolution, most likely involving the same stable of family law mediation providers, i.e., AFCC personnel who tend to minimize DV and discredit it.

EVALUATION OF CHILD ACCESS PROJECTS 

This “Evaluation of the Child Access Demonstration Projects,” I have read.  Highlights from this one, published by HHS, acknowledge that the purpose is SPECULATION that more access might mean more child support payments — however, also cites child psychology as it being better for the child to have contact with both children.  This being in 1996, and two short years after the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”) passed, failure to mention it is notable.  Responding to “fathers’ rights groups” IS mentioned:

Purpose

As set forth in the Family Support Act of 1988, this evaluation explored the effect of two waves of Child Access Demonstration projects on the amount of time required to resolve access disputes; reductions in litigation related to access disputes; improvements in compliance with court-ordered child support amounts; and promotion of the emotional adjustment of children. It also assessed the extent and nature of child access disputes as well as parental satisfaction with the demonstrations.

Background

Recent research in child psychology shows generally that close, frequent, and positive contact with the father following divorce and separation is beneficial for the child.

Child access is also important for child support enforcement. Recent Census data and research studies have indicated that where noncustodial parents have visitation rights or joint custody they tend to be more compliant with child support orders, although it is difficult to show cause and effect since the parents wanting to see the child may also be the better payers. Desire for increased child contact may follow child support payment rather than vice versa. Moreover, denial of visitation is seen {{by _ _ _ _ _ _ _??}} as the major reason for nonpayment of child support for noncustodial parents who have money to pay child support.

Whatever the reason is, the person is noncompliant.  Trying to set up programs to “get inside their head” as to why is based on some philosophy, I guess, that it’s more important to please noncompliant parents (NB, at the time, primarily fathers) than to establish — for both parties and for stability for the kids — an expectation that a court order is a court order.  Same for visitation.

There has been considerable pressure {{from fathers and fathers’ groups}} for the system to give support to the needs of noncustodial as well as custodial parents.

In 1996, it’s obvious that then-President Clinton’s 1995 Executive Order to incorporate more ‘Fatherhood” in federal agencies was already out there.  No mention of this seems real odd.

Over 43 States authorize joint custody. There are currently over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs and over 280 fathers’ rights groups organized throughout the country to facilitate child access by noncustodial parents.

Of course there are!  The Children’s Rights Council (Maryland) had been around since the 1980s; and the HHS itself had just provided a tidy grant to start the National Fatherhood Initiative aslo.  Regarding “over 200 court-based divorce mediation programs”  — the organization most pushing mediation has been the AFCC.

A co-founder of AFCC includes Jessica Pearson (hear tell, see NAFCJ.net, also her name is on at least one of its earlier incorporations in California, from Denver; I’ve posted it more than once on-line here).  This report was done by

Congress responded to the continuing public debate about the problem of noninvolvement by noncustodial parents and resulting litigation by directing HHS to conduct State demonstration projects relating to a variety of means of facilitating continuing involvement by the noncustodial parent.

In 1996 a new Federal grant program for child access and visitation programs was established nationwide.  (etc.   . . . You can read it. . .. )

CHILD ACCESS AND VISITATION:  PROMISING PROCEDURES

This is a later (after 2002) summary bearing the typical evaluation credit:  Center for Policy Research / Policy Studies, Inc. (both in Denver).

Its writers (compilers, I gather) are Jessica Pearson and David Price, for the respective agencies.  I’ve profiled both these corporations plenty on the blog and associated Dr. Pearson clearly with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  Its language is apparent here, in discussion A/V funding when it comes to “high-conflict families.”  I think this section pretty much Says it All — in describing the largest court system in the country (California’s) zero mention is made of the phrase “domestic violence.”  Notice the substitutionary words, applied to BOTH parents, not just one.  THey are viewed as a unit, and not as individuals:

The phrase “high-conflict” is used 40 times (approximately once every 4 pages on averate) and an entire chapter is devoted to how to deal with such, “parents.”

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

“To investigate and provide long-term access assistance to families with entrenched disputes and/or serious allegations of parental misconduct, using a variety of court-ordered services.”

“serious allegations of parental misconduct” clearly puts said misconduct into the “behavioral” realm and not criminal.  Readers should understand that the authors, by association, would consider “parental alienation” serious misconduct, as well as alleging or reporting, or having allowed a child to report, any serious misconduct.  There are no moral values or standards outside the dispute resolution industry here, apparently:

INTRODUCTION

Brief investigations by trained court personnel when parents exhibit high conflict behavior, with recommendations to the court on needed services.

It is not necessary to conduct any extended investigation, or read reports of non-court personnel, such as police reports, or CPS reports.

Translation:  This is a “Catch-22.”  If there HAS been “serious parental misconduct” it is going to cause conflict — unless one parent can be extorted or intimidated into silence (which this system helps do). . . .  NO reference to ascertaining the cause of it shows up.  The knee-jerk solution is tell the court to “recommend needed services”

I will translate this formula for driving business to related professionals, or court-affiliated nonprofits another time here:

ANY CONFLICT is an excuse to INCREASE BILLABLE HOURS (whether to Title IV_D provided, or force the parent(s) to pay) to some “SERVICE.”

SECTION 3 SERVICES FOR HIGH-CONFLICT FAMILIES

INTRODUCTION

More approaches listed (on this page, anyhow):

• Multi-session, psycho-educational interventions for parents for whom domestic violence has been an issue, with the objective of helping them parent apart and understand the dynamics of domestic violence.
• Monthly meetings and/or telephone contact on a more frequent basis with mental health professionals to resolve ongoing issues and disputes about access

• Explanatory materials on supervised visitation and exchange services for parents and providers in many languages.
• Supervised exchange services for families who display conflict during drop-off and pick-up of the children
• Supervised visitation services for families with allegations of domestic violence, abuse, and/or other forms of parental misconduct or conflict.
• ␣␣ Teaching inexperienced parents how to interact with their children during supervised visits by providing instruction and feedback.**
• ThedevelopmentofastandingorderofthePresidingJudgeoftheFresnoCountySuperior Court that police can invoke requiring parents to use supervised visitation services if the police are called out two or more times to assist with the exchange of the children.␣␣ Thedevelopmentofa12-weekcurriculumfornever-married,separated,ordivorcedparents where domestic violence has been an issue.

(**aka, do not rape, etc.)

A 12-week curriculum for domestic violence?  (There are 52-week batterers intervention programs, and they aren’t even proven effective…excepting getting out of a jail sentence for DV)

the word “mother” occurs 42 times and “father” more than 100 times.   The document is well worth reading to understand how the court “thinks” about parents walking into its doors, while providing services that the federal government (as of the late 1990s) pays 90% of the expenses for, and that any state paying less than $100K for statewide services will still get $100K for statewide services anyhow.

I have not tracked to what extent this program has been expanded, or the Administration hopes to expand payments for it as of 2012.  I have stomach issues and it’s early in the day, might need to keep any meals down  . . .

David A. Price is a very interesting professional: He publishes consistently opposite the CPR group, and/or with Jane Venohr, Ph.D. (who has been staff in both CPR & PSI), for example, in Colorado:

Multiple Initiatives Grant

• A Profile of Former-TANF and NON-TANF Clients in the IVD Caseload
  Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., 01/24/2000. 
• A Study Of Interest Usage On Child Support Arrears State Of Colorado Final Report
  Jane Venohr, Ph.D., David Price, Ph.D., Esther Griswold, M.A., 06/01/2000. 
• County Policies and Attitudes Towards Incarcerated NCPs
  Esther Ann Griswold, M.A., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 04/24/2000. 
• Longer Term Evaluation of Colorado’s Driver’s License Suspension
  Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 02/24/2000. 
• Survey of State Child Support Policies, Procedures, and Programs for Incarcerated Parents
  Esther Griswold, M.A., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., Christine Allison, M.A., 09/24/2000. 
• The Effects of Repeated Driver’s License Suspensions Among Parents Who Owe Child Support
  Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D., Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., 09/24/2000. 
• Updated Colorado Staffing Standards for Child Support Enforcement
  Jane C. Venohr, Ph.D., David A. Price, Ph.D., 07/28/2000. 

Notice the authors.  (Thoennes is also CPR).   In the selection above, the piece citing David Price has credit like this:

Jane Venohr, Ph.D.

David Price, Ph.D.

Policy Studies Inc.

999 18th Street, Suite 1000

Denver, CO 80202

(303) 863-0900

(on the left — and on the right side, is CPR)

Esther Griswold, M.A., Center for Policy Research 1570 Emerson Street Denver, CO 80218 (303) 837-1555

However, Jane Venohr has been (from the start?  Certainly for a long time) “CPR” — she is one of the 3 key leaders, out of 6 women listed in “About Us.”

Jane Venohr, Ph.D., Research Associate

jvenohr@centerforpolicyresearch.org

Dr. Venohr has over 20 years of experience assessing and researching Medicaid, child care, child support, and other health and human services and workforce programs. She is the nation’s leading expert on child support guidelines and has worked with over 25 states to develop and update guidelines and present them to legislatures.

So for purposes of the study, Jane wore her PSI had with Mr. Price, and someone else wore the CPR had.  This is common among AFCC-personnel; if you don’t know the common association, you just don’t know.  Perhaps in all professions, but I sure notice it among the court’s.   ALSO, in Colorado, “David A. Price” is only associated with two corporations, one of which (he) voluntarily dissolved in 2008, apparently, namely, a law firm:

Found 2 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1. # Name Address Type Count 1 PRICE, DAVID A. 930 ACOMA ST., #415, DENVER, CO 80204, US Registered Agent 1 2 PRICE, DAVID A. 200 GRAND AVE STE 315, GRAND JUNCTION, CO 81501, US Registered Agent 1

The first one was formed (note) in 1984, and he has been filing consistently — unlike many marriage grantees– even this past month! It’s also a nonprofit.

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1. # ID #  Entity Name Entity Type Date Filed Entity Status 1 19871583603  CENTER FOR PUBLIC POLICY STUDIES Nonprofit Corporation 08/15/1984 GOOD

I believe I have pointed this out before, but Policy Studies Inc. has 12 trade names, many of them relating to child support; (always) notice the dates of incorporation:

Found 1 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 1. # Name  Address Type Count 1 POLICY STUDIES INC. 1515 WYNKOOP ST STE. 400, DENVER, CO 80202, US Trade name Registrant 12

[Next 2>]   1   2 Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2. # 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 the last two:

Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 2 of 2.

#	ID Number	Document Number	Name	Status	Form	Effective Date	Comment
11	20021223054	20021223054	BOULDER COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP)	Effective	DPC	08/13/2002 12:00 AM
12	20021223055	20021223055	EL PASO COUNTY PARENT OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM (POP)	Effective	DPC	08/13/2002 12:00 AM

The “Parent Opportunity Programs” have been studied, noted as problemmatic for mothers, by National Alliance of Family Court Judges (Liz Richards).

The El Paso County Child Support Services site has a section on this, what appears to be an access-visitation-funded program, one would think from the description:

This would seem to be a government site, judging by the phrase “El Paso County” and how official it looks.  However the URL is clearly  a *.com:

http://www.elpasocountycss.com/services.html

By Contrast, for example, Jefferson County, CO child support site is clearly a government site (see url http://co.jefferson.co.us/cse/index.htm)  Notice, central to the site:

Fatherhood Program 

The purpose of the Fatherhood Program is to provide education and support for those individuals desiring to enrich their lives and their child(ren) while providing peer based engagement, motivation and indefinite support to individual fathers and families.  These fathers will be educated about practical parenting styles and skills.  Emphasis will be placed on the critical need for fathers to be active in parenting their children {{Access & Visitation…}} as well as serving as positive role models for other children in our communities.  The Fatherhood Program will assist dads to identify and overcome barriers they face in maintaining an active role in their children’s lives,{{also code for access and visitation, possibly including help modifying support or custody orders}} becoming and remaining current on financial obligations to their children, and finding on-going support in the community.

Through a case planning process, a dad’s strengths will be identified, opportunities evaluated and discussed, and a simple written plan formulated.  The plan will identify the responsiblity of the dad and the responsibility theFatherhood Case Manager in implementing the plan.

The  ‘Fatherhood Case Manager’ is listed as a DHHS employee:

“The Fatherhood Program of Jefferson County is a program initiative of The Jefferson County Child Support office and is funded by a grant from the State of Colorado Division of Colorado Works made possible by a grant from The Administration of Children and Families Office of Family Assistance.”  (ACF/OFA, meaning, probably, National).  “Colorado WOrks” is no doubt their welfare program).”  Suppose a noncustodial mother hits this page?  We do exist, even as the silent minority!)

SEE HOW THIS WoRKS, yet?  LInks to, for example:

WEBSITES

www.coloradodads.org
www.familiesfirstcolorado.org

. . .(I explored this site a bit, which includes a home for abused children, and “Circle of Parents(TR), which also turns out to be HHS/OFA funded:

Families First received a Partners for Kids: United Hands Make the Best Families Responsible Fatherhood sub- award grant from the national Circle of Parents® office, to provide training and technical assistance to these two sites. The project is funded by the U.S. DHHS, Office of Family Assistance.

http://www.circleofparents.org/about_us/fatherhood.html

 

“Mission Statement : Prevent child abuse and neglect and strengthen families through mutual self-help parent support groups.”

Anything HHS-funded and purporting to prevent child abuse is likely to do this by promoting father involvement . . .  It’s how the cookie crumbles:

About Circle of Parents: Fatherhood

FATHERHOOD.GOV
Checkout the new Fatherhood Newsletters
Webinar: Father Factor in Children’s Health
August 2011; Time: 1:19:29

In 2006 Circle of Parents received a grant from the Office of Family Assistance to implement a comprehensive training, technical assistance and community access project to aid local home visiting programs in the provision of support and education to new and expectant fathers. Parents as Teachers, Nurse-Family Partnership, Healthy Families America, Early Head Start and/or Healthy Start homed visiting programs in the states of Colorado, Florida, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington and Wisconsin received $50,000 each to begin services to expecting and new fathers. The project is being implemented in partnership with the Circle of Parents National Network, the National Fatherhood Initiative, the Conscious Fathering Program™ of Parent Trust for Washington Children, PACT Law Center, Prevent Child Abuse America and Leslie Starsoneck, a domestic violence expert. **  

 CIRCLE OF PARENTS RECEIVED $4,800,000 IN “Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program” funding from the OFA from 2006 through 2010, a five-year period.  The first two years, a flat $900K each, then each subsequent year $1,000,000.   Here it is, all = award 90FR0098.  (Found in 3 minutes — I didn’t think of it on first posting — taggs.hhs.gov / award search / selected Year 2011/cfda 93086, and scanned the (178) results).  This group shows no 2011 award, but its presence in the list shows prior awards.

Circle of Parents®   EIN 800106957

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
CIRCLE OF PARENTS	CHICAGO	IL	60611-3777	COOK	623444994	$ 4,800,000

The “Chicago” connection makes me wonder whether Jeffrey Leving is involved.  (See FFCA conferences, a large part of which each year appears to be drooling over (and coordinating how to get) the next round of fatherhood funding from whichever HEAD representative from the HHS/ACF shows up to remind them, “Who’s Your Daddy?” when it comes to caring about them enough to donate public funding from US Taxpayers (of both genders).

Here’s the Tax Return signed 4/15/2011 by CEO Cynthia R. Savage, with a very moderate salary (for the field) of $73K.  Then again, most if it apparently comes from grants taken away from TANF to start with, or other HHS funds used to promote fatherhood, after setting up organization after organization with websites and other “technical assistance” to dominate the PR on a topic, and sell trainings or curricula, usually.

Revenue (that year):

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Circle of Parents	IL	2010	$65,404	990	31	80-0106957
Circle of Parents	IL	2009	$68,336	990	25	80-0106957
Circle of Parents	IL	2008	$52,969	990	28	80-0106957
Circle of Parents	IL	2007	$26,843	990	25	80-0106957
Circle of Parents	IL	2006	$83,638	990	24	80-0106957
Circle of Parents	IL	2005	$16,914	990	18	80-0106957
Circle of Parents	IL	2004	$3,803	990	25	80-0106957

Here’s one project of the group (note the format, graphics, high-quality media) that directly states it was funded by the above grant #90FR0098):

http://issuu.com/dadsofdouglascounty/docs/dadsgroupflyers

it is from Douglas County, KANSAS and designed to make Dads feel more comfortable in toddler playgroups, including a section called “DADDY & ME.”

NOTE:  KANSAS was making news at a petition site recently:  Topeka has declared it cannot afford even its domestic violence laws any more, they are too expensive, it is decriminalizing domestic battery, expecting the county to pick up the slack.  I kid you not:

Suspected domestic abusers go free as Topeka city, county officials bicker over funds.  Oct 4, 2011, Liz Goodwin.

 For a perspective, Google “Claudine Dombrowski” on my site — I have posted some of her court docket on there, and related the time when she was arrested for not bleeding after a severe assault, in the right county.  Actually she wasn’t reporting, simply seeking treatment at the time.  One of the assaults involved a crowbar, and this particular case has made it (along with Jessica Gonzales Lenahan) to the IACHR, as human rights violation perpetrated by the United States on its citizens.  The handling of this type of violence throughout the land has been resulting in — eventually, and in many, many cases — simply switching custody to the offender and letting the victim go repeatedly to court to fight for contact, while trying to stay sane in knowledge of who is caring for her kids, and (sometimes unsuccessfully) alive.   Another article on this topic.    NOTE:   TOPEKA IS THE CAPITAL OF KANSAS.  NOTE #2 — the head of the HHS department came from Kansas.

{{An acquaintance of mine forwarded the article (which I knew about), and said she’d submitted a comment, responding to a petition on this matter, that funding be found to allow the Women and Children of the state of Kansas to leave the state, for their own safety.}}

This article from “The Nation” sites the recent “Seal Beach, California” shooting — around a custody dispute.  The ex-wife and 7 bystanders were murdered. Obviously, what’s needed is more promotion of “responsible” fatherhood to counter murderous fathers.  It is more important to let Dads know how to feel comfortable while pushing strollers and at parks, than to stop that insanity!

Local Governments Slash Funding for Domestic Violence Survivors (Gender Issues,Law)

[Tagline:] Topeka, Kansas, decriminalized domestic violence to save money. It’s not the only city to cut services to survivors of abuse, just as the need escalates.

After Chad Taylor, the district attorney of Shawnee County in Topeka, Kansas, had his budget cut by the County Commission last month, he announced that he no longer had the financial resources to pursue misdemeanor domestic violence cases, essentially handing them off to the city. The City Council, in turn, voted last week to decriminalize domestic violence so that it didn’t have to pay up. This put the ball back in Taylor’s court; he now says he will review cases sent to him by Topeka police and pursue them on a case-by-case basis. During the game of hot potato, suspected abusers walked free—reports range from eighteen to thirty people. Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

Bryce Covert

Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):

PARTNERS FOR KIDS:  GETTING FATHER-READY

Karen Schrader, Training and TA manager for Circle of Parents:

In 2006, Circle of Parents applied for and received one of (only) Five “Responsible Fatherhood Community Access” grants from the HHS/OFA.  She specifically mentions connections to “FamiliesFirst” in Colorado, two Dads in particular being among their national leadership, but until this ($900K grant, probably part of a 4-year agreement) they weren’t “specifically focused on fatherhood.”  HOWEVER, “the grant provided the opportunity to move the ‘cultural norm’ of our Circle of Parents network, and the ‘cultural norm” of local community-based/faith-based home visitation programs  farther along the continuum of engaging and supporting fathers.”

Provided the opportunity?  Translation:  We took the grant, and so agreed to tailor it towards fathers…..  LIke they’d wanted to all along, but not having access to free HHS funds was hampering their ability to change the culture of the organization.  (How much “culture” and a 2-year old organization have, to start with? MORE LIKELY — the organization was formed with a view to this in mind, and very much with an awareness of the HHS funding streams available. Only the 990s would tell, most likely, though.

NATIONAL FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE INFLUENCE in a $4.8 million national networked nonprofit discovered with links directly to (at a minimum) Colorado Child Support Enforcement site.

One of our strategic objectives was focused on changing the organization’s cultural norms around embracing fathers. The National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI), experts in the fatherhood field, joined forces with Circle of Parents to help show us the way. We needed to assess where each grantee was on the scale of father-friendliness.

is called fawning, obsequious pandering to whoever has the money, and probably conflict of interest, too.  It’s disgusting!   The sole purpose of this organization appears to be transforming LOCAL groups into so-called “father-friendliness.”   The Executive Order that endorsed this activity, in 1995, came from a philandering Democratic President with a history financial corruption preceding the PResidency (i.e., “Clintongate,”) and with need of a personal cleanup crew to handle that philandering.  This is the SAME LANGUAGE 15 years later.

Each local and state grantee completed a father-friendly check-up assessment and created an action plan to increase their abilities to engage fathers.

Knowing that organizational change was important when we wrote the grant, Circle of Parents created a multi-level training and technical assistance system to assist the Network state and local grantees in becoming more father-friendly. In addition to NFI, expert consultants such as a domestic violence professional with experience in working with males and Bernie Dorsey of the Con- scious Fathering Program of Parent Trust for Washington Children, were engaged to provide much-needed direction and guidance. By year 3 it became clear that we needed to be more intentional in our efforts. We added additional training events and technical assistance focused on not only organizational assessment, but also staff self-assessment. If organizations are going to change their cultural norms, the staff must make personal changes as well. Circle of Parents’ commitment to father outreach and engagement will continue long after the grant ends in September. In this issue, we’ve focused on North Carolina as one illustration of the far reaching impact of this grant both on the state and local levels.

Karen Schrader took $50,100 as Program Administrator from the over $1 million of government grants (i.e., money taken from poor households food stamps, cash aid, or children’s child support / enforcement) to act as a talking head for the NFI policy set up in 1994, when this group got a conflict-of-interest-type grant from HHS, having a co-founder that was then WORKING for the HHS.  (Wade Horn, to my recall).

The third employee was paid $34,000 — would support most single-parent families adequately most places in the US — if they were NOT constantly dragged into father-friendly high-conflict custody ligitation, thanks to programs like this — to support the talk and promotion of this one group.  Membership dues one year, $13,000.  That might go a long ways to supporting a family, or helping a family get some of its infrastructure in place (like transportation) to enable access to work. Or medical care, you name it.   $642K of this $1Million plus was given away to other organizations.  Father-friendly ones only, I”m sure . . .  $217K was, again, salaries and benefits to do this; $31K in travel (wouldn’t YOU like to have a $31K travel budget?) and in IRS form Part IX, “Statement of Functional Expenses” they have nothing under “Professional Fundraising” (who needs it, with this kind of a HHS grant backing!), but  $162K in “other program expenses,” meaning, expenses directly related to doing their program.  Of course, their “program” is to transform the culture of (whoever they interact with) to become more father-friendly to start with . . ..    

Their “Program Accomplishments” are generic, and out of $1,189,089 expenses for accomplishing them, $1,054,454, or over50%, were via government grant, and in the process, said “program accomplishments” produced around $5k revenue as well.  Details for this $1.1 million of expenses (note, the average Circle of Parents(tr) HHS grant was $1 million, so if I were the HHS (and thought anyone was watching), I would want some account of where it went.

990 reads:  “See Schedule O” (usually attached to the end of the tax return).   “

Did the organization complete Schedule O — is checked “No.”

AS SUCH — this is a TYPICAL GRANTEE . . . .  Incorporated shortly before some new uptick in fatherhood / marriage funding, sustained and set up almost entirely by it, and with the primary emphasison “Technical Assistance & Training” which I translated as “PR” and “Web site support.” plus conferences, training, membership fees to do it YOUR way (insert brand name  _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _  ).     990s are VERY interesting, and often tell a different story and the front face of the organization, although Karen Schrader was astonishingly honest about “just what” Circle of Parents(tr) really is.

Of course, I picked up on it immediately from their website, because they aren’t the only organization transformed into father-friendly by HHS infusions.

The newsletter – JUNE 2011 — was posted at the link “SMART START & NORTH CAROLINA PARTNERSHIP FOR CHILDREN, Inc.”

“What is Smart Start?

Smart Start was created in 1993 as an innovative solution to a problem: Children were coming to school unprepared to learn.”

Their FUNDERS page speaks loudly — it’s basically a laundry list of organizations that also do fatherhood promotion, plus a pharmaceutical, a tutoring program (Kaplan), a school supply, and (last year) over $1 million from W.K. Kellogg Foundation.  Oh yes — and the Z.Smith Reynolds Foundation which Domestic Violence advocate & public policy influencer Ms. Starosek worked for, above . . ..

CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr)

   USASPENDING.GOV — as I have to say, seems habitual — is not reporting one of these $900K grants (the 2006 one, even though USASPENDING.gov has time slots back to 2000 for its data), and only 4 out of 5 awards, resulting in:

• Total Dollars:$3,900,000
• Transactions:1 – 4 of 4

 However, if one takes the DUNS# above and looks, it’s clear that the source of some of this is definitely TANF funding, i.e., welfare.

The office (reported on USASPENDING.gov) being “500 North Michigan, Chicago, IL” right downtown Chicago, on “The Magnificent Mile,” I’m going to look this up further, right now.  (That address also contains a virtual office, including some consulates, etc.)

ILLINOIS says, it’s in good standing, and incorporated, as a nonprofit, on April 20 2004.

Its listed as a partner on this group:  “FRIENDS,” or “NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR COMMUNITY-BASED CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION” out of Chapel Hill, NC:   (800 Eastowne Dr., Ste. 105, Chapel Hill, NC 27514, to be precise).  I am thinking this is another nonprofit formed to accommodate or appropriate another HHS-originated policy & grant to go with it.

FRIENDS is an acronym for Family Resource Information, Education, and Network Development Service.

FRIENDS National Resource Center for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention (CBCAP) is a service of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Children’s Bureau. We are a federally mandated Training and Technical Assistance Provider for CBCAP lead agencies.

How is FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP funded?

FRIENDS National Resource Center for CBCAP (FRIENDS) is funded under a cooperative agreement with the Children’s Bureau to provide training and technical assistance to designated CBCAP Lead Agencies and Set-Aside Grantees. For more information about the Children’s Bureau, please see their web site.

SO, certain groups (probably including “circle of Parents” with its $4.8 Million “Promote Responsible Fatherhood” grant) are “SET-ASIDE GRANTEES” and the rest of you, good luck getting a foot in the door.   What is CBCAP?  Another acronym leading back to “CAPTA” which appears to lead back to welfare reform, or at least matches the time frame — 2006.   It was reauthorized in 2010, and I bet there are mothers all across the country, in these custody wars, still wondering “what happened?” and why are abusers getting access to children STILL, even when the visitation happens in a supervised visitation center (Trumbull County, OHIO recent:  Convicted juvenile sex offender Dad & Mom take “parenting classes” and get access to their 2nd baby (first one, removed at birth, was beaten to death in foster care before she turned 2), and the facility this happens in “just happens” to be a fairly direct (and statewide) project of — guess what — “OHIO.FATHERHOOD.GOV.”   Gives a whole new meaning to “access and visitation,” not to mention “Parental involvement.”

What is CBCAP?

CBCAP stands for Community-Based Child Abuse Prevention. It refers to specific types of child abuse prevention programs that exist in every state in the U.S.

What legislation supports CBCAP?

The key Federal legislation addressing prevention in child abuse and neglect is the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) which was originally enacted in 1974. This Act has been amended several times in the last 37 years and was most recently amended and reauthorized on December 10th, 2010, by the CAPTA Reauthorization Act of 2010 (P.L. 111-320).

Why were CBCAP programs created?

CBCAP programs were established by Title II of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments of 1996 and most recently reauthorized in December of 2010.

 

 

 ** For “expert” read “heat shield.”  I linked to her LinkedIn — Ms. Starsonek hails from North Carolina and lists herself as working on this Circle of Parents(tr) “Fatherhood Initiative,” and formerly as a consultant for the NC Administrative Office of the Courts, although it’s clear her public policy experience has focused on “domestic violence/ intimate partner abuse.”   The business is “nonprofit organization management” not “domestic violence advocate.”  A 107 page article on-line here comments on how judges feel about “judicial sensitivity taining” re: domestic violence, i.e., it insults their intelligence to sit through propaganda.  

A very good summary of her approach in a 2004 article from “Philanthropy Journal,” called “A Voice for Victims,” recommends the usual “integrated approach” and helping agencies get along with each other, gives her personal philosophy and background, and seems a typical system approach:  It does not mention the existence of the AFCC, and attributes failure to protect women & children from getting murdered around custody disputes, plus the suicides apparently to lack of understanding and coordination — rather than any corruption or undue influence within the system.  As such, the solutions are going to be more training and more interagency cooperation.    

 Based in part on recommendations made by a task force coordinated by Starsoneck, a select committee of the N.C. House this year passed what she characterizes as “landmark” domestic-violence legislation. With nearly two-dozen provisions, the law addresses a broad range of topics. It expands legal services for victims of domestic violence, provides for treatment for offenders, addresses the role of schools, and directs the state Department of Health and Human Services to recommend a plan for dealing with victims of domestic violence who have substance-abuse or mental-health problems. The law also bars discrimination by employers against victims of domestic violence who are seeking relief from the courts, ensures safer and more consistent handling of child custody and visitation in domestic violence cases (I’d like to see that!)

Note:  North Carolina DHS has a “Fatherhood Project” — I don’t suppose any discussion of this comes up in public policy matters affecting child visitation and custody around domestic violence, does it?  For example, informing victims that the field of “Fatherhood” exists?

WHILE these reports, task forces, and discussions are ongoing, North Carolina — like very other state — continues to have its Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood projects going on (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse) and their Access/Visitation Programs as well — run from the Department of Human Resources — (affecting the safety of women & children attempting to leave abuse, and sometimes fathers with children attempting to leave domestic violence (Referring to the physical abuse in particular) as well).  The access/visitation grants ARE the answer to women & children attempting to leave domestic violence, which sometimes casts them upon welfare.  And historically the DV groups rarely report on this, either.  SOMETIMES they do, but never to the point of protesting the expansion of those two policies, which would be like cutting off the hand that feeds the same groups!

I found 43 grants under two (there are more, but I only searched two) fatherhood-centric grants systems, in NC (all years).  Obviously, from the chart below, the OCSE is administering the Access Visitation (“SAVP”) grants.   (OCSE comes under HHS).  OBVIOUSLY, marriage/fatherhood is being pushed  — or at least “promoted” — through:  Welfare Office, University Level, Community Action Organizations.  I am curious why a “Voice for the Victims” may not be mentioning this consistently throughout a professional development resulting in 127 contacts (in this case).  Without meaning to minimize Ms. Starosek’s career concern about DV issues, she has a educational background of psychology and social science, plus government involvement (contracting and consulting).   She has been active also (per article) in Massachusetts, where AFCC is even listed right on the family court site — twice.  Somehow, this has not caught her attention, and I suspect this is probably because of the associations more with policy-makers and government councils, that people going through the custody-child-removal system enabled by the grants, and the policies behind them.  It is simply an entirely different point of view, and results in an entirely different voice.

FYI — we can speak.  Victims, unless their larynxes have been injured in an assault — CAN speak.  most I’ve met are articulate (discounting some for the PTSD), and don’t need ongoing interpretation.  They are often adults, and are eyewitnesses of their own experience, and often networked well enough to know others’ common experience. They are often the best voice of what they have consistently experienced, and this voice has been lost.  Federal Policymakers are not INTERESTED in the roadkill to their rhetoric as applied at the state level.  They are interested in maintaining political viability by continuing to get grants for their associates, knowing FULL WELL that there is no adequate oversight, and no real document results in the objectives under which these programs were (improperly) sold to Congress to start with (Welfare Reform 1996).

(NORTH CAROLINA:  Years, All   CFDAs 93597 (A/V) and 93086 (HM/RF) series).  Circle of Parents, in taking on this DV expert made sure NOt to hear “the voice of the victims” of family court coverup of DV.. . …  ….. , meanwhile complying with federal regulation 45 CFR 303.109 (as to these grants), or at least its sentiment, in taking on a token DV person to lend legitimacy . . . .

Program Office	Grantee Name	Grantee Type	Award Number	Award Title	Action Issue Date	CFDA Program Name	Award Activity Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
ACF	CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC	Community Action Organization	90FR0001	FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK	09/21/2007	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	SALLIE P SURFACE	$ 245,296
ACF	CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC	Community Action Organization	90FR0001	FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK	09/14/2008	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	SALLIE P SURFACE	$ 245,296
ACF	CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc.	Welfare Department	90FE0059	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/17/2007	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	CYNTHIA J HARRIS	$ 550,000
ACF	CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc.	Welfare Department	90FE0059	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/14/2008	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	CYNTHIA J HARRIS	$ 550,000
ACF	EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY	Junior College, College & University	90FE0017	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/20/2007	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL	$ 405,528
ACF	EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY	Junior College, College & University	90FE0017	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/26/2008	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL	$ 525,161
ACF	UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL	Junior College, College & University	90FE0094	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	09/20/2007	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ANNE JONES	$ 490,465
ACF	UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL	Junior College, College & University	90FE0094	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	06/06/2008	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ANNE JONES	$ 0
ACF	UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL	Junior College, College & University	90FE0094	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	09/22/2008	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ANNE JONES	$ 530,482
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0001NCSAVP	SAVP 2000	08/22/2000	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 207,273
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0101NCSAVP	SAVP 2001	08/23/2001	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 207,273
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0201NCSAVP	2002 SAVP	08/06/2002	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 248,098
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0201NCSAVP	2002 SAVP	09/14/2009	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 23,880
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0301NCSAVP	2003 SAVP	09/11/2003	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 248,098
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0301NCSAVP	2003 SAVP	09/14/2009	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 30,070
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0401NCSAVP	2004 SAVP	09/15/2004	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 272,566
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0501NCSAVP	2005 SAVP	09/14/2005	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 272,566
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0601NCSAVP	2006 SAVP	09/19/2006	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 268,587
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0701NCSAVP	2007 SAVP	07/20/2007	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 278,157
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0801NCSAVP	2008 SAVP	01/30/2008	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 271,792
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	0901NCSAVP	FY 2009 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION	12/23/2008	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 272,258
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	1001NCSAVP	FY 2010 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION	11/25/2009	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 279,933
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	1101NCSAVP	FY 2011 STATE ACCESS & VISITATION	10/08/2010	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 286,100
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9701NCSAVP	SAVP 1997	05/31/1998	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 233,772
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9701NCSAVP	SAVP 1997	12/02/1999	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 216,494
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9701NCSAVP	SAVP 1997	01/04/2000	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 205
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9801NCSAVP		09/01/1998	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 233,772
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9801NCSAVP		02/24/2003	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 233,772
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9901NCSAVP		08/16/1999	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$ 207,273
OCSE	NC ST DEPT OF HUMAN RESOURCES, DIV OF SOCIAL SERVICES	Welfare Department	9901NCSAVP		02/25/2003	Grants to States for Access and Visitation Programs	SOCIAL SERVICES		$- 132,019
OFA	CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC	Community Action Organization	90FR0001	FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK	09/22/2006	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	SALLIE P SURFACE	$ 245,296
OFA	CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC	Community Action Organization	90FR0001	FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK	08/24/2009	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	SALLIE P SURFACE	$ 245,296
OFA	CHOANOKE AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION, INC	Community Action Organization	90FR0001	FATHERS IN FOCUS NETWORK	09/24/2010	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	SALLIE SURFACE	$ 245,296
OFA	CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc.	Welfare Department	90FE0059	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/25/2006	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	CYNTHIA J HARRIS	$ 550,000
OFA	CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc.	Welfare Department	90FE0059	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/18/2009	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	CYNTHIA J HARRIS	$ 550,000
OFA	CJH Educational Grant Services, Inc.	Welfare Department	90FE0059	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/24/2010	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	CYNTHIA HARRIS	$ 550,000
OFA	EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY	Junior College, College & University	90FE0017	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/22/2006	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	DR LINDA ROBINSON	$ 514,308
OFA	EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY	Junior College, College & University	90FE0017	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/18/2009	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	DR ELIZABETH B CARROLL	$ 519,625
OFA	EAST CAROLINA UNIVERSITY	Junior College, College & University	90FE0017	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8	09/24/2010	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ELIZABETH CARROLL	$ 548,181
OFA	Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.	Other Social Services Organization	90FM0009	COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES.	09/27/2011	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY	$ 725,000
OFA	UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL	Junior College, College & University	90FE0094	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	09/22/2006	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ANNE JONES	$ 375,685
OFA	UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL	Junior College, College & University	90FE0094	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	09/16/2009	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ANNE JONES	$ 538,524
OFA	UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHAPEL HILL	Junior College, College & University	90FE0094	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 7	09/24/2010	Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants	DEMONSTRATION	ANNE JONES	$ 550,000

Results 1 to 43 of 43 matches.

(THAT was just for effect, and you could find a similar chart in any other state). 

 

“PARENT TRUST FOR WASHINGTON CHILDREN” logo alerts me to, probably another grant behind this one:  There are only so many icons available showing human figures looped together by a heart, or heart-type logo! . .  Besides, the leading page is “BUILDING STRONG, HEALTHY FAMILIES” which is a government theme.  When it comes to REAL families, somone is a father, someone a mother, someone gives birth (possibly more than once, creating siblings) and the term is “RAISING” my/our children, not BUILDING them!  An entirely different mindset is involved in “BUILDING a family.”  Builders are not the house, they are outside the house!   The house is made out of material they manipulate, according to some master plan, or at least SOME plan.  However, life comeso after childbirth, and from the perspective of the individuals, people GROW, and hopefully good values are instilled, safe places,future hopes, associations — and real, living connections.  The life force from within is the verb “GROW” and the artificial, social-science-focused (i.e., focusing on the theory, policy, or others involved) results in terms like “BUILDING FAMILIES,” (Plural).  Particularly as many of these policies are resulting in partially dead, or wholly dead families (i.e., murder/suicides), wasted years, wasted tax dollars, and time taken out of building their own futures, according to their OWN plans which just may happen to fit their own reality better than an “almost one size fits all” policy from above  . . . . . . (well, you can tell what kind of mood I”m in today on all this mess!) (it’s reall organized, but in practice, it’s messing with other, important realities, like due process in the courts, and the ability to make independent choices, by MOTHERS!)(and, many FATHERS, too!).  

This one, apparently, is marketing “Professional Trainings” especially “Conscious Fathering”(tr).  Contact your local affiliate to buy it:

“

“Conscious Fathering’s Creating Parental Balance Trainings:”

with “DONATE” “WEB STORE” “CONTACT US” (in that order)

 (It took a while to locate, but it’s a project of the Seattle Foundation, self-described as the largest  funder in King’s County) or at least helped by them):  

Parent Trust for Washington Children

9/10/2010

$15,000.00

support general operating expenses.

EIN# 911036940, I’ll check TAGGS (yes, they have been filing, at least):  recorded here under a different name (and no DUNS#)…

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE	SEATTLE	WA	98101	KING		$ 50,000

(“Mutual Support” programs?  How about put some of that to tracking down that “undistributable child support collections” held at the state level, no doubt in Washington, like other states!)

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
1998	90CA1648	DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS	1	0	ACF	09-14-1998		$ 50,000

There are thousands of “90CA” awards.  To narrow it, I picked 1998, and only WA, D.C. & CA (most projects get tested in CA, why not?) — narrowing it down to 18 awards.  Parents Anonymous apparently got started in California anyhow, and the washington group eventually changed its name:  Here we go, from TAGGS:

Fiscal Year	Program Office	Grantee Name	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	CFDA Program Name	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
1998	CB	CAL ST LA UNIV AUXILIARY SERVICES, INC	CA	90CA1589	PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – FIELD INITIATED RESEARCH ON CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	MITCHELL EISEN, PH.D.	$ 9,750
1998	CB	CENTER FOR CHILD PROTECTION & FAMILY SUPPORT	DC	90CA1614	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOYCE N THOMAS	$ 100,000
1998	CB	D.C. CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND	DC	90CA1645	DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	CAROLYN S ABDULLAH	$ 50,000
1998	CB	EDGEWOOD THE SF PROTESTANT ORPHANAGE	CA	90CA1599	PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFARE SYSTEM	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	LILLIAN JOHNSON	$ 199,464
1998	CB	FAMILY HEALTH CENTERS OF SAN DIEGO, INC	CA	90CA1608	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	ASCENCION HERNANDEZ	$ 100,000
1998	CB	FAMILY SUPPORT SERVICES OF THE BAY AREA	CA	90CA1587	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA CHAMBERS, PH.D	$ 150,000
1998	CB	KITSAP BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	WA	90CA1609	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	ELIZABETH S BOSCH	$ 100,000
1998	CB	LOS ANGELES COUNTY, DEPT OF CHILDREN’S SRVS	CA	90CA1594	PRIORITY AREA 1.03 – INNOVATIVE APPROACHES TO KINSHIP CARE OF CHILDREN IN WELFAR	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SHARYN L LOGAN	$ 200,000
1998	CB	MARY’S CENTER OF MATERNAL & CHILD CARE	DC	90CA1586	PRIORITY AREA 2.01 – HEALTHY FAMILIES DC	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOAN YENGO	$ 150,000
1998	CB	PARENTS ANONYMOUS	CA	90CA1592	PRIORITY AREA 1.01 – NATIONAL NETWORK OF MUTUAL SUPPORT/SELF HELP PROGRAMS	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TERESA RAFAEL	$ 350,000
1998	CB	PARENTS ANONYMOUS	CA	90CA1646	DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	LISA PION-BERLIN	$ 50,000
1998	CB	PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE	WA	90CA1648	DEVELOPMENT OF MUTUAL SUPPORT PROGRAMS	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	SYLVIA MEYER	$ 50,000
1998	CB	SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA	CA	90CA1630	PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	TANYA PHAM	$ 100,000
1998	CB	SAN DIEGO COUNTY YMCA	CA	90CA1630	PRIORITY AREA 1.04 – SCHOOL-BASED CHILD MALTREATMENT PREVENTION	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	TANYA PHAM	$ 100,000
1998	CB	SAN DIEGO STATE UNIVERSITY, FOUNDATION	CA	90CA1566	PRIORITY AREA 1.02R – CONSOR- TIUM FOR LONGITUDINAL STUDIES OF CHILD MALTREATMENT PROJECTS	4	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	ALAN LITROWNIK	$ 250,000
1998	CB	STANISLAUS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION	CA	90CA1601	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	HAROLD R DEARMOND	$ 54,725
1998	CB	WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE	WA	90CA1590	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	1	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NEW	SHERRY C BRUMMEL	$ 197,471
1998	CB	WA ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC ASSISTANCE	WA	90CA1590	CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT DISCRETIONARY PROJECTS	2	93670	Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SHERRY C BRUMMEL	$ 195,092

I just looked up “Parents Anonymous” and behold — only CA & AZ show any DUNS#s . . . . the umbrella organizations?  Are they ALL running “Conscious Fathering(tr)” professional training classes, and if so, for how much?  Notice, CA gets the biggest grants…

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (earliest grant shown 1995, Budget Year, 2)	CLAREMONT	CA	91711	LOS ANGELES	090749326	$ 2,828,196
PARENTS ANONYMOUS   (THIS GRANT IS 2010….)	PHOENIX	AZ	85014	MARICOPA	119833135	$ 792,550
PARENTS ANONYMOUS  (THIS GRANT, 1999)	PHOENIX	AZ	85014	MARICOPA		$ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF BUFFALO & ERIE COUNTY	BUFFALO	NY	14206	ERIE		$ 750,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF NEW JERSEY, INC.	PRINCETON	NJ	08540	MERCER		$ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF PENNSYLVANIA	HARRISBURG	PA	17102	DAUPHIN		$ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, INC.	CHARLESTON	SC	29416	CHARLESTON		$ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS ORG. OF MASS., INC.	BOSTON	MA	02116	SUFFOLK		$ 50,000
PARENTS ANONYMOUS WASHINGTON STATE	SEATTLE	WA	98101	KING		$ 50,000

 

Showing: 1 – 9 of 9

TAKING the DUNS# “090749326” to USASPENDING.gov, we see they have “only” missed over $2 million of grants here:

• Total Dollars:$697,225
• Transactions:1 – 2 of 2

One grant was “discretionary” — and is the National Child Abuse HelpLine (call your local Parenting Anonymous(tr) group  leader???) – 2010

and the 2007 one was actually even named after this group:

Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS 675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT, CALIFORNIA Reason for Modification: Program Source: 75-1536:Children and Families Services Programs Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Administration for Children and Families CFDA Program : 93.670 : Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities Description: NATIONAL PARENT HELPLINE

Date Signed: August 22 , 2010Obligation Amount:  $500,000

and

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: U81CE001039: 000 (Grants)

Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS 675 W FOOTHILL BLVD STAT 220 , CLAREMONT Reason for Modification: Program Source: Agency: Department of Health and Human Services : Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFDA Program : 93.136 : Injury Prevention and Control Research and State and Community Based Programs Description: ENHANCING CHILD MALTREATMENT PREV INITIATIVES THROUGH PARENTS ANONYMOUSA INC.

Date Signed: July 02 , 2007  Obligation Amount:  $197,225

“parents anonymousa inc.”??  This is supposedly an extension of an earlier grant we don’t see there:

Obligation / Action Date	07/02/2007
Starting Date	09/30/2006
Ending Date	09/29/2008
R

BUT, when I omit the DUNS# and just search on the name (in quotes, Prime Award search) I see this — and have to say, just go look yourself:

• Total Dollars:$18,936,970
• Transactions:1 – 25 of 25

This includes more from the Arizona group, and Buffalo and Erie County (NY, PA, I guess).  There are grants or contracts from the Justice Department, and under the term “DRUG-FREE”, as well as (now we know where the term “Strengthening Families” comes from:

Transaction Number # 1

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX0001: 03 (Grants)

Recipient: PARENTS ANONYMOUS CLAREMONT Reason for Modification: Program Source: Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs Description: STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA

Date Signed: August 17 , 2000Obligation Amount:  $3,000,000

Transaction Number # 2

Federal Award ID: 98JSFX000104 (Grants)

Recipient: PARENT ANONYMOUS CLAREMONT Reason for Modification: Program Source: Agency: Department of Justice : Office of Justice Programs CFDA Program : 16.541 : Part E – Developing Testing and Demonstrating Promising New Programs Description: STRENGTHENING AT-RISK FAMILIES ALL ACROSS AMERICA

Date Signed: September 30 , 2001Obligation Amount:  $2,993,400

They are basically THROWING money at this group, and the Arizona branch (again, looking at transaction details, DUNS# is often missing).

In 2002 (this is from “USASPending.gov”), same program:  they got $2.7 million

cfda 16;541 comes under ”

CFDA Program Title	JUVENILE JUSTICE AND DELINQUENCY PREVENTION_SPECIAL EMPHASIS AND T/A

(OK, I finally looked up the project title).   The DOJ awarded a $16 million grant to Parents Anonymous — to try out and assess its own programs!  This is the AUdit Report saying their evaluation was “adequate”!!

Here they are seeking donations:  Be a Circle of Friends ($500), Patron ($1,000), Hero ($1,500), Champion ($5,000 and get to speak at national conference), or Benefactor ($10,000).  They havent figured out privileges for $10,000 and above yet . . . ..    Contact “Meryl Levine.”  I have a feeling it MAY be this Meryl Levine (from NJ, actually, but look at the details and compare to what Parents ANonymous is doing).  The pay for Parents Anonymous VP was over $100K/year.)

DO THESE CONNECTIONS have anything to do with getting THOSE grants?

CALSWEC Standing Committee

  

Let’s take a look at who “CALSWEC” is, with HQ at UCBerkeley:

Created in 1990, the California Social Work Education Center (CalSWEC) is a consortium of the state’s 21 accredited social work graduate schools, the 58 county departments of social service and mental health, the California Departments of Social Services (CDSS) and Mental Health (CDMH), the California Chapter of the National Association of Social Workers, professional associations, and foundations.

CalSWEC is the nation’s largest coalition of its kind working to provide professional education, student financial aid, in-service training, and workforce research–all directed toward developing effective, culturally competent public service delivery to the people of California.CalSWEC’s main office is at the University of California, Berkeley.Download a copy of the CalSWEC Fact Sheet (October 2011).

Ms. Levine is on the “CHILD WELFARE STANDING COMMITTEE” (representing PARENTS ANONYMOUS(tr):

Child Welfare CommitteeThe Child Welfare Committee is responsible for leading and overseeing curriculum, stipend, and other issues of social work education pertaining to public child welfare. It includes members of the Board and community volunteers interested in child welfare social work. Committee members are listed below.

 

Committee Chair Charlene Reid, Director Division of Social Services Tehama County Department of Social ServicesStaff Barrett Johnson, Director, Child Welfare In-Service Training Project, CalSWEC

Meryl Levine, Vice President of Development Parents Anonymous Inc.Viola W. Lindsey Department of Social Work and Social Ecology Loma Linda UniversityKristina Lavato-Hermann School of Social Welfare San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos F&E Steering Committee California Department of Social ServicesDavid Meyers, Sr. Attorney Center for Families, Children & the Courts Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of CaliforniaMark Miller, Training Director Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family ServicesKate Mortimer, Project Coordinator, Title IV-E Program Department of Social Work California State University, Northridge

SEEMS LIKE THEY ARE ASSOCIATING WITH THE RIGHT PEOPLE TO GET CHOSEN FOR MAJOR GRANTS . . . . 

http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Grant Number 1998-JS-FX-0001, Claremont, California

Report No. GR-90-04-013
August 2004
Office of the Inspector General

---

Executive Summary

The Office of the Inspector General, Audit Division, has completed an audit of a Strengthening At-Risk Families All Across America Grant awarded by the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs (OJP), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to Parents Anonymous located in Claremont, California. The purpose of this grant was to build and support strong, safe families in partnership with local communities by utilizing the Parents Anonymous model that helps break the cycle of abuse and delinquency. As of August 20, 2003, Parents Anonymous was awarded a total of $16,673,900 to assess strengths and needs of Parents Anonymous programs. The grant supported national training, technical assistance, outreach, referrals, and program materials and publications. In addition, the grant funded Parents Anonymous’ efforts to design a children’s program model, and a national database system for collecting, analyzing, and disseminating information about Parents Anonymous.Our audit revealed that controls over the accounting process and records related to the grant were adequate. We found Parents Anonymous to be in compliance with OJP’s grant requirements. We reviewed Parents Anonymous’ compliance with essential grant conditions and found no weaknesses in the accounting records.These items are discussed in detail in the Findings and Recommendations section of the report. Our audit objectives, scope, and methodology appear in Appendix I.

(WELL, here are two of those reports from the OIG):

Sort by date/ Sort by relevance DOJ/OIG OJP External Audit Reports … At-Risk Families All Across America Grant Awarded to the Parents Anonymous Incorporated, Audit Report GR–90–04–013, August 2004. … http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached Audit Report … Claremont, California. Report No. GR–90–04–013 August 2004 Office of the Inspector General Executive Summary. The Office … http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/g9004013.htm-3k- Cached

Guess I’ll have to write for it:Prior to 2010, only the Audit Executive Summaries have been posted. All the Executive Summaries have been cleared and are arranged within the appropriate state directory for convenience. States not represented in this distribution do not have Executive Summaries available for inclusion at this time.

AS WITH THE HEALTHY MARRIAGES CURRICULA — it seems the JUSTICE DEPT. is helping a specific organization disseminate its own, specialty, program material.  There is ONE little minor detail with this grant going to this organization:  . . .. and that’s called CONFLICT OF INTEREST.  (whether it’s above, or below, I looked at the founding documents and find that a long-time L.A. County Judge (haven’t checked out whether other mental health professionals in the employee of the County, or working FOR the Justice Department) (or, as to HHS, in the family court system or around it) – – – were, at the time the grant was awarded.

Note:  California board had an L.A. County Judge (eventually became a judge ) on the group since 1973, and it might be worthwhile to see who else those board members represent.  Meanwhile, I want to know about this Justice Program “strengthening families all across america” program.  It’s probably a bunch a hooey, based on how frequent there are these family-court-related massacres, one state or another.

In the year 2002, the DOJ gave away $52 million (grants) in “Developing, Testing, and Demonstrating Promising New Programs.”  The top Ten Recipients included:  #1, Parents Anonymous (the City of Los Angeles itself being #7)”

Top 10 Assistance Recipients FY 2002

1. PARENT ANONYMOUS$2,700,000

2. DARE AMERICA$2,475,000

3. CALIBER ASSOCIATES$1,999,480

4. WYOMING COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ASSOC$1,851,050

5. GIRL SCOUTS OF USA$1,800,000

6. WAYNE CNTY DEPT OF COMMUNITY JUSTIC$1,800,000

7. LOS ANGELES CITY OF$1,800,000

8. SAFE AND SOUND$1,496,700

9. PUBLIC / PRIVATE VENTURES$1,375,000

10. AN ACHIEVABLE DREAM$1,350,000

Do their state registrations show?

AZ as charity,- yes:

ID	NAME	DBA
12810	*PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ARIZONA, INC

(at the same street address, as a “dba” also)

ID	NAME	DBA
24105	CPLC SOUTHWEST, INC.	PARENTING ARIZONA

in 2003 (* 2008) it also picked up the trade name:  “PARENTING ARIZONA:  SAFE CHILDREN, STRONG FAMILIES” (Search will probably expire, but file ID 300792 may help on the corporations search website).

Pennsylvania (per corporate website) has plenty of these by county.

CALIFORNIA HAS ITS USUAL ASSEMBLY OF:  Formed, dissolved, suspended, with one survivor:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C1239568	02/22/1984	DISSOLVED	PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY	CARRIE PUGH
C0896252	08/30/1978	SUSPENDED	PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY
C1023786	04/13/1981	SUSPENDED	PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC.	PETER A BUCK
C1259155	10/18/1984	SUSPENDED	PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC.	BARBARA RAYNARD
C0606551	09/03/1970	ACTIVE	PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC.	LISA PION BERLIN
C0816640	05/27/1977	DISSOLVED	PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST	SHELLY TAYLOR

Lisa Pion Berlin, Ph.D. apparently influenced the CAPTA legislation, and here is the main site, Los Angeles area:  Every other term is trademarkeed…

http://www.parentsanonymous.org/pahtml/pressExpert.html

Dr. Pion-Berlin is a renowned expert in the prevention of child abuse and neglect. She has authored legislation to strengthen the prevention focus of the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) and is frequently called upon by national and state policymakers along with the media to share unique solutions for implementing effective community-based child abuse prevention programs, achieving meaningful Parent Leadership and Shared Leadership, and creating child welfare system reform to ensure safe and strong families. Dr. Pion-Berlin also speaks on a variety of parenting topics such as: (see site).

Her son? husband? relative? (It’s an unusual last name) is a filmmaker; this one is about hazing

The ” National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council, helps promote Parents Anonymous(r) Inc.

With a unique blend of highly respected public figures and experts in the child abuse field, the National Child Abuse Prevention Advisory Council focuses on increasing public awareness about Parents Anonymous^® Inc. and its effectiveness in strengthening families and preventing abuse and neglect.    

(in fact, I can only see one person, maybe two, on the list that is not some celebrity from a TV show….)

(Heavy emphasis on trademarked classes and training parents to teach them, as a means to prevent child abuse.  In other words,parenting classes. Guess where I am gong next…..)  The theme is having Parents (not just social staff employees) involved.  This (next) says that in 1994, they got funding to form the NPLT (tr) concept:

Parent Leadership and Parent Leaders

Parents who are committed to helping to create change in their homes and their communities are called Parent Leaders. They may be parents, grandparents, kinship care providers, foster parents or anyone in a parenting role who speaks from his/her own perspective – – and not in a staff role for an organization. Those who are most effective, however, are Parent Leaders who have personal experience in the systems they are working to change.   

In other words, we’d rather you be an insider, but speak as a parent.  

Parents Anonymous® Inc. took Parent Leadership to a new level in 1994 when it received funding to create the first National Parent Leadership Team® (NPLT), thereby ensuring Shared Leadership on a national scale. The creation, development and study of this first NPLT, initiated the Parents Anonymous® Inc. Parent Leadership research agenda. We brought 12 members from across the country on board. Over the years the Team has continued to grow and members work in partnership with Parents Anonymous® Inc. in all matters related to programs and policies.

OK, this is probably the Grants we just saw above (Taggs) for the California group — the time frame matches, as well as the name of teh grant.  TIHS is probably why the fatherhood emphasis gets in there — because of the HHS funding…  The above quote was from a newsletter put out by a Childrens Center associated with Harvard? or at least with a harvard.edu address:   ©2011 Judge Baker Children’s Center

I don’t know how common this last name is, but here is a David S. Pion-Berlin  teaching at Univ. of California/Riverside, showing a Ph.D. from International Studies in 1984, Univ. of Denver 

 

 

Yes, Dr. (in what?) Lisa Pion-Berlin takes credit for her husband, David S. (Political Science, Latin Americanist) and having been raised by her wonderful father (Nazi Refuge) — no mention whatsoever is made of any mother.  IN context, I can understand why, but again — this site is emphasizing Dads, on father’s day.

Value The Importance Of Your Fathers Daily

Celebrating Father’s Day this Sunday is essential to focusing on their critical role in our children’s lives. We all need to make sure we embrace fathers daily and value their importance! I have experienced first hand two extraordinary Fathers: my own dad, Kurt Berlin and my husband, David Pion-Berlin.

I was raised by an extraordinary Dad who has challenged me to be a caring, responsible and contributing member of our society. He still practices law in DC at 85 years old and provides me with valuable input and support (even when I don’t ask) in my role as Mom and as President and CEO of Parents Anonymous® Inc.

(OBVIOUSLY this is a very website-oriented, and heavily trademarked group, with frequent new programs and initiatives, every single one (that I’ve seen) with a slick website.  I noticed heavy First 5 (California) group, which is a red flag to me; there were questions regarding their funding in the news, including conflicts of interest between someone on its board directing moneys to another charity he was on).

“The Shared Leadership”  plan would seem to be incorporating parent-input, and thus good.  But (see my notes), the type of parent input preferred is someone IN the system, and the influence could readily go both way.   Again, I simply found this group (at all) by pegging (yet another) fatherhood training certification affecting Jefferson County CO, from Washington State, and as it happens, originated in Southern California. http://www.nationalparenthelpline.org/what-we-do/mission-history.  

As a domestic violence survivor become a custodial mother become a custody-challenged custodial mother (fatherhood funding influence is clear, in hindsight), become a NONcustodial mother and from there increasingly impoverished (i.e., repeatedly losing work), I know FIRSThand the feeling of a fantastic website full of empathetic terms and hotlines, including the National Domestic Violence Hotline (1-800-799-SAFE or something), which refers people to local agencies that (in the situation I just described) do not help anyhow.  They can be good listeners, however — just not provide actual help.  The same goes for other similarly high-web-profile groups like NCADV, DVLEAP, etc. — they are on the policy side, and not on the actual help side.  Those who don’t have personal referrals to real sources of help will be sorry on calling the official numbers and hoping for real, tangible, in-time, valid resources — as opposed to the appearance of resources.

Here is the “Charitable Trusts” record of the Parents Anonymous satellite groups.  Only the main one survives, as we can see:

 

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF MARIN COUNTY 056591 Charity Dissolved SAN RAFAEL CA Charity Registration Charity PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF ORANGE COUNTY Charity Not Registered MISSION VIEJO CA Charity Registration Charity PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SACRAMENTO, INC. Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity PARENTS ANONYMOUS OF SHASTA COUNTY, INC. 057939 Charity Inactive REDDING CA Charity Registration Charity PARENTS ANONYMOUS, INC. 015477 Charity Current CLAREMONT CA Charity Registration Charity PARENTS ANONYMOUS, PACIFIC-SOUTHWEST Charity Not Registered CULVER CITY CA Charity Registration Charity As1

 

AS early as 2001, we can see their revenues and assets are JUST FINE; even in these hard times, they are not suffering too bad:  EIN# 23-7278097, and the founding articles filing is 47pp long on-line here  

Fiscal Begin: Fiscal End: 30-SEP-01 Total Assets: $502,908.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $4,312,507.00 RRF Received: 21-FEB-02 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Status: Accepted

2009:

Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09 Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10 Total Assets: $1,775,724.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $1,584,661.00 RRF Received: 12-AUG-11 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status: Accepted

 As I said, they are selling classes and have copyrighted material (plus their websites have the “Donate” buttons, legal as they are a charity).  Unlike many of the fatherhood group organzations, this SMART bunch (original board, or early board, included a woman who later became a judge) have (to this date) a lot of grants and a lot of program service revenue, the proportion is closer to half.  (2009:  $

667,716 contributions/grants — $902,923 program service revenue (what they are DOING as a nonprofit is actually bringing in revenue). Plus about $1K investment, and $8K “Other” revenue.”  (which their tax form will explain).  The nonprofit purpose has become technical assistance to spread the gospel about their (copyrighted) concept, and presumably write off expenses, like $940K salaries, etc.  (in other words, they more than wrote off the program service income earnings).

• “Parents, children and youth transform their attitudes, learn new behaviors, build on their strengths, and create long-term positive changes in their lives through proven effective, quality Parents Anonymous Programs implemented by our accredited network organizations”

Got this business model yet?   . .. by our accredited network organizations.    What do they do?

• Parents Anonymous Inc provides training and technical assistance,develops publications and conducts research on meaningful Parent and Shared Leadership, systems reform and effective community-based strategies to strengthen families.  Expenses $1,302,041

This work – promoting one’s own work and business model — earns Dr. Pion-Berlin $195K per year, VP Meryl Levine $111K, and  another VP Sandra Williams $122K, for 40 hour weeks.

Other earnings (revenue)  660K Government GRANTS, plus $863K Government CONTRACTS, and like I mention, $39,194 (or about a good secretary’s annual salary), accreditation fees.   No royalties show up …. 

 

And, of the original 10 (1972) members of the Board, including one just labeled “Betty L., Los Angeles” (no address — guess that was one of the anonymous parents), the top 4 (except Secretary) are two J.D.s, an M.D., and what looks like a social worker, an ACSW and an MD/MPMH (mental health practitioner):

• Pres Jean Matusinka, J.D. 3401 Club Drive Los Angeles, CA. 90064
• VP Roland Summit, M.D. 1000 W. Carson Street D-5 Torrance, CA. 90509
• Sec  Margot Fritz 7373W. 83rd Street Los Angeles, CA. 90045
• Treas. Gerald Tarlow, J.D. 3812 Sepulveda Blvd. Torrance, CA. 90505
• Helen Boardman, ACSW 2115 Fargo Los Angeles, CA. 90039
• Leigh Colitre 8035 S. Vermont Los Angeles, CA. 90047
• Garold Faber M.D.,M.P.H. 13543 S. Hawthorne Boulevard Hawthorne, CA.
• Norman Fleishman 6063 Hargis Street Los Angeles CA. 90034
• Betty L. Los Angeles, CA.
• Ed. Welz 13106 Glenfield Detroit, Michigan 48201

 In 1996, Amendment stated that any remaining assets would be distributed by the Superior Court where the principal office is (which just so happens, I believe, to be Los Angeles…)

If this corporation holds any assets on trust, such assets shall be disposed of in such manner as may be directed by decree of the Superior Court of the County in which the corporation’s principal office is located, upon petition therefor by the Attorney General or by any person concerned in the liquidation.

Hopefully, none of those on the board will have any inappropriate relationships with said Superior Court, or, if a judge is involved in said distribution (which looks like a sizeable amount), he/she will have been REAL honest on the “conflicts of interest” filling.

THEN AGAIN, common sense tells us, this is Los ANGELES COUNTY (see Richard Fine, etc.) and that is a little much to expect.

 Some of the incorporators:  Jean Matusinka, J.D. became (or was) a judge and a prosecutor of sex and DV crimes; this is her 2006 Obit (LA times), she died at 66, from lung cancer, unfortunately: 

Judge Jean Matusinka, 66; Professor, Former Sex Crimes Prosecutor

Obituaries | PASSINGS

April 02, 2006|From Times Staff and Wire Reports

Judge Jean E. Matusinka, 66, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge and former deputy district attorney, died Monday of lung cancer at Torrance Memorial Hospital. Since 1990, she had been handling a civil calendar at the Torrance courthouse and was hearing cases until a week before her death.

Born in New York City, Matusinka graduated from Hunter College with a degree in history and earned her law degree at Brooklyn Law School in 1966. Admitted to the State Bar of California in 1970, she joined the district attorney’s office in L.A. as a deputy district attorney. She specialized in sex crimes, child abuse and domestic violence cases. She was instrumental in forming the child abuse and domestic violence section and the sexual crimes program of the central trials division.  Matusinka was one of the prosecutors in the early days of the McMartin Pre-School molestation case in the mid-1980s.

{{tis case keeps cropping up in association with judges, or nonprofits (incl. one in Brooklyn), and deals with hysteria, ruined the preschool operators, and etc.  “The longest and most expensive criminal trial in United States history had a modest beginning. On May 12, 1983, 40-year-old Judy Johnson dropped her two-and-one-half-year-old son off at the front of the McMartin Preschool in Manhattan Beach, California without notice and drove away. The school’s teachers cared for the unknown “pre-verbal” boy in the hopes that his mother would return for him at the day’s end. ” The link I gave details Matusinka’sinvolvement.}}

She was appointed to the Los Angeles Superior Court by then-Gov. George Deukmejian in 1985. One of her first jobs was presiding over the calendar in the downtown criminal courts building. As a judge handling criminal and civil cases, she gained a reputation for toughness, fairness and decisiveness.   She was also a clinical professor at the USC Keck School of Medicine’s Institute of Psychiatry, Law and Behavioral Science.

 

 THIS USED TO BE “MOTHERS ANONYMOUS, INC.” and @ SEPT. 1970, had the stated purpose of:  “

• The specific and primary purposes are to perpetuate .an organized program for mothers who fear they might or are actively engaged in any form of physical or emotional abuse towards a ch1ld.
• To help and rehab1l1tate mothers who do engage in physical or emotional abuse towards a child
• • To have and to exercise all the rights and powers that are now or mayay thereafter be granted by law.

 By 1971, the name had been changed to “Parents Anonymous.”   

(Back to Jefferson County Colorado’s Fatherhood Program’s “Famlies First” link to “Circle of Parents” where, naturally, one is going to find a fatherhood program paid for by yours truly, the US HHS.) 

Through March 2011, 2,280 expecting or fathers of infants, 1,546 fathers of children between 1 and 5 years, 1,057 mothers and 153 other caregivers were served through 710 Conscious Fathering classes and 1,103 Circle of Parents’ groups for fathers.

Funding for this project was made possible through a 5-year Responsible Fatherhood Community Access Program grant received by the Circle of Parents national office in 2006. This grant is funded through the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Families Assistance – Grant No. 90FR0098, CFDA #93.086.
www.thefamilytree.org
www.proudtoparent.org
www.uptoparents.org

For additional information, on this program choose an option below.

However, my question was — is what appears to be the EL PASO

Parent Opportunity Program

In an attempt to nurture and grow the relationships between non-custodial parents and their children, El Paso County Child Support Services has developed the El Paso County Parent Opportunity Program (POP). Through individualized case management, POP works with non-custodial parents to achieve personal family and career-oriented goals. By achieving these goals, parents can both bond with their children and learn to become better providers for their families.

(the ‘evolving nature of child support,” you’re in it…..)

POP also offers various legal and community services to eligible parents. POP case managers are able to find legal help and mental health counseling for parents in need of them. POP provides services through a community partnership comprised of El Paso County Department of Human Services, Center on Fathering, Goodwill Industries, and Child Support Services of Colorado.

To be eligible to receive POP services, applicants must be non-custodial parents who are residents of El Paso or Teller Counties and have an income of not more than 185% of the federal poverty level.

Obviously, they are targeting IV-D cases, and will be able to get some funding for them from the government.

(An aside, but looking up “El Paso County” we find that in Oct. 2011, it discovered that the state had shorted it $1.3 million from sales tax collected, but not sent back to the county.  An additional $830,000 is apparently still under discussion:

El Paso County Recoups $1.3 Million from State

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (AP) – Colorado has shortchanged El Paso County in the amount of sales tax revenue collected by the state but not sent back to the county. . . . The discrepancy follows a years-long investigation into the money that’s collected by Colorado and remitted back to the county monthly . . .Such discrepancies may not be unique to El Paso County. Douglas County officials say the state’s been off about $200,000 a year since a 1 percent capital improvement tax was passed there in 1996…

Colorado officials sent letters to the county’s 14,000 vendors, advising them of potential reporting errors.

Part-time employees researched the discrepancy and found errors in which collections were posted to other entities, vendors provided wrong information and data was incorrectly keyed in.

That resulted in the $1.3 million going back to the county from the state. Twenty-seven additional audits totaling $830,000 are pending with the state.

“We’re happy to hear it’s working out well for the county. We think this is a good partnership for everyone,” said Mark Couch, spokesman for the Colorado Department of Revnue. The state has upgraded its computer system and has converted paper files and manual data entry to a new electronic system, Couch said.

ANYHOW, MY POINT BEING — remember to research trademark names and registrants.  In this case, Policy Studies, Inc. IS “El Paso County Parenting Opportunity Project” which is described (below) as a unit within the child support department.   Knowing, as you do now, that CPR and PSI (dba in this case El Paso County POP) have personnel in common, at least did have Jane Venohr, Ph.D. in common (and they pubish together), being the nonprofit and for-profit prongs of evaluation — here is a 2007 “Colorado Parenting Time Project”

The evaluation is, this time, conducted by 3 CPR people — but NOT Jane Venohr; instead, by Pearson Thoennes and instead of Venohr, “Lanae Davis.”

They speak of the El Paso POP as though objectively and not associated with it, in this report:

Cover page: (formatting appears differently in the original)

Submitted to:  Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement 1575 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80218*

Submitted by:  Center for POLICY RESEARCH 1570 Emerson Street Denver, Colorado 80218 303.837.1555 http://www.centerforpolicyresearch.org

(the offices are 0.5 miles, or a 3 minute drive, away from each other)….PSI (or, El PasoPOP) as of 2002 was 1 mile, or a 6 min drive away)

 

September 2007

[Authors} Jessica Pearson, Ph.D. ~ Lanae Davis, M.A. ~ Nancy Thoennes, Ph.D.

CPR has three Ph.D.’s — Venohr is the 3rd — but only used two for this report.

Prepared under grant number 90FD0096 from the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) to the State of Colorado Department of Human Services Division of Child Support Enforcement (DHS).

Points of view expressed in the document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of OCSE or DHS.

Here is the HHS grant that paid for it (the study):

This $125,000 award was made in 2004 (El Paso POP having become a trade name shortly before, in 2002).

Program Office

Grantee Name

Grantee Address

Grantee Type

Award Number

Award Title

CFDA Number

CFDA Program Name

Award Class

Award Activity Type

Award Action Type

Principal Investigator

Sum of Actions

OCSE

CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

Welfare Department

90FD0096

COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES

93564

Child Support Enforcement Research

DISCRETIONARY

DEMONSTRATION

NEW

PAULINE BURTON

$ 125,000

I imagine that the “F” stands for Fatherhood (or possibly “Family”) and “D” Demonstration….

Here’s a “9wantstoknow” 2009 investigation complaining about what people used food stamps for.  Pauline BUrton, this time, stood up for their right to choose (understanding there are limits):   Interesting!  At this time (2009, shortly after the report) at least, her office was:   “. . . . Pauline Burton, Colorado Department of Human Services director of the office of self sufficiency, whose office runs the food and cash assistance program”   If the people concerned about what people used their food stamps for actually knew what their government was using TANF & OCSE funds for (diversionary projects), they might feel differently!    Her knowledge of who was on Food Stamps obviously would provide some links to people (like the noncustodial parent/father involved) who might want to be in the POP demonstration project….

(I say “Father” because so many women I know have never been able to receive help from any A/V program, including after requesting it and when visitation orders were being ignored.  I was in this position, but knew nothing about the A/V system and so didn’t know I could ask).

Executive Summary

The Colorado Parenting Time Project was designed to assess whether identifying parents with visitation problems in the child support caseload and providing services aimed at resolving them improves parent-child contact and the subsequent payment of child support. Conducted in child support agencies in El Paso and Jefferson Counties, the project ultimately involved the identification of a total of 716 cases with visitation problems during May 2005 to December 2006, and their assignment to different groups for treatments of varying intensity:

␣ In both counties, a high-level treatment group was offered informal facilitation by the child access specialist (CAS), a specially trained worker at the child support agency retained with grant funds;

␣ In Jefferson County, a low-level treatment group was handed or mailed printed information about parenting time problems and various community resources to help parents with access problems, including free mediation and parent education services; and

␣ In El Paso County, an established unit within the child support agency (Parent Opportunity Project, or POP) offered noncustodial parents assistance with employment and parenting time using both facilitation and mediation techniques.

I am curious, and selected TAGGS search “90FD to find over 400 projects nationwide.  Limiting it to Colorado it was (I forget, but fewer than 50).  I then reduced it to “NEW” grants and came up with these 11, stretching from the year 1999 through 2010.  There is only one other principal investigator, and I am going to talk about some fo the “abstracts” which reveal the purposes.  Wouldn’t it be interesting to see how many of these “research” type OCSE grants went to the same organization(s)?

Grantee Name	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Action Issue Date	CFDA Program Name	Award Class	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions	Award Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0004	PRIORITY AREA 4.01 – NONCUSTODAIL PARENTS & THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THE ENFORCEMEN	1	09/16/1997	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 72,500	Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0028	NEW APPROACHES TO CHILD SUPPORT ARREARAGES	1	09/14/1999	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 75,000	View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0069	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT-PRIORITY AREA 4	1	09/15/2002	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 100,000	Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0080	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 1	1	09/10/2003	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 55,023	Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0096	COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	09/14/2004	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 125,000	Abstract Not Available
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0111	SECTION 1115 DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM – PA 2	1	07/12/2005	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 114,741	View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0126	AVOIDING AND MANAGING CHILD SUPPORT ARREARS IN COLORADO (PRIORITY AREA 1)	1	09/20/2008	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 99,815	View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0132	SECTION 1115 – PRIORITY AREA 2	1	09/20/2008	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 30,000	View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0166	PROJECTS TO ADDRESS CHILD SUPPORT NEEDS OF ACTIVE DUTY MILITARY MEMBERS	1	09/27/2010	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	OTHER	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 52,443	View Abstract
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	90FD0168	TRIPLE PLAY, THREE PATHS TO SUCCESS	1	09/25/2010	Child Support Enforcement Research	DISCRETIONARY	OTHER	NEW	JOHN BERNHART	$ 84,783	View Abstract
CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	90FD0033	COLLECTING CHILD SUPPORT FROM INCARCERATED & PAROLED OBLIGORS	1	09/14/1999	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	DISCRETIONARY	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$ 80,000	Abstract Not Available

Results 1 to 11 of 11 matches.

Abstracts include:

Grant 90FD0111:  “early intervention in all cases with NEW ORDERS, NEW delinquencies, high orders, and/or TANF involvement.” (year, 2005)

In targeting New Orders, this is about to become standard practice now — requiring ALL child support orders to entail diversionary funds to “access visitation” activities.   Going after delinquencies gives the facilitator an edge to highly suggest the parent participate (too much delinquency could result in jail), etc., etc.

JOHN BERNHART is apparently Division Director of Colorado Department of Child Support Services.

I also (searching) found him on a 2007 “Colorado Family Support Council” website, and felt it relevant to describe:  They are like other states’ child support training agency, and run conferences to train each other, being a nonprofit:

History

The Colorado Family Support Council was organized in 1974 under the umbrella of the Colorado District Attorney’s Council (CDAC). Seed money in the amount of $500.00 was provided to the Family Support Council by CDAC.

The purpose of the Colorado Family Support Council was to promote understanding of family support issues and to provide a forum for child support workers to discuss problems, solutions and further the direction of the program.

Since training has always been perceived as an important element in the effectiveness of the IV-D program, the council began sponsoring an annual training conference for those working in the field of child support. In addition to the annual conferences, the council has sponsored numerous regional training sessions on topics of interest. In 1985, CFSC merged its annual conference with, and became host of, the national conference in Snowmass.

In 1991 the Council incorporated as a 501(c)3 charitable organization. The purpose of the council had to change slightly to drop lobbying efforts to keep its educational tax preference status. Donations made to CFSC are now tax deductible for many tax filers.

In 2005, the Council started its website at http://www.cfscinc.org to keep its membership informed of pertinent information and assist its board of directors in conducting the business of the organization.

And this past 2010, one of the conference VENDOR/EXHIBITORS happened to be PSI, which, again runs an access/visitation grant right from El Paso County Child Support Services as “El Paso County POP” At least, I believe that’s what “PSI” below represents:

Thank You, Vendors

Thanks to our 2010 sponsors and exhibitors. Their contributions help us to host an outstanding conference with affordable registration fees.

LabCorp	Orchid Cellmark	PSI
Systems & Methods Inc	WICSEC	–

(upper right).  (Orchid Cellmark probably gives DNA printing or paternity tests;it looks familiar).

IRS filings (go back to 2001, here):

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Colorado Family Support Council	CO	2010	$44,401	990EZ	8	84-1180995

 

This post could go on indefinitely.  I will summarize some of my own recent finds, and hope it has provided some tools:

My recent finds (as a consequence of doing this post):

Organizations/COrporations:

• ICF INTERNATIONAL, INC.  — an organization to be watched, and of concern that a company with such roots in the defense industry is producing dubious or potentially conflict of interest reports about water safety (Percholate contamination, which apparently does, in excess, affect the neurology of children, infants and fetuses, among others).  The Massachusetts EPA, after reading a report to which ICF contributed, still chose to set stricter standards.

• Why are groups getting multi-million federal contracts already also getting any GRANT as well?
• Why does the HHS call this organization “CITY” but it appears to look like a corporation to me?  Who are they, really?
• where the ACF called the grant “Healthy Marriage” (as supposedly contrasted with “Responsible Fatherhood”)? while the ICF website is quite clear which it is?
• This group is doing over $1 billion of business in various fields with the US, AND is in on the fatherhood business too, perhaps it bears a closer look.
• PARENTS ANONYMOUS is ap”parently” a favorite of both HHS & DOJ departments, which concerns me as one of its original board members was involved in the judicial department of Los Angeles County.  Again, $18 million is a lot of business.  Almost every times PARENTS ANONYMOUS moves, it trademarks something.
• CIRCLE OF PARENTS(tr) (inc. 2004) got $4.8 million of grants from HHS 2006-2010 (so far identified), and is an NFI front, obviously, with connections to (at a minimum) the Colorado Child Support Enforcement System.  This represents what HHS is promoting – -a policy of organizing corporations around the internet, and co-opting their language.
• (though I knew this already)  REMEMBER TO CHECK  — always — “dba’s” and Registered Trademarks of any organizations being looked at.  Example:  PSI (aka El Paso County Child Support, aka (ALSO), “El Paso County Child Support Parent Opportunity Program”) — and, then (as “PSI” itself) reviewing the Access Visitation programs run by, itself (under the POP registered name) — in association with another nonprofit it shares personnel with, CPR.  Knowing that the founder of Center for Policy Research (Jessica Pearson, being an original) also co-founded AFCC, from my understanding (and there is a California Corporation entity under the name) . . . .. . I’d have to say the “CIRCLE OF (fatherhood-friendly, custodial-Mom-antagonistic) is fairly complete, and drawing in the drawstrings . . . .
•  
•  
• ALWAYS ATTEMPT TO LOCATE AND EXAMINE A TAX RETURN OR TWO, SEARCH THE STREET ADDRESS, AND WHERE LIKELY TO BE PRODUCTIVE, SEARCH THE CEOs or other Board of Directors’ associates and affiliates.
•  
• LAST, but not least — it’s becoming more and more clear that BOTH the public access databases TAGGS and USASPENDING.GOV (which was required by law) — are deceitful and inaccurate.  I have begun to question, moreover, whether rather than USASpending.gov UNDER-reporting, possibly HHS is OVER-REPORTING, and directing funds towards groups that will cooperate with it in programs that are not properly monitored, and a ripe breeding ground for kickbacks and money laundering.

Prior to looking at this last ground of grantees, and a bit more at the CHMC, I would’ve been less prone to saying this, but the evidence is accumulating quickly.  I believe its possible that the entire programming is designed simply around high-emotion terminology (families, Dads, Kids) to enable hiding federal funds disbursed to, for lack of a better word, cronies.  This is not “taxation with representation” but taxation without it.

70 New Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood Grantees for 2011, series “90FM” (And Why Let’s Get Honest is NOT amused….)

 

After an exhausting, bloodhound-trail-following attempt to get the “REAL” California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (complete with whoever is running it) to Please Stand Up (on-line, in the form of a historically coherent, traceable set of incorporations, nonprofit registrations, and if I”m lucky, even 990s filed on-line), I determined to post the entire list, and talk about some of them.  Which is below.  I am also starting a new Page here to start profiling these BUSINESSES, AGENCIES or DEPARTMENTS (see grantee types) one by one.  I disclaim all responsibility for any actions readers may take on what’s below before fact-checking themselves; I think the dizzying re-incarnations of a certain two (basic) California groups may have resulted in cross-referencing one with the other at times,

For my birthday, I would also like to see the articles of incorporation of EVERY SINGLE one of the Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood Grantees, so the public can know which of them used to be (or still are) working for:

(1) The Department of HHS/ACF (who it seems would be approving the grants), &/or :

(2) Local Court system or other County Public Employment, with potential influence on who steers the contracts that these nonprofits are going to take advantage other, in the booming business of “parent education” “marriage education” ‘Fatherhood promotion” and what’s apparently another one, “RELATIONSHIP SKILLS DEVELOPMENT.”

I also would like a chart (it’d need to be 3D at this point) cross-referencing Board of Directors in common.  As most normal people are not this anal-retentive, or “could care less,” I’ll likely produce that birthday gift myself.

Any of those terms can be used to suck money out of the Title IV-A (welfare) and Title IV-D (Child Support Enforcement) funds, plus some others, like child welfare, which is synonymous with a child going to sleep with a biological father in the home, apparently (judging by some of the programs being promoted around the term “child welfare.”

Moreover, when scrutinized, the financial — business – profit is actually going to any company that has developed a marketable curriculum.  This is not only in the form of money, but also in the form of reputation, and anything that would help them keep their place in line for more federally-sponsored business promotion.  Meanwhile, one or both of the parties being forced or induced to consume their material — or divorce in front of judges who believe they should, and have some stake in some of those nonprofits or for-profits — are most likely losing finances and reputation.

In that regard, these guys put AFCC to shame. AFCC markets quit a bit of its own material, including the usual Conference CDS, DVDs) including BOOKS — and does this through mandated participation via family law system.  But I think they have to work a little harder at keeping it going — in other words, it takes a court order to force someone in front of a parent educator, parent coordinator (unless they can be induced to do so voluntarily under duress) and into a parent education classes aimed at a 5th grade mentality and taking up one’s dwindling resource of TIME.

But it does NOT take a court order for the manufacturers of a marriage curriculum to get their local pastors, priests, and the occasional rabbi or imam,* to (1) form a corporation with profits anticipated and grants to set it up and (2) set up a website soliciting business, after they understand of course that step one is to join a coalition and then buy into being trained to market membership in the same corporation.  Brilliant.  Of course, AFCC’s preparatory work in wearing down couples and pushing for legislation, and forming associations to endorse each other’s policies while pretending independence, is going to be helpful overall publicity….

(no relation, but interesting reference:  I.M.A.M. organization, incl points 1& 2 out of 5:)

To be a central resource for the Shia Muslims in North America and their religious and spiritual leadership (Marja’iyyah) in all that pertains to matters of their religion and beliefs away from any political or party influence. To organize matters of the Shia Muslims in North America in relevant areas such as worship, marriage, divorce, wills, inheritance, or other religious legal matters.

No, if we want to eradicate poverty in this country we should teach someone to set up a corporation selling healthy marriage curriculum, and trying to persuade teenagers not to have sex.  We are not likely to run out of sexually active teens (or for that matter, mature adults) and I don’t think divorce is going anywhere — so there is definitely a market niche.  Too bad some us didn’t get in on it in the 1980s, but judging by the 1990s and 2000s, there’s hope for newcomers if they buy in, imitate the business model, and don’t rock the boat.

Ideally, this curriculum should be completely self-promoting and self-executing by internet download.  That way, more is left over from the grants gotten to promote it — not including whatever is lost in the black hole of “No accountability,” several of which are showing up, the closer one looks.

The names of this curriculum tend to run in cutesy-sounding acronyms, one summary of which shows up here:

MML, LoveU2(tr), PREP, PREPARE/ENRICH, “PAIRS” (and so forth), plus a whole variety of BootCamps

MML — “Mastering the Mysteries of Love”; PAIRS – “Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills, PREP – “Prevention and Relation Education Program”

(link shows that PREP is hoping to adapt a version for Muslim Couples, working with a group in Qatar).

Some of these hearken back to University Institutes and research/demonstration grants previously funded by the US Government. One of these days, if they get enough TANF participants (and others) forced through these classes, they may come up with the right formula to create the perfect human relationship.  Alternately, they can continue working on producing the perfect human being through Early Headstart, the K-12 public education system, and whatever other sources are around.

Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614 EISENBERG, SETH D 411-KIDS, INC. N04000002485 EISENBERG, SETH D UST INTERNATIONAL, INC. P96000094023 EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614

 

  Award Number = 90FM

Showing: 1 – 50 of 70 Award Actions

Page: « Previous 1 2 Next »

Recipient: AUBURN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 36849

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0006	ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI)	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 2,489,548
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,489,548

Recipient: AVANCE, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 77092

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0041	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,999
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,999

Recipient: Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages
Recipient ZIP Code: 75246-1754

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0018	ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT.	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,514,359
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,514,359

Recipient: Arizona Youth Partnership
Recipient ZIP Code: 85741-2259

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0030	BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA.	1	93.086	ACF	09-28-2011	$ 634,536
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 634,536

Recipient: BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45230-2907

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0029	BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,999
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,999

Recipient: BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 49501-0294

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0011	BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”)	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,996
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,996

Recipient: CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 90806-2708

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0034	MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 570,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 570,000

Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES
Recipient ZIP Code: 67214-3504

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0042	PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,445,587
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,445,587

Recipient: CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON
Recipient ZIP Code: 08618-5705

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0016	EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 555,300
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 555,300

Recipient: CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 16830-3323

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0003	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V)	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 354,714
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 354,714

Recipient: COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 19601-3303

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0044	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 787,665
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 787,665

Recipient: CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER
Recipient ZIP Code: 85004

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0021	TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 359,796
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 359,796

Recipient: California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Recipient ZIP Code: 92024-2215

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0019	CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 2,500,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,500,000

  LGH notes on this group:   (Needs to be a separate post, but here’s a teaser):

SEARCHED THIS GROUP BY ITS EIN# (Simple “Recipient” search on TAGGS”) — there are two series, note DUNS#s….

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	LEUCADIA	CA	92024-2215	SAN DIEGO	003664535	$ 7,883,475
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	LEUCADIA	CA	92024-2215	SAN DIEGO	361795151	$ 7,142,080

The heading (when you click on the title, above) shows the street address.  Note:  LEUCADIA, and in SAN DIEGO area.     

Recipient:	California Healthy Marriages Coalition
Address:	1045 PASSIFLORA AVE LEUCADIA, CA 92024-2215
Country Name:	United States of America
County Name:	SAN DIEGO
HHS Region:	9
Type:	Other Social Services Organization
Class:	Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations

 

However, from the official HHS/ACF Grantee award announcement, HERE, there is no entry for “California Healthy Marriages Coalition.”  How could there be, in 2011, as the outfit no longer exists.  Instead, it’s called (latest corporate name incarnation I could find, may not be the most current):

(From the ACF site, not TAGGS:  http://www.acf.hhs.gov/news/press/2011/Grantawards2011.html.  As TAGGS information is supplied by the agency in question (see description on the site) the information should match, and public should be able to sort by an identification number.  That’s basic common sense — IF the intent was transparency).

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

What on TAGGS (and on the public website) is “California Healthy Marriages Coalition” is now called, “Healthy Relationships California.”

This is why the TAGGS database, which possesses EIN# and DUNS#, could easily have put that field in any report generated, but chose to omit EIN (would probably show up a lot of grantees who never bothered to get one) so we could follow the career & grants-allocations track of a nonprofit that keeps changing its corporate name, something that only checking at the State (not federal) level would otherwise show.    And Healthy Marriage Grantees are notoriously (when examined) shape-shifters.

So I check out this nonprofit name on the Charitable Trusts registration, California STate Office of Attorney General:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA CT0149740 Charity Delinquent LEUCADIA CA Charity Registration Charity 1

 

 This is the detail.  For some reason no “Address Line1” is entered (matching the Secretary of State entry for this name)

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected. You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information Full Name: HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA FEIN: 680606790 Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2746528 Registration Number: CT0149740 Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration Issue Date: 3/3/2009 Renewal Due Date: 5/15/2011 Registration Status: Delinquent Date This Status: 3/17/2011 Date of Last Renewal: 3/17/2011 Address Information Address Line 1: (SAME AS ABOVE) Phone: Address Line 2: Address Line 3: Address Line 4: LEUCADIA CA 92024 Annual Renewal Information Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-05 Fiscal End: 31-DEC-05 Total Assets: $48,225.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $60,606.00 RRF Received: 23-MAR-09 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status: Accepted

NOTE:  The $48,225.00 was probably a “Compassion Capacity-Building Grant” to start with.   Google “990 finder” and search by EIN to get the Federal Fillings:

Here, the amount $48,225 shows under “CHMC.”

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
California Healthy Marriages Coal	CA	2005	$48,225	990EZ	10	68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	2008	$328,871	990	24	68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	2007	$340,894	990	19	68-0606790
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	2006	$148,062	990	21	68-0606790
California Healty Marriages Coaltion	CA	2009	$334,155	990	22	68-0606790

Looking at the 2005 EIN, one reads purpose:  “CHMC has begun (in 2005) a 17-month federally-funded project

to offer training and technical assistance

to marriage-support organizations (including coalitions) throughout California.”  EXPENSES:   $41,709.

Two Directors (only) are listed:  Dennis Stoica (at a PO Box in Cerritos, CA), and Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D., at a street address in Sacramento.  Remember the names;

they will show up in several other related organizations / associations, including with another name-changing organization (getting millions) in Colorado.

Modest salaries are only $10K (Stoica) and $7K (Curtis).   Curtis seems to have better luck staying incorporated than STOICA:

(Secretary of State)

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2629035	11/08/2004	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE  ((Oakland addresss)	CHRIS GRIER
C2896098	06/01/2006	ACTIVE	FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION	ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911	03/07/2001	DISSOLVED	HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION	ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION	DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473	10/04/2006	SUSPENDED	RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745	05/12/2004	ACTIVE	SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304	05/29/2009	ACTIVE	SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238	03/02/2006	ACTIVE	STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION	JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354	08/13/2007	ACTIVE	YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	WILLIAM F JENS

“ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION” (Stoica, see above) never bothered to register with the Attorney General as a Nonprofit:

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION Charity Not Registered SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity 1

which may have something to do with why it got suspended.  Alas, because that makes the EIN# harder to get at.  Mr. Stoica flew off (at least via internet) to Florida

and has started (as of 2010) an association of Marriage Educators, nevertheless, called “NARME.”  Moreover, for how many people refer to the Orange County Marriage group, one would think it’s still legitimate.  But I’m focusing on the other ones, today.

2011 News Release, announcement by Calif. Congressman Doris Matsui features Dr. Curtis and the “Relationship Skills Center,” from Matsui.house.gov:

Congresswoman Matsui Announces Nearly $800,000 for Local Family Development Services

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (CA-5) announced that the Relationship Skills Center, a Sacramento-based relationship education non-profit, has been awarded $798,825 through the United States Department of Health and Human Services to provide relationship and family stability educational services.

Awarded through the Administration for Children and Families-Healthy Marriage Initiative, this funding will be used by the Relationship Skills Center to provide evidence based relationship education classes and case management services to help families improve their marriage and relationship skills, achieve career and economic stability, and connect families with a variety of community resources.

“We are thrilled to receive this grant.  In the last five years we have helped 735 couples form healthy, stable, safe families,” said Carolyn CurtisHISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. She discovered that communities across the nation were organizing and reducing their divorce rate by up to 50%. After a successful career as a therapist helping one couple at a time, Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region. HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund

Ph.D., Executive Director of the Relationship Skills Center.

The “Relationship Skills Center” (per Curtis’ LinkedIn profile) was “Formerly Healthy Marriage Project” and Dr. Curtis has worked there since 2004, “7 years 8 months”   OK….  Looking at the list of ACF grantees, this organization name does not appear.  However it has the same street address as “Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project,” including the suite#.

RELATIONSHIP SKILLS PAGE “CONTACT  US,”  URL:  “http://www.skills4us.org/Contact%20Us“

Address
9719 Lincoln Village Drive, Suite 205
Sacramento, CA 95827

CHARITABLE TRUSTS:  “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT.”

Below is the detailed data for the registrant you selected. You may CLOSE this window to return to the Search Results and choose another registrant.Registrant Information Full Name: SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT FEIN: 134280316 Type: Public Benefit Corporate or Organization Number: 2650745 Registration Number: 130981 Record Type: Charity Registration Type: Charity Registration Issue Date: 12/31/2005 Renewal Due Date: 2/15/2011 Registration Status: Current Date This Status: Date of Last Renewal: 8/10/2010 Address Information Address Line 1: 9719 LINCOLN VILLAGE DR, SUITE 205 Phone: Address Line 2: Address Line 3: Address Line 4: SACRAMENTO CA 95827

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT 130981 Charity Current SACRAMENTO CA Charity Registration Charity 1 Moreover, if one looks at the details, it’s clear that “EIN# 134280316” has been a going concern (both assets and income) from Day 1 (2005-06 year), but has not provided the annual required RRF forms, or iRS reports, regularly, as required by law.  Finally in 2010, they got a slap on the wrist from the Attorney General:

(in the chart here, below the words “Fee Notice” are several entries indicating professional fundraising for the organization by “EXPRESSIONS.”  Professional Fundraisers also are required to register, and hand over evidence that their profits were received by an officer of the nonprofit they are raising funds for….  I’ll quote from the Fee Notice, which is a red flag for the public of something out of order for a nonprofit).

Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-08 Fiscal End: 30-SEP-09 Total Assets: $37,781.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $670,305.00 RRF Received: 20-JUL-10 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status: Accepted Fiscal Begin: 01-OCT-09 Fiscal End: 30-SEP-10 Total Assets: $64,938.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $598,785.00 RRF Received: 08-AUG-11 Returned Date: 990 Attached: Y Status: Rejected Related Documents 1045737 RRF-1 2008 1045738 IRS Form 990 2008 59107 RRF-1 2009 59108 IRS Form 990-EZ 2009 130981441796 Fee Notice Prerequisite Information  {{LINES BELOW HERE REFER TO FUNDRAISING EVENTS..}} {{EXPRESSIONS is the PROFESSIONAL FUNDRAISER}} Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity Registrant: EXPRESSIONS Registration No: E0005532 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete Date Established: 6/30/2009 Association Date: 6/22/2009 Expiration Date: 7/31/2009 Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity Registrant: EXPRESSIONS Registration No: E0007825 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete Date Established: 5/12/2010 Association Date: 4/24/2010 Expiration Date: 12/31/2010 Prereq Type: Prerequisite Relationship: Charity Registrant: EXPRESSIONS Registration No: E0011403 Registration Type: Fundraising Event Registration Status: Complete Date Established: 7/13/2011 Association Date: 6/30/2011 Expiration Date: 7/31/2011

The FEE NOTICE, dated Sept. 20, 2011, “NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT,  reads,

1. Explanation/Information not provided for “YES” answer to Part B , Question No. 6.

Part B of an RRF is “PART B – STATEMENTS REGARDING ORGANIZATION DURING THE PERIOD OF THIS REPORT” and question 6 is:  

During this reporting period, did the organization receive any governmental funding? If so, provide an attachment listing the name of the agency, mailing address, contact person, and telephone number.  Incidentally, question 2 is:  During this reporting period, was there any theft, embezzlement, diversion or misuse of the organization’s charitable property or funds?  Question 5, for which (on the 2009 RRF, available to see on-line), “During this reporting period, were the services of a commercial fundraiser or fundraising counsel for charitable purposes used? If “yes,” provide an attachment listing the name, address, and telephone number of the service provider.

was checked “No,” and (right around Father’s Day 2009) they were using a commercial fundraiser, a sole proprietorship called “EXPRESSIONS.”

And (on 9/20/2011) the group was also reminded:

2. The $75 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587, please provide the requested information, together with a copy of this letter, to the above address, within thirty (30) days of the date of this letter.

I look forward to finding out by October 20th whether this nonprofit which exists primarily as a recipient of a Federal Grants program directing funds from welfare and child support enforcement (as I understand it) into marriage education classes, will get its act together.  I’d also really like to read the articles of incorporation, which it would make sense to post, and some groups actually do, on-line.

On this ‘RELATIONSHIP SKILLS CENTER” (boasted about recently by Congressman Doris Matsui), we clearly have a SACRAMENTO emphasis, and address — yet, given that Carolyn Curtis shows as one of two incorporators of not the SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE but “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGE” (corporate registration showing a SAN DIEGO area, not SACRAMENT) (now called “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” on the charitable site . . )  it appears that Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Relationships — which IS “California Healthy Marriages” but shares a street address & jurisdiction with the Sacramento Healthy Marriage….) sees itself as the original organization, per its “About Us/ History Page”:

HISTORY OF THE HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT

The Healthy Marriage Project was founded in 2004 by lifetime therapist and college professor Dr. Carolyn Curtis. … Curtis envisioned an organization that would be capable of changing the lives of thousands of couples and their children across our community. In 2005 HMP obtained its 501 (c) (3) designation and began providing relationship skills classes through community and faith-based organizations in the Sacramento Region.

…HMP received its first significant funding in the form of a $50,000 grant from the Compassion Capital Fund,   …

In 2006, HMP applied for and was awarded $2.5 million from the Administration for Children and Families to provide relationship skills classes to low income pregnant unwed couples or couples with an infant. The resulting Flourishing Families Program, now in its fourth year, has served over 500 families, and its success has been nationally recognized. In 2009 HMP was chosen as one of three from a total of 120 healthy marriage demonstration grantees to provide peer to peer training. HMP was selected to lead four workshops at the National Healthy Marriage – Responsible Fatherhood Grantee Conference.

OK, here are the 2 relevant ACF Grantees again, for 2011, per the Oct 3 news release. interesting that October is also “Domestic Violence Awareness Month”:

.Healthy Marriage Grantees (top of two charts; the bottom, of almost equal amount (total) is “Fatherhood.”

Legal Name Organization

City

State

Award Amount

Healthy Relationships California

Leucadia

CA

$2,500,000

Secretary of State shows Incorporator Patty Howell (and if one clicks, the Leucadia Address)   SOS site does not allow EXACT search, so we got others, too (it really is an inferior search site, and very unwieldy)

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C3073670	01/16/2008	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528	05/13/2005	ACTIVE	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	PATTY HOWELL
C2790720	06/09/2006	ACTIVE	OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS	DARRYL HARRISON
C2494811	01/06/2003	DISSOLVED	THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	TAMARA ILICH

Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project

Sacramento

CA

$798,825

Secretary of State Registration shows it’s still active:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2650745	05/12/2004	ACTIVE	SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	CAROLYN RICH CURTIS

The EIN# 680606790 (federal level — posted above) belongs to “CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION” (per IRS 990s) which “IS” “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as to (state-level) Charitable Registrations.  Carolyn Curtis, Ph.D. (along with Stoica) was indeed apparently a founder — at least an incorporator.  Somehwere, CHMC became “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” — however (inexplicably) that corporation was also formed in 2005 by another person, Patty Howell.  Adding to the confusion,

The EIN# 134280316 belongs to “CHMC” — which is Leucadia (=San Diego Area).  KEY that EIN# into the OAG site and you’ll get a listing called

“Sacramento Healthy Marriages Project “

ONE is in Southern CA — the other in Northern CA, and we’re a very lengthy state.

Try it now (takes a few seconds) — Please!   Then, from “foundationfinder” look at their 2006 IRS 990 form:  Executive Director Carolyn Curtis drew a moderate salary of $32,731,”  plus obviously also the $7K she got with Mr. Stoica under the other group.    

{{I believe this link shows clearly the HHS connection, or at least one of them, to STOICA and HHS:  Bill Coffin promoting a Stoica Webinar on how to get ACF grants.  Bill self-describes as “

• Bill Coffin
• Working with NARME and CA Healthy Marriages Coalition on a part-time basis.
  Was Exec Dir of IDEALS (Jan-Aug 2011) [[Has links to these groups, too, based in PA & Kentucky]]
• From 2002-10 I was the Special Assistant for Marriage Education at ACF/HHS

BILL also, in “MARRIAGE.GOV” summarizes the Healthy Marriage Movement with glowing descriptions of Wade Horn & George Bush

It should hardly surprise us that Mr. Coffin is also found presenting at AFCC (Washington, D.C.) in 2007:

14. Marriage Skills Education and the Courts

Saving marriages was once a goal of family courts, but was de- emphasized amid all the other problems courts address. Recent developments in relationship skills education offer new hope for improving marriages. Meanwhile, there are increasing demands to do something to reduce the damage to parents and children in fam- ily separation. Can courts not just mitigate the effects of family breakdown, but also help reduce it? First, they must study what works, and carefully adapt programs to the people they serve and to other real-world constraints.

Bill Coffin M.Ed., Special Assistant for Marriage Education, Administration for Children and Families, Washington, D.C.

John Crouch, J.D., Arlington, VA Fred J. DeJong, Ph.D., Calvin College, Grand Rapids, MI

Dennis Stoica teaching a webinar on ACF grant announcements June 17 for NARME members

On Friday June 17 from 1:30 pm to 3:00 pm (ET), NARME Board Member Dennis Stoica (President of California Healthy Marriages Coalition) will conduct a 90-minute webinar – for NARME Members only – comparing and contrasting the six different grant announcements which are scheduled to be released earlier that week.

GOOD GRIEF:  This is Fathers Day, 2011, and STOICA is, despite website, I’d lay a bet, NOT President of “California Healthy Marriages Coalition,” however if he by some stretch of the imagination still is involved with Patty Howell’s “Healthy Relationships California” group (which now owns the CHMC Fictitious Business Name), THAT group appears to be evading taxes.  They didn’t even send in $75 with their last registration, and failed to report contact information for which government grants they were getting!”   This 2011 announcement indicates that someone who claims to have been working for ACF from 2002-2010 is using (inside information?) to help this faith-based group get a headsup on grants applications before they are announced.

the group NARME was formed in Florida (under STOICA) only in 2010; it is a membership group rejoicing at the diversion of TANF funds for abstinence education, etc.

 

Hundreds of organizations participated in a similar teleconference that Dennis conducted back in 2006 when the original Healthy Marriage Demonstration Grants and Promoting Responsible Fatherhood Grants were released; and many of those participants attributed their subsequent success in being awarded grants to a combination of that teleconference and the subsequent grant-writing tele-trainings that Dennis conducted during that year’s grant-writing period.  Since this webinar will only be offered to NARME members, if you have not yet joined NARME you should do that right away by going tohttp://www.regonline.com/builder/site/Default.aspx?EventID=881238.

ANOTHER WEBSITE (don’t start bringing out the tomatoes to throw!  Just tell me why this site lists Stoica as “co-founder” of “EPISCOPAL CHURCH-OUR SAVIOR” (in Placerville, CA) and the employees just happen to match the CHMC employees!:  From SPOKE.com

Dennis Stoica

People named Dennis Stoica

Title and Company:

Co-Founder at Episcopal Church-Our Saviour

Company Address:

Po Box 447
Placerville, Ca 96114

Episcopal Church-Our Saviour’s Employees

Join to view all (9)

Carolyn Curtis

Director

Presenter

Ralph Jones

Master Trainer of…

Dennis Stoica

Co-Founder

K Krafsky

Community Mobiliz…

Bento Leal

Implementation Sp…

Kerri Norbut

Special Projects …

Alison Doucette

Special Projects …

Jakki Penn

GOOD GRIEF!

The “Church OF Our Savior” at this address, is Episcopal, and is a historic landmark (it was not founded by Stoica!), around since the 1800s.

Church of Our Saviour, “Serving God for over 150 years“

2979 Coloma St. // PO Box 447

Placerville, CA 95667-0447
office@oursaviourpv.org

 

  However, among the many ministries it operates IS, indeed, a MARRIAGE EDUCATION ministry:    

Marriage Education

Fr. Craig Kuehn

Our Saviour offers several, research based, courses designed to enhance relationships, generically called marriage education. Every couple can benefit by attending at least one marriage education program per year. For more inforamtion, see www.edhealthymarriages.org.

Coalition history

We began under the intiation of the California Healthy Marriages Coalition and we received our initial funding from them (www.camarriage.com). Fr. Craig Kuehn of the Episcopal Church of Our Saviour, Placerville and Meredith Koch of Marshall Hospital, Placerville attended a workshop about grant opportunities promoting healthy marriages. Ever since then, the project snowballed into a coalition of faith-based and community-based organizations interested in and offering marriage and related programs to the people of El Dorado County, California.

We are a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization as recognized by the Internal Revenue Service.

YES THEY ARE — and one of the few who seems to have kept it up, better than their leaders.  As such they are helping market classes and products put out by

some truly conservative groups, who are doing QUITE well and remain close to the government faucet.  how nice to know that religious organizations can profit from this also. They can collect their tithes AND their grants, from people who pay taxes towards the grants also, no doubt.   SEE THE LINKS LIST: including one I definitely recognize as being marketed through the welfare system, too:   PREPARE/ENRICH (a  research project out of Minnesota, FOR-profit formed in 1980); “SMARTMARRIAGES.COM” (a FOR-profit) organized by Diane Sollee, with this logo:

(ALSO quite well-informed about the marriage grants system, while shamelessly marketing classes, DVDs, train-the trainers, certifications, and holding conferences to keep this up),

and “Institute for American Values,” PResident, David Blankenhorn (also of National Fatherhood Initiative)

WIKIPEDIA on Blankenhorn confirms this and highlights his “expert-witness” testimony against Prop 8 (anti-Gay, California) as heard in the Supreme Court:

Blankenhorn founded the Institute for American Values, a nonpartisan think tank whose stated mission is to “study and strengthen key American values”, in 1987.^[1][3] In 1992, President George H.W. Bush appointed Blankenhorn to serve on the National Commission on America’s Urban Families.^[4][2][5]Blankenhorn helped to found the National Fatherhood Initiative, a nonpartisan organization focused on responsible fatherhood, in 1994.^[1][2][6] As of 2007, Blankenhorn has written “scores of op-ed pieces and essays, co-edited eight books and written two.”^[1] Blankenhorn identifies as a liberal Democrat.^{[7][1]   “In his decision filed on August 4, 2010, Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that Blankenhorn was not qualified as an expert witness, and that his testimony was “unreliable and entitled to essentially no weight.”[10]}

BLANKENHORN is a Harvard Grad, (BA Social Studies 1977), and a masters in Comparative Social Science from a British University. He was raised Presbyterian in Mississippi.

ANYHOW, as we can see, Fr. (or “Rev.”) KUEHN, above, Incorporated in time to get the grants, and has stayed incorporated:

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2856112	03/03/2006	ACTIVE	EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION	CRAIG KUEHN

… if not current on the Charitable Registration, for “EIN# 204384330

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION 130730 Charity Delinquent PLACERVILLE CA Charity Registration Charity 1

The annual report was filed ONCE, and it appears that no IRS forms were provided  to notate who gave it the gov’t grants.  TAGGS search on this EIN

comes up:

RECIPIENT SEARCH RESULTS

Printer-friendly Version

Recipient EIN = 204384330 No matching awards found.

Obviously the corporation is operating right out of the church building:

Entity Name:	EL DORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION
Entity Number:	C2856112
Date Filed:	03/03/2006
Status:	ACTIVE
Jurisdiction:	CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:	PO BOX 447
Entity City, State, Zip:	PLACERVILLE CA 95667
Agent for Service of Process:	CRAIG KUEHN
Agent Address:	2979 COLOMA ST
Agent City, State, Zip:	PLACERVILLE CA 95667

But without government funding, it actually went into the hole:

Fiscal Begin: 01-JAN-09 Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09 Total Assets: $1,248.00 Gross Annual Revenue: ($583.00) RRF Received: 12-JAN-10 Returned Date: 990 Attached: N Status: Accepted

And finally it appears that it filed income taxes ONCE — in 2006 only — as here:

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
El Dorado Healthy Marriages Coal	CA	2006	$2,476	990EZ	10	20-4384330

(This form has no signature on Tax Preparers’ line).  Line 1 -Revenue — Gifts, contributions, grants — shows $20,500.  Salaries, other comp & employee benefits come to $7,428:   $3,384 for Pres:  Rev. Kuehn + $2,006 for VP: Meredith Koch = $5,390.

By my basic math, $7,428-$5,390 = $1,038 in some form of “comp” (no benefits listed) which I don’t see on the form.

However, we do see $11,144 in “Conference fees & travel, supplies, & organization fees.”   There’s likely a membership going to CHMC, they buy material to vend? and they get tax-deductive travel & conference times.  Think AmWay….     The tax-exempt purpose is:  “PROMOTE AND TEACH MARRIAGE PROGRAMS.”

Somehow, $20,655 (of $20,500 received) was spent to:

Start-up and organizational expenses, capacity building to include six faith-based and community-based organizations teaching marriaged (sic) education.  This included training as (“at”) the Smart Marriages Conference and from California Healthy Marriages Coalition, 64 couples received marriage education.  (that’s a pretty high overhead….  How much did the marriage education for those couples cost?)

Meredith Koch (retired nurse in the area) is found also teaching “PAIRS” classes.  PAIRS Foundation ends up being Federally Funded, too, in South Florida:

Large, Multi-Year, Federally-Funded Study Finds Enduring Impact of Marriage Education Findings from a large, federally funded, multi-year study of South Florida couples participating in nine hours of marriage and relationship education found statistically significant improvements in consensus, satisfaction, affection, and cohesion for both distressed and non-distressed participants…

Another way of seeing this — PAIRS is another nonprofit out of Florida helping the US Government run a multi-level marketing setup.  It could’ve been cars, toys, or

any other service which would come under Consumer Protection laws; but it just instead happens to be relationship education.  One can Be a “Leader,” a “CPAIRS” (Christian — Perhaps later, Jews Muslims, Buddhists, Ba’hai, Hindi, etc. might make it on the radar — but so for those populations haven’t really caught the “marriage education is free money” bug yet, to the extent these religious Christian (churches) have.)   One can also be a PTP, MT, or TRAINER.  Buy into the system.  Might as well – -your taxes have already paid for it, and others like it.  See “UNDERSTANDING PAIRS LEVELS” at the site, telling title, “consumer.PAIRS.COM”

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
PAIRS FOUNDATION	Weston	FL	33331-3642	BROWARD	839942422	$ 4,950,000

(that’s roughly $1 million/year from 2006-2010)

(SIGH.  As usual, a combo of for-profit, and not-for-profits under similar names show up.   Seth D. Eisenberg of Florida — or is it Virginia? — has got it together now,

and the PAIRS FOUNDATION (Inc.), which merged with PAIRS, Ltd. (his corp from VA) are now in business under EIN# 650629670.  With these cohorts, which are visualized (and listed) in CORPORATIONWIKI.Com.  This time, the FOR-PROFIT LLC is “Partnership Skills, LLC”

As of March, 2011, a list of (mostly churches) with “COURSE PROVIDER” column mostly blank, included Seth & PAIRS International, LLC,” right after “Okeechobee Missionary Baptist Church” and listed these potential under “COUNSELOR” column:   ”  I notice the URL shows the Clerk of Records for the local Circuit court for Okeechobee County.

EISENBERG, SETH KOSS, PHYLLIS FARBER, AURORA MINZER- BRYANT,SHARON FARBER, RHETT PARKER, DANA GARFIELD, ANNIE SALYERS, JANET GORDON, LORI SPINOSA, WILLIAM HERRINGTON, PEGGY VALDEZ, SCOTT.  

The merger was in May, 2006, and possibly helped getting this, which I am sure also helped: (fromTAGGS).

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	Award Code	Agency	Action Issue Date	DUNS Number	Amount This Action
2006	90FE0029	HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANTS: PRIORITY AREA 2	1	0	ACF	09-24-2006	839942422	$ 990,000
Fiscal Year 2006 Total:								$ 990,000

If I go to USASPENDING.gov and type in the DUNS# and check “GRANTS” only (not “Contracts, Loans,” etc.), and check the tab “TIMELINE” it’s very clear that the above 2006 grant was NOT reported to usaspending.gov, although 2007, 08, 09 & 10 were.  In other words, usaspending.gov ain’t reliable.

Also clear (looking at details) from this is that the CFDA is 93086 (marriage/fatherhood ) AND that the source is “75-

Also, (I took the DUNS# and went to “USASPENDING.gov” Prime Award, checked every category except grants, and got 15 transactions:

• Total Dollars:$227,754
• Transactions:1 – 15 of 15

Recommended to do (est. time — 4 minutes max) — well over $100K of this is contracts from 2011 only.  The map above (interactive) shows that half its business (contracts) are from California & Indiana (strong fatherhood state) combined, but also Georgia, Virginia, NOrth Carolina and Florida.  Not bad, eh?

And (same search, showing “Timeline” of increase in contracts (by graph/bars) shows about a 5-fold increase from 2009.  If you’re IN, you’re IN, in this field.

Nonprofit + related For-PRofit means wider coverage and probably more profits.  Simply design a product to match the HHS Healthy Marriage/Fatherhood grants stream!   THere’s also a “4-1-1 Kids, Inc.” with his name on it.  Seth appears to be 2nd Generation “MARRIAGE EDUCATION” — as it says on “FATHERHOODCHANNEL.com“:

Seth Eisenberg, the youngest son of PAIRS Founder Lori Heyman Gordon,  grew up with a front row seat to the birth of marriage and relationship education. He joined PAIRS Foundation in 1995 to help improve business and organizational systems, began teaching classes in 1999, training instructors in 2000, and was elected President/CEO in 2008. Over the past 12 years, Seth spearheaded development of PAIRS’ evidence-based, brief, multi-lingual courses and technologies to make marriage and relationship education widely accessibile to diverse communities worldwide. He has taught classes to thousands of young people, adults and trained more than 1,000 PAIRS instructors who deliver services to tens of thousands. In 2006, Seth’s “PAIRS Relationship Skills for Strong South Florida Families,” proposal was awarded a multi-year, multi-million dollar grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. The grant program has allowed thousands of people throughout South Florida to participate in free classes, including many low-income, formerly homeless, recovering addicts, special needs populations, immigrants, and veterans who could not have otherwise benefited, while also conducting extensive, rigorous research activities to better understand and validate the impact of marriage and relationship education.

It is “free” to low-income because most likely it was taken from more direct social services to these populations, such as food, housing help, cash aid, or child support enforcement where applicable.  Reminder:  The Florida “PAIRS” first started (out of several incorporations) as for-profit, and it started in 1994.

I look it up at http://www.sunbiz.org, which is where FL corporations go to register.  California needs a site like this.

Officer/RA Name Entity Name Entity Number EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614 EISENBERG, SETH D 411-KIDS, INC. N04000002485 EISENBERG, SETH D UST INTERNATIONAL, INC. P96000094023 EISENBERG, SETH D THE PAIRS FOUNDATION, INC. N00000003614

From the (top) filing I get an EIN#  521327867

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2009	$313,681	990	25	52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2008	$353,339	990	26	52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2007	$0	990R	2	52-1327867
PAIRS Foundation	FL	2007	$414,952	990	17	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	FL	2006	$252,096	990	22	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	VA	2005	$306,643	990	16	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	FL	2004	$300,853	990	14	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	VA	2003	$242,249	990	15	52-1327867
Pairs Foundation Ltd	VA	2002	$63,906	990	14	52-1327867

EIN Watchdog.net describes it as having begun in 1984 c/o “Lori H. Gordon” (which matches his description, above) and last filed in 2007, and with a street address of 2771 Executive Park, #1 Weston, FL.  This worries me, because that’s one of the operating addresses of this organization (per USAspending.gov) and was also found in a SEC complaint on REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FRAUD (but no overlap of persons involved that I can see, just the street address).  To be clerar, this is a criminal complaint, date-stamped Nov. 15, 2007, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Southern District vs. (various redevelopment agencies)

(COMPLAINT):

SUMMARY

1. Since at least 2002, Webb, individually and through certain entities he owns and controls, -has defrauded numerous investors through a real estate-based investment scheme. During the relevant period, the Defendants have raised at least $8.4 million from more than 80 investors by offering and selling securities in the form of investment contracts to investors in several states, including Florida, California and North Carolina.

(PAIRS had contracts in those states, plus Georgia, Virginia? & Indiana).

The PAIRS Foundation, Ltd. (per watchdog.net) address figures in paragraphs 15 & 30

15. CitiRise NC is a North Carolina limited liability company with its original principal office at 901 Barmouth Ct., Raleigh, North Carolina 27614. At least by November 2005, Citifise NC was reporting on its North Carolina State filings’that its principal office address was at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-3643, the same address used by CitiRise FL

30. Webb and the Webb Companies solicited investment offers in various ways, including through word-of-mouth generated by other investors and through Webb’s personal contact with local church groups, including meeting with local.pastors of such churches. In addition, Webb supervised the preparation of promotional materials advertising alliances with faith-based groups, such as a “partnership” between CitiRise and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. Webb and the Webb Companies also, on occasion, used independent sales associates who solicited investors through their personal or professional contacts in exchange for commissions. Webb and the Webb Companies also manufactured publicity in other ways, including favorable newspaper profiles in The Triangle Tribune and Triangle

Business Journal in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina and an appearance by Webb on Fox News’ Hannity & Colmes program in December 2005. In addition, one of Webb’s entities, CitiRise, maintained a website (at http://www.citirise.com) fiom at least 2005 to approximately October 2007 that described Webb’s professional biography, the CitiRise business “model,” and reflected theCitiRise “Corporate Headquarters” address at 2771 Executive Park Drive, Suite 1, Weston, Florida 33331-an address CitiRise no longer occupied from around the Summer of 2006

 PAIRS FOUNDATION, Inc. changed FROM that address (per FL filings) on 1/20/2009, to 1675 Market Street #207, Weston, FL, but didn’t report this until 9/20/2010.  In other words, 5 days after filing the 2009 report, it moved.  09/20/2010 — ADDRESS CHANGE

USAspending.gov contracts (15 records from 2009 forward) reflect for some reason both addresses.

• a June 1, 2000 letter from Florida Secretary of State showed Ph.D. Lori Gordon how to incorporate;

• She didn’t provide original signatures, or addresses (although did mail a check).
• The term “Ltd.” is not acceptable.   
• They apparently then fixed this and changed it to “inc.”

  I thought it was common knowledge that “Ltd.” was not a USA corporate suffix; Corporation or “Inc.” (etc.) are.  I guess not.    The purpose of the nonprofit

“Research, development and training of relationship skills for youth and families and communities.  Development of materials and programs to reduce anger, conflict and violence.”

Here is Lori Gordon giving a rave review to (Helping sell)  a book by D. Stosney, called “Love without Hurt” in which he explains how abused women can help their men stop abusing them.   Rave reviewers also included Dianne Sollee of “Smartmarriages.com”

This is an important book for everyone in every stage of a relationship, to heal and make whole the love we begin with. Give it as a wedding gift, birthday present, parenting gift. This is knowledge and understanding we all need to be able to heal ourselves and preserve our most cherished relationships. — Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D. founder of PAIRS.

(Here’s the book, described):   Reviews of Love without Hurt: Turn Your Resentful, Angry, or Emotionally Abusive Relationship into a Compassionate, Loving One

Library Journal
Stosny has put into words the techniques used in his successful Compassion-Power and Boot Camp programs, which help women who have been subjected to criticism, put-downs, or cold shoulders from their husbands or boyfriends. Complete with checklists, case studies, and well-researched information, his program not only shows the damage that verbally and emotionally abusive relationships do to spouses and children but also demonstrates how to change them, with guidance for both parties. For their part, women are directed to practice self-healing skills. Clear, timely, and on the mark; recommended for all libraries. Copyright 2005 Reed Business Information.

(Usually verbally and emotionally abusive are on their way to physically abusive which, unchecked, goes all the way to “lethal” unless stopped, although not all go the full range.  Somehow this is being missed. …  And it absolutely the church theme, for the most part, that women are to stop the abuse, somehow, by changing themselves.  That’s another reason I protest these programs….)

Looking up “Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D.” I found (yet another) Christian Marriage Association, as they advertised PAIRS training.

Practical Application of Intimate Relationship Skills(PAIRS)

2771 Executive Park Drive Suite #1 Weston, FL 33331 USA

Website: http://www.pairs.com/

Contact(s)

Seth Eisenberg

Phone: 877-PAIRS-4U

Fax: 954-337-2981

Purpose

Sustain healthy relationships

Description

The PAIRS programs, developed by Lori H. Gordon, Ph.D., provide a comprehensive system to enhance self-knowledge and to develop the ability to sustain pleasurable intimate relationships. PAIRS is located in Reston, Virginia but is a nationally known program

“The Association of Marriage & Family Ministries” ( photo to right appears to be its founders, out of Scottsdale, AZ) reveals that marriage education is a great  tool for church growth.  So I suppose there’s no harm in having non-believers fund church growth because, what’s good for the Kingdom is surely good for the rest of America?

The Association of Marriage and Family Ministries (AMFM) and its members are committed to you, the local Church, the pastor and all those called to this vital area of ministry. There has never been a greater time in history to show the love of Christ than today in serving those marriages and families that God has given us.

Today, there is no greater growth tool for the church than to have strong marriages and healthy families walking out of the church on Sunday (when ever you worship) and walking into the culture on Monday. What a great opportunity to impact our culture for the Kingdom.

…

Blessings,

Eric and Jennifer Garcia
Co-Founders

(Sunday worship post-dated Jesus Christ by a few centuries, last I heard.  See Emperor Constantine    🙂    )

 

 LIKe NCADV,NARME, and AFCC, there is a sliding scale of membership.  THe more you can afford, the more you will pay.

“Resource Vendors” pay the highest:

Student Membership – $35 Individual Membership – $75 Church Organization Membership – $125 – $450 Resource Membership (Vendors) – $225 – $550 (I.E. SPECIAL PRIVILEGES FOR SPECIAL PAYMENTS )

 

 FORGIVE ME FOR NOT RESISTING THE TEMPTATION TO POINT OUT THAT THE BIBLE SAYS AND RECOMMENDS THE OPPOSITE:

BY CONTRAST, THE BIBLE CONDEMNS HAVING “RESPECT OF PERSONS” AND DECLARE THAT GOD DOESN’T.

JAMES 2:

My brethren, have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons.2For if there come unto your assembly a man with a gold ring, in goodly apparel, and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; 3And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place; and say to the poor, Stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool: 4Are ye not then partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts? 5Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? 6But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats? 7Do not they blaspheme that worthy name by the which ye are called?8If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well: 9But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.

NOT TO MENTION (WHILE I”M IN “JAMES”) A SCATHING COMMENTARY ON RICH MEN, AND FAWNING OVER THEM IN THE CHURCHES:

”

26If any man among you seem to be religious, and bridleth not his tongue, but deceiveth his own heart, this man’s religion is vain. 27Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

 INSTEAD, THESE PROGRAMS ARE ACTUALLY TAKING AWAY FROM THE FATHERLESS AND THE WIDOWS, BY TAKING TANF FUNDS TO PROMOTE MARRIAGE EDUCATION TO HELP EXPAND THEIR CHURCHES! . . .    IF THEY WERE PREACHING RIGHT TO START WITH, WOULDN’T THEIR MARRIAGES BE IN BETTER SHAPE?  SEEMS TO ME THERE’S ENOUGH INFORMATION IN THE BIBLE ON LOVING ONE ANOTHER, AND A GOOD BIT ON MARRIAGE ALSO (I COR 13, EPHESIANS – – IT’S THROUGHOUT).

 

SOMEBODY HAD TO DO THIS — why not me? — I looked up their corporate status in Scottsdale.   For one, someone from Scottsdale is following my site:

 

 

Click on ID number to see the full detail.

ID	Type	Name
12163487	CORPORATION	THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.

---

©Copyright 2000 by Arizona Secretary of State – ALL RIGHTS RESERVED

 

 

 

 

Here we go:  (date — today, 10/11/11)

 

Corporate Status Inquiry
File Number:  -1216348-7
Corp. Name: THE ASSOCIATION OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY MINISTRIES, INC.

This Corporation is NOT in Good Standing for the following reasons:
DELINQUENT ANNUAL REPORT 09/13/2011
2011 ANNUAL REPORT WAS DUE ON 05/19/2011

 

Next Annual Report Due: 05/19/2011

 Surprise, surprise, lots of Delinquent Reports, and two Dissolved/Reinstated.  I can’t paste too much from the AZ corporations site; it positions funny.

 

Somehow, being delinquent, or even suspended status rarely seems to slow down these groups.  I recently ran across another one (with California links) called “ABOVE THE LINE”  — they run retreats, and marriage enrichment seminars, and (as I recall) the Tonkins were proud of their association with Dr. Phil.

There is “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.” at the same (residential) address the Garcia’s (of AMFM), which ALSO appears to be not filing, but not yet IRS_suspended.  Here are the 990 reports:

EIN# 460496745 

 

 

ID	Type	Name
10418500	CORPORATION	ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION, INC.

---

  It got warnings about dissolution in 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.  It WAS dissolved the year after it formed — 2003, and reinstated.  What a mess — and these people are teaching us how NOT to get divorced?

On 9/27/2005, they provided (finally!  Forms are available in a single click on-line, too!) the “Annual Report” for years 2003, 2004 & 2005, and were reinstated.

By 12/11/2006, their status was pending again, but they managed to file a report by the following April, for the year 2006.  Three months later, they are again “status pending” and apparently didn’t respond.  Another 12 months, another notice, and still they didn’t respond.  So in 9/2008 they were dissolved – but got reinstated two months later (11/17/2008) probably by forking over the annual reports for 2007 and 2008.

Is that the type of behavior (even for tiny grants) we want of an organization getting $103,000 of help/grants from the Government?

Administrative Dissolution Date	Administrative Dissolution Reason	Reinstatement Date
	AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R
	AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R	11/17/2008
	AD-DISSOLVED – FILE A/R	09/27/2005

(But as of 7/2005, the same couple had already formed AMFM, above).

Your query: ( Organization Name: None Chosen , State: None Chosen , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: 460496745 , Fiscal Year: None Chosen )
4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed) 

ORGANIZATION NAME	STATE	YEAR	TOTAL ASSETS	FORM	PAGES	EIN
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2007	$5,464	990EZ	15	46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2006	$2,498	990EZ	12	46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2005	$800	990	17	46-0496745
Above The Line Association Inc.	AZ	2002	$0	990	12	46-0496745

 

 And their 2005 filing explains WHY it pays to look at the IRS 990 filings!

Government Grant (doesn’t show under this EIN via TAGGS) — $103,500

Program Expenses:    (neat, eh?)  $102,845.

Eric and Jennifer Garcia (husband/wife) are the unpaid directors of “ABOVE THE LINE ASSOCIATION INC.”

“Part II line 43” expenses are explained, among other things as (statement 3):

STATEMENT 3 SCHEDULE A, PART II,LINE 2 TRANSACTIONS WITH TRUSTEES ,DIRECTORS, ETC.

THE ORGANIZATION PAID $100,000 TO A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, GARCIA-TOOKER LLC, WHICH IS OWNED BY ERIC AND JENNIFER GARCIA. THE PAYMENT WAS FOR THE SPONSORSHIP OF TWO MARRIAGE AND FAMILY CONFERENCES DURING THE YEAR 2005.    

I find the multiple corporate names in a few short years, and the shoddy incorporation history to be a little suspicious.  Where did the initial $103K come from and why is it not listed in TAGGS that I can see (I tried the EIN#)?

Roughly translated, they paid themselves $100K (which is “Expenses”) to sponsor two marriage conferences (not named).  Because this is not a major amount, who is about to look it up, or go request the information?  But multiply this by how many such organizations are lining up to do exactly the same thing, and there goes our social services funding, nationwide, poured down the gullet of religious tax evaders and delinquent filers.

Garcia-Tooker LLC DID exist, possibly in order to shift money to or from Above the Line  . . . and/or AMFM (the 2005forward version).  While I think Rev. Craig Kuehn of El Dorado Healthy Marriage (duration, one tax filing in 2006) simply wasn’t up to the corporate filings (he’s a Rev!) — this looks like more deliberate planning to move names and money around — and less honest.

I looked this up.  From what I can tell, “GARCIA-TOOKER LLC” (these two) INCORPORATED  in JAN. 2004. One month later they changed their name to “ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY & MARRIAGE MINISTRIES, LLC.”  (may load microfilm image)….  In other words, by the time they’d published their incorporation, it was under a different name.  8 months later an agent resigned:  

 

 THIS LINKS TO THE GRAPHICS OF “ABOVE THE LINE” — what they are selling:  “http://marriagehelpcenters.com”  (see “Dr. Phil” connection).

Their lnks are familiar by now — and some we know federally funded:  (photo is “Ron & Tina Konkin”)

 

 

 Throughout the years that we’ve been providing our seminar and bootcamp services, we’ve aligned ourselves with many organizations and partners who share our commitment to helping people just like you. The following are just some of our affiliations, partnerships, and camaraderie.

• Dr. Phil McGraw
• Marriage Boot Camp
• Smart Marriages (Diane Sollee, goes way back)
• Because Of Me
• California Healthy Marriages Coalition  (good luck tracking this one, but one of the staff members IS a Moonie// link not active)
• First Things First  (out of TN, and a definite HHS/ACF grantee collaborating with other such grantees to get those TANF funds….)
• Beyond Affairs Network
• Dimensional Journey
• Association of Marriage and Family Ministries  (the Garcia’s from Arizona I’m trying to trace, click to get “Page not found.”)

 Among other things being sold is an “Exclusive Couples Retreat” (only $4,995) where one can learn to play games designed by Dr. Phil….Intensive Relationship Boot Camp is only $1,225. . (not including hotel, ca $109 group rate). . . . Don’t miss two upcoming in California . . . . . 

 

 

GUIDESTAR regarding “Above the Line, Inc.,” a red-font alert to left of the listing, writes:  “This organization does not appear in the IRS’s most recent list of tax-exempt organizations. IRS records do not, however, indicate that the organization’s tax-exempt status has been revoked. Contact the organization for more information.”

 

 THERE”S MORE TO THIS MAZE:

 Apparently, Patty Howell (of “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS as incorporated in 2005) noticed that the “California Healthy Marriage” name was vacant, and registered as the owner of what is now a Fictitious Business name.  Or, they were working together, and notified each other, I don’t know.  I would never have found this without having gotten irritated enough to continue looking at the county level, where this is registered:  

   

 

THESE CHANGES happened in 2009 & 2011:  http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca/us/services/fbn/search.aspx if the image doesn’t show below:

http://arcc.co.san-diego.ca.us/services/fbn/search.aspx San Diego “Fictitious Business” registration shows 3 trademarks of this group: But they want to sell me further details (forget it!) Records 1 – 3 of 3 Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date   …  Certified  Non-Certified 2009-019747 CALIFONIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 7/7/2009   …  Certified  Non-Certified 2008-033480 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 10/22/2008   …  Certified  Non-Certified 2009-019745 CALIFORNIA MARRIAGE PROJECT CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION STATEMENT 7/7/2009 Notice that the “Coalition” is the “OWNER NAME.”  However, I happen to know that in the OAG site, it has a different name.  SEarching that, I found (notice dates),

Select Filing Number Business Name Owner Name Document Type Filing Date   …  Certified  Non-Certified 2011-002009 CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA STATEMENT 1/21/2011

TO SUMMARiZE:  “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” as a BUSINESS was incorporated by Patty Howell in 2005.  Think location “SAN DIEGO” (Leucadia).

   

But as to being a (delinquent) charity, “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA” actually resides in SACRAMENTO and is associated with (and credit is taken for it) by Carolyn Curtis.

     

Yet the HHS/ACF appears to think that it’s still in Leucadia when reporting the 2011 grantees as “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS” and “SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION” (associated with Curtis) – as a separate group.       

   

And I haven’t even gotten into “WorldClassMarriage.com” which is also Howell-Jones (who appear together on I forget which Board of Directors…..).

   

    

Carolyn Curtis’ LinkedIn profile, however, relates Healthy Relationships (San Diego) with “Relationship Skills Center” (Sacramento), which is getting good press right now.

   

   (FROM LINKEDIN  page)

   

Carolyn Curtis

Executive Director and Founder, Healthy Marriage Project

Sacramento, California Area 

Nonprofit Organization Management

Current

• Executive Director at Relationship Skills Center (formerly Healthy Marriage Project)

Past

• Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice
• Marriage and Family Therapist at Private Practice in Psychotherapy (Self-employed)

Education

• Alliant University
• California State University-Sacramento
• University of California, Davis

Connections

437 connections

Websites

• Personal Website

     

     

 

 

 

Looking further at this detail, towards the bottom, its clear this organization is prosperous — both assets and revenues are increasing.  However, it is not filing RRFs or IRS forms with the

Office of Attorney General, and FINALLY gets a mild slap on the wrist, dated April 2010 (Four years after it was awarded, and boasted that it was awarded, the largest EVER

Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Grant.  I blogged it, too!    See this post (scroll down past the large chart):    

 

“LETS HAVE FUN ANALYZING THE ANALYSTS” and learn that the largest-ever grant went to a faith-based organization collaborating with 23 other faith-based organizations.

In 2006, CHMC received a five-year, $2.4 million per year grant from Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families (HHS/ACF), the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.  Through this funding, CHMC partners with a network of 23 faith- and community-based organizations (FBCOs) throughout California (from http://www.camarriage.com/about/index.ashx?nv=3)

Their team includes (per website), Dennis Stoica, Patty Howell, and Ralph Jones, among others, such as Bento Leal (LinkedIN lists only this organization) despite college degree in 1973;

Oh dear, it looks (see this) like he may have some connection with the Unification Church (see URL)?

http://www.tparents.org/Library/Unification/Talks/Leal/leal-marriage.htm

“Bento Leal is the California Regional Coordinator of the American Leadership Conference, a project of the American Constitution Committee.”

 OH DEAR, YES.    Interrupting our “regularly scheduled program material,” let me speak to my (money trail / family court reform / blogging mothers) who don’t want to touch this

topic with a 10-foot pole — that the incredible push for forcing marriage education on us DOES have a strong Unification Church origin (see also the CRC history page, website CRCKids.org, which actknowledges involvement).  THe phrase TRUE PARENTS” — refers to Rev. Sun Myung Moon and his wife.  I am sorry people don’t wish to touch this with at 10-foot pole, but I wish to nail it to that pole.  Does this perhaps answer why so many of these grantees smack of money-laundering traits, like it’s known the UC does?  ??

 

this 2001 Excerpt from Bento Leal (never heard of the guy before) shows how they are going after inner city urban churches.  FOr more, go see Rick Ross sites, or others:   

   

UNIFICATION TRAINER IN CHMC . . ..  

Today Was A Very Special Day In California

Bento Leal
November 30, 2001

Today was a very special day in California:

Tonight (Thursday, Nov. 29) 800 people heard True Mother speak at the Marriott Hotel in downtown Oakland, CA.

Program: Delicious dinner, songs by the Redeemed Convicts for Christ, then Rev. Jenkins greeted everyone, later he introduced Arhbishop Stallings who gave an uplifting introduction of True Mother, who read her speech with warmth and grace. Afterwards flowers and plaques were given to Mother. Mother then presented 3 of the gold watches to leading ministers and she also presented 8 framed Ambassador for Peace certificates to selected leaders. The program went very well and the audience was very appreciative of the entire event. Afterward, there was a lively victory celebration with hookup to True Father at East Garden for singing and testimony.

Earlier in the day was an afternoon ILC that featured 70 people (40 guests and 30 UC members). Several Ambassadors for Peace attended the ILC. Northern California has awarded 90 Ambassadors for Peace representing clergy, educators, community organization leaders, journalists, and others. Dr. Frank Kaufman presented the IIFWP material very eloquently and professionally and was followed by Imam Qasmi of the Muslim community of Sacramento who strongly praised TPs for their work to promote strong marriages and families, and bring unity among the faiths. Though he is fasting for Ramadan, he drove the 2 hours from Sacramento just to present his 15 minute talk to our group. He immediately drove back to officiate services in his mosque.

We then had a presentation by our local WFWP chairwoman. After the break, a sister read the HDH material on Marriage for our AFC session, which was followed by Rev. Lawrence Van Hook speaking strongly about the importance of a God-centered marriage.

One special feature of the day was a visit by Archbishop Stallings and a few of us with Mayor Jerry Brown of Oakland. We presented him with a nicely framed Ambassador for Peace certificate in his office. He was impressed with our work and has fond memories of working with us over the years. He asked us to help him with tutors for struggling students in a military academy for 7th graders that he set up in Oakland. We said that we would help him.

Archbishop Stallings was also able to bring Rev. Dr. J. Alfred Smith, Sr., Pastor of Allen Temple Baptist Church in Oakland. Rev. Smith is a foremost leader among the clergy in Oakland. This was the first time he had attended a speech with TPs, {{TRUE PARENTS, get it?}} so this was a HUGE breakthrough. Mother presented him with a watch for all of the wonderful work he is doing for the city of Oakland. The door is now open for us to work more closely with him.

CHMC site describes Bento Leal’s background including working with a different set of federal grants in SF:  HERE IT IS:

Bento Leal
Implementation Specialist
Bento@CaMarriage.com
510.333.3478

Bento has worked in the field of marriage- and family-strengthening for the past 20 years. Before joining CHMC staff, he worked with Federal grants in the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Area to provide life skills mentoring to ex-offenders and to help build family-strengthening capacity of small or emerging faith-based and community organizations.  Bento is a trainer in several Marriage Education curricula, including Mastering the Mysteries of Love (MML).  Bento’s primary assignments with CHMC are to teach MML leadership workshops and provide technical assistance to newly-trained MML facilitators so they are successful in organizing and conducting MML classes.  Bento and his wife, Kimiko, have been married for 25 years.

  

Fiscal Begin: Fiscal End: 31-DEC-09 Total Assets: $334,155.00 Gross Annual Revenue: $3,232,190.00 RRF Received: 15-MAR-11 Returned Date: 990 Attached: N Status: Accepted

Related Documents

00000550 CT-550  **{{THIS IS THE LETTER OF DELINQUENCY.  CHECK IT OUT!}} 1056740 IRS Form 990 2008 1056741 RRF-1 2007 57272 RRF-1 2008

Prerequisite Information

No Prerequisite Information

IRS Return Data

This letter, citing the same CTFILE# you see above, is dated APRIL 2010, and says only, Please, if you would, pay the $150 annual fee (and is silent about the missing material from 2006-2010)

CALIFORNIA HEALTHY MARRIAGES COALITION

1045 PASSIFLORA AVE. ENCINITAS CA 92024

RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT

April 5, 2010

The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s):

1. The $150 renewal fee was not received. Please send a check in that amount, payable to “Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts”.

In order to remain in compliance with the filing requirements set forth in Government Code sections 12586 and 12587

WHY was there no interest in the previous year’s filings?   Hmmmm??

Regarding Dennis Stoica (first listed as CHMC staff), here is the corporate business search results on “California Healthy Marriage” (singular):

I realize the “Agent” column may not display and suggest readers do their own search at http://kepler.sos.ca.gov/cbs.aspx

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C2629035	11/08/2004	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA STATE HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE	CHRIS GRIER
C2896098	06/01/2006	ACTIVE	FRESNO COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC., A NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION	ROBYN L ESRAELIAN
C2271911	03/07/2001	DISSOLVED	HEALTHY CHALLENGES MARRIAGE, FAMILY AND CHILD COUNSELING PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION	ELIZABETH LEHRER
C2884897	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	NATIONAL HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	DENNIS J STOICA
C2884898	06/23/2006	SUSPENDED	ORANGE COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND FAMILY COALITION	DENNIS J STOICA
C2955473	10/04/2006	SUSPENDED	RIVERSIDE HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2650745	05/12/2004	ACTIVE	SACRAMENTO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	CAROLYN RICH CURTIS
C3210304	05/29/2009	ACTIVE	SAINTS HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	REGINA GLASPIE
C2860238	03/02/2006	ACTIVE	STANISLAUS COUNTY HEALTHY MARRIAGE COALITION	JAMES CARLETON STEWARD
C3013354	08/13/2007	ACTIVE	YUBA-SUTTER HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	WILLIAM F JENS

NOW — understanding that “CHMC” doesn’t exist (as an entity, at least), and HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS does, although not legally, here’s the

business search on “HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS.”  Keeping it straight:  for incorporation — go to secretary of state site.  For Charitable Registry (nonprofits) —

go to the Attorney General’s (OAG) site.  Because Californians deserve to know whether people knocking at their doors, soliciting by email, through their churches,

or the YMCA, or anywhere else, when claiming to be a charitable organization, actually are, and are not just ‘take the money and run” outfits.

Entity Number	Date Filed	Status	Entity Name	Agent for Service of Process
C3073670	01/16/2008	SUSPENDED	CALIFORNIA CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	LEGALZOOM.COM, INC.
C2746528	05/13/2005	ACTIVE	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA	PATTY HOWELL
C2790720	06/09/2006	ACTIVE	OAKLAND BERKELEY INITIATIVE FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS	DARRYL HARRISON
C2494811	01/06/2003	DISSOLVED	THE CENTER FOR HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS, INC.	TAMARA ILICH

Notice the dates (also, the Oakland Berkeley Initiative is not current on its charitable registration, I think).

Patty Howell is listed as staff at CHMC (nonexistant).  The address for “healthy relationships california” is listed — actually NOT listed if you mean street address also, and matches what the US, TAGGS database calls “California Healthy Marriage Coalition.”

Entity Name:	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS CALIFORNIA
Entity Number:	C2746528
Date Filed:	05/13/2005
Status:	ACTIVE
Jurisdiction:	CALIFORNIA
Entity Address:	(SAME AS ABOVE)
Entity City, State, Zip:	LEUCADIA CA 92024
Agent for Service of Process:	PATTY HOWELL
Agent Address:	1045 PASSIFLORA AVE
Agent City, State, Zip:	LEUCADIA CA 92024

Let’s move on.  I hope you are sufficiently alarmed by now, but if not, “I’ll be back!”

   Recipient: Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 53211

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0043	CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,779,393
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,779,393

Recipient: Community Marriage Builders, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 47714-1863

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0005	SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS.	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 799,999
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,999

Recipient: EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN
Recipient ZIP Code: 79930

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0045	HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,945
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,945

Recipient: ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER
Recipient ZIP Code: 45405

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0046	MARRIAGE WORKS! OHIO COLLABORATIVE	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 2,500,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,500,000

{{NOTE:  I look at this one below, simply because $2.5 million is a definite vote of confidence from HHS.  For the record, the total HHS grants recorded for this group show as: $17 million.  It’s pulling in Abstinence Funding, and is the lead agency in the multi-county “Marriage Works!” above.  Something tells me our HHS doesn’t want too much fertility among the TANF recipients; it will starve them out I guess by diverting funds into

get-rich-quick grants on anyone producing abstinence is best curricula.}}

 

Recipient Name	City	State	ZIP Code	County	DUNS Number	Sum of Awards
ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER	DAYTON	OH	45405	MONTGOMERY	101653447	$ 17,272,584

 

           Recipient: FIRST THINGS FIRST
Recipient ZIP Code: 37403-3433

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0048	CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,070,834
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,070,834

Recipient: Family Guidance, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 15143-9554

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0047	TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,163,684
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,163,684

Recipient: Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 27601-1947

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0009	COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES.	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 725,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 725,000

Recipient: Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County
Recipient ZIP Code: 77006

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0017	HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 698,102
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 698,102

Recipient: Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center
Recipient ZIP Code: 46208-4705

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0027	STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 1,780,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,780,000

Recipient: Future Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 30344-4137

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0013	REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 685,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 685,000

Recipient: GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 22182

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0024	FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,599
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,599

Recipient: Healthy You, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 363031997

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0020	JUST THE FACTS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 681,956
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 681,956

Recipient: High Country Consulting LLC
Recipient ZIP Code: 82001-2758

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0049	STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 535,082
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 535,082

Recipient: IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION
Recipient ZIP Code: 97220

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0015	REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 492,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 492,000

Recipient: Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program
Recipient ZIP Code: 92243-2943

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0061	PROJECT JUNTOS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,000

Recipient: JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 72761

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0023	HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 724,428
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 724,428

Recipient: Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,
Recipient ZIP Code: 34237-5223

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0060	HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 799,993
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,993

Recipient: KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 96819

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0012	KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 798,752
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 798,752

Recipient: Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 40475-2457

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0050	KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 799,999
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,999

Recipient: MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY
Recipient ZIP Code: 45503-4175

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0004	THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 798,380
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 798,380

Recipient: MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 40066

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0036	MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 344,904
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 344,904

Recipient: Meier Clinics Foundation
Recipient ZIP Code: 60187-4579

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0051	MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 2,500,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,500,000

Recipient: Mission West Virginia, Inc.
Recipient ZIP Code: 25526

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0052	N/A	1	93.086	ACF	09-28-2011	$ 683,935
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 683,935

Recipient: More Than Conquerors Inc
Recipient ZIP Code: 300835318

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0053	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 798,798
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 798,798

Recipient: NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS
Recipient ZIP Code: 90746

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0055	NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 685,308
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 685,308

Recipient: NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY
Recipient ZIP Code: 88003

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0037	NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-28-2011	$ 799,999
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,999

Recipient: NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 97213-2933

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0002	GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT.	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 1,395,000
2011	90FM0002	GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT.	1	93.086	ACF	09-28-2011	$ 0
Award Actions Count: 2				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 1,395,000

Recipient: OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
Recipient ZIP Code: 73125

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0032	THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 776,304
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 776,304

Recipient: OPERATION KEEPSAKE
Recipient ZIP Code: 44087-1654

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0056	MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 798,054
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 798,054

Recipient: PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 10023

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0025	PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 618,768
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 618,768

Recipient: PROJECT S.O.S., INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 32216-6241

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0033	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 672,703
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 672,703

Recipient: PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC
Recipient ZIP Code: 73116-7909

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0026	FAMILY EXPECTATIONS	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 2,500,000
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 2,500,000

Recipient: Parenting Center (The)
Recipient ZIP Code: 76107

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0031	EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 797,093
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 797,093

Recipient: RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.
Recipient ZIP Code: 33157-5372

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0028	RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25.	1	93.086	ACF	09-27-2011	$ 799,230
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 799,230

Recipient: STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT
Recipient ZIP Code: 39759-2803

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0035	BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 699,874
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 699,874

Recipient: Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project
Recipient ZIP Code: 95821

FY	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year of Support	CFDA Number	Agency	Action Issue Date	Amount This Action
2011	90FM0059	FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM	1	93.086	ACF	09-26-2011	$ 798,825
Award Actions Count: 1				Award Actions Subtotal:			$ 798,825

Page Award Actions Count: 50				Award Actions Amount for this Page:			$ 48,511,440
Total of 70 Award Actions for 60 Awards				Total Amount for all Award Actions:			$ 60,296,527

(NEXT PAGE of the SAME SERIES):

Unfortunately, the next page will not display on this simple search allowing me to find the remaining 10 grantees.  I managed to get 68 awards to show

under “Advanced Search,” keying in nothing but the same “90FM” under awards — and got basically the rest, but without the HTML links.  Here are those 68, and I’ll highlight where the above listing.  I”m glad I did — because notice that the Principal INvestigator field has a strange showing, i.e., someone possibly didn’t type in the {Principal Investigator’s) last name — but the first name twice, meaning if you searched the database by that field, you’d miss the Public Strategies, Inc. $2.5 million (new) grant, and several others.  There is a LOT of this type of inexplicable typo or other screwup activity (like failing to enter a DUNS# where there is one) in TAGGS, sometimes I wonder why:

Note that “DIBBLE FUND” here shows up alpha under “The” (such a database, eh?) towards the end.  I am going to publish this post, and take a personal Time Out” to cool off, after having learned more than the public was intended to know about, for example, the California Healthy Marriages Act” and how it’s apparently gone through a few incorporations and name changes.  Or how there is one person on three of the grantees’ boards below, and the website (she) is listed as “founding” is under about a fourth business name ,not shown below and whose corporation status, trademark registration, or listing of “we changed the company name” I haven’t caught up with.  One address (including suite#) seems to match two of the organizations below.     Notice also that the Colorado-based “WAIT Training” (near bottom of the list) — which appears to be its legitimate corporate name, although its website claims to have said the “new” name is Center for Relationship Education (but no namechange was filed) shows up under the ACF/HHS listing of “2011 grantees” not under “WAIT training” but instead under “Center for Relationship Education.”

All in all, it seems that many obstacles are in place to non-federal grantee recipients, like a person actually just wanting to know!, in tracking single organizations.

I have already mocked the grandiose schemes and language of both this California Healthy Marriage Coalition (and warned us about it) before, along with the Dibble Fund, whose goal is to educate EVERYONE over the age of 14 who has, may have, or is in some other way potentially fertile male or female — existed in the State of California, and educate them (at public expense) on marriage.  Search “Leucadia” on my blog to find it.

They are connected at the hip with WAIT Training (or at least Joneen MacKenzie) which is basically a religious — VERY religious — abstinence education group out of Colorado.  And a brand-new association (that they’re advertising) called “NARME” which I looked up, it’s in Tallahassee, Florida, and on the board are some of the groups below.    I’m getting tired of all this nonsense, as well as alarmed at what appears to be overt tolerance of federal grantees that form shell front groups, take the money, and either pull a chameleon or simply disappear (and I have one of those to show, also — not on this list, because they disappeared back in 2006).

///

ADVANCED SEARCH RESULTS

Results 1 to 68 of 68 matches.
Page 1 of 1	1

Grantee Name	State	County	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
AUBURN UNIVERSITY	AL	LEE	90FM0006	ALABAMA HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION INITIATIVE (AHMREI)	1	NEW	FRANCESCA M FRANCESCA	$ 2,489,548
AVANCE, INC	TX	HARRIS	90FM0041	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	NEW	MARTHA MARTHA	$ 799,999
Alliance for North Texas Healthy & Effective Marriages	TX	DALLAS	90FM0018	ALLIANCE FOR NORTH TEXAS HEALTHY AND EFFECTIVE MARRIAGES, DBA ANTHEM STRONG FAMILIES WILL IMPLEMENT A 3-TIERED PROJECT THAT PROVIDES HEALTHY MARRIAGE SERVICES, ECONOMIC STABILITY AND JOB PLACEMENT.	1	NEW	COSETTE COSETTE	$ 1,514,359
Arizona Youth Partnership	AZ	PIMA	90FM0030	BUILDING FUTURES FOR FAMILIES-HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT IN PIMA, PINAL AND GILA COUNTIES OF ARIZONA.	1	NEW	DANIEL DANIEL	$ 634,536
BEECH ACRES PARENTING CENTER	OH	HAMILTON	90FM0029	BUILDING STRONG MARRIAGES AND RELATIONSHIPS	1	NEW	NATHANIEL NATHANIEL	$ 799,999
BETHANY CHRISTIAN SERVICES	MI	KENT	90FM0011	BE REAL PROGRAM (“BUILDING AND ENHANCING RELATIONSHIPS, EMPLOYMENT, AND LIFE SKILLS”)	1	NEW	NONYEM A NONYEM	$ 799,996
CAMBODIAN ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC	CA	LOS ANGELES	90FM0034	MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT PROJECT	1	NEW	KIMTHAI KIMTHAI	$ 570,000
CATHOLIC CHARITIES	KS	SEDGWICK	90FM0042	PROVIDING MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS SKILLS AS WELL AS JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT ACTIVITIES THAT WILL PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY AND SELF-SUFFICIENCY	1	NEW	MARTHA L MARTHA	$ 1,445,587
CATHOLIC CHARITIES/DIOCESE TRENTON	NJ	MERCER	90FM0016	EL CENTRO HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	1	NEW	RONALD RONALD	$ 555,300
CHILDREN`S AID SOCIETY IN CLEARFIELD COUNTY	PA	CLEARFIELD	90FM0003	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP PROJECT IN CENTRAL PENNSYLVANIA WITH A FOCUS ON CLEARFIELD COUNTY AND 8 ADJACENT COUNTIES INCLUDING AA (II)(III)(IV) AND (V)	1	NEW	BONNIE BONNIE	$ 354,714
COMMUNITY PREVENTION PARTNERSHIP OF BERKS COUNTY	PA	BERKS	90FM0044	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	CHERYL CHERYL	$ 787,665
CRECIENDOS UNIDOS/GROWING TOGETHER	AZ	MARICOPA	90FM0021	TODO ES POSIBLE (EVERYTHING IS POSSIBLE) – A MARRIAGE PROGRAM FOR HISPANIC FAMILIES IN PHOENIX, AZ	1	NEW	GUILLE GUILLE	$ 359,796
California Healthy Marriages Coalition	CA	SAN DIEGO	90FM0019	CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	PATTY PATTY{{probably Patty Howell”}}	$ 2,500,000
Center For Self-Sufficiency, Inc.	WI	MILWAUKEE	90FM0043	CENTER FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY HEALTH MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROJECT NOW TO SUCCEED	1	NEW	JEANETTE JEANETTE	$ 1,779,393
Community Marriage Builders, Inc.	IN	VANDERBURGH	90FM0005	SOUTH WESTERN INDIANA HEALTHY MARRIAGE INITIATIVEMARRIAGE EDUCATION, RELATIONSHIP, PARENTING, FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, JOB AND CAREER ADVANCEMENT, DIVORCE REDUCTION SKILLS FOR COUPLES AND INDIVIDUALS.	1	NEW	JOHN JOHN	$ 799,999
EL PASO CENTER FOR CHILDREN	TX	EL PASO	90FM0045	HEALTHY OPPORTUNITIES FOR MARRIAGE ENRICHMENT	1	NEW	LEONARD LEONARD	$ 799,945
ELIZABETHS NEW LIFE CENTER{{Abortion Alternatives}}**	OH	MONTGOMERY	90FM0046	MARRIAGE WORKS!OHIO COLLABORATIVE{{known fatherhood collaboration: see below	1	NEW	GREG GREG	$ 2,500,000
FIRST THINGS FIRST	TN	HAMILTON	90FM0048	CHAMPIONS FOR CHILDREN-HAMILTON COUNTY	1	NEW	DEBORAH DEBORAH	$ 1,070,834
Family Guidance, Inc.{{evangelistic– see 10/9/2011 post}}	PA	ALLEGHENY	90FM0047	TWOGETHER PITTSBURGH**PROVIDING SIX TYPES OF “ALLOWABLE ACTIVITIES” TO THE COMMUNITY: AA (II) EDUCATION IN HIGH SCHOOLS; AA (IV) MARRIAGE PREPARATION(**LLP formed in 2009 to do this)	1	NEW	ROBERT L ROBERT	$ 1,163,684
Family Resource Center of Raleigh, Inc.	NC	WAKE	90FM0009	COMMUNITY FAMILY PRESERVATION PROGRAM – A HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS TRAINING PROGRAM FOR LOW-INCOME YOUTH, ADULTS AND COUPLES.	1	NEW	KIMBERLY M KIMBERLY	$ 725,000
Family Service Center at Houston and Harris County	TX	HARRIS	90FM0017	HOUSTON MARRIAGE PROJECT	1	NEW	TIM TIM	$ 698,102
Fathers & Families Resources/Research Center	IN	MARION	90FM0027	STRENGTHENING FAMILIES: LINKING HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND STRONG FATHERS	1	NEW	ROBERT ROBERT	$ 1,780,000
Future Foundation	GA	FULTON	90FM0013	REALTALK – A COMPREHENSIVE HEALTHY MARRIAGE EDUCATION AND RELATIONSHIP SKILLS INITIATIVE FOR YOUTH AND PARENTS	1	NEW	QAADIRAH QAADIRAH	$ 685,000
GRANATO COUNSELING SERVICES	VA	FAIRFAX	90FM0024	FIT RELATIONSHIPS PROGRAMS	1	NEW	LAURA A LAURA	$ 799,599
Healthy You, Inc.	AL	HOUSTON	90FM0020	JUST THE FACTS	1	NEW	MARY A MARY	$ 681,956
High Country Consulting LLC	WY	LARAMIE	90FM0049	STRENGTHENING WYOMING TEEN AND LOW INCOME TANF FAMILIES THROUGH SKILL BASED RELATIONSHIP TRAINING AND ECONOMIC SELF-SUFFICIENCY	1	NEW	KATHLEEN KATHLEEN	$ 535,082
IRCO-IMMIGRANT & REFUGEE COMMUNITY ORGANIZATION	OR	MULTNOMAH	90FM0015	REFUGEE AND IMMIGRANT FAMILY EMPOWERMENT PROJECT	1	NEW	LEE P LEE	$ 492,000
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program	CA	IMPERIAL	90FM0061	PROJECT JUNTOS	1	NEW	MARY MARY	$ 799,000
JOHN BROWN UNIVERSITY	AR	BENTON	90FM0023	HEALTHY MARRIAGES INITIATIVE	1	NEW	APRIL APRIL	$ 724,428
Jewish Family & Children`s Service of Sarasota-Manatee,	FL	SARASOTA	90FM0060	HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN	1	NEW	ROSE ROSE	$ 799,993
KEIKI O KA AINA PRESCHOOL, INC.	HI	HONOLULU	90FM0012	KOKA CARES – KEIKI O KA AINA CAREER AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION SERVICES	1	NEW	MOMI MOMI	$ 798,752
Kentucky River Foothills Development Council, Inc.	KY	MADISON	90FM0050	KRFDC COMMUNITY CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	VICKI VICKI	$ 799,999
MARRIAGE SAVERS OF CLARK COUNTY	OH	CLARK	90FM0004	THE COMMITMENT PROJECT-INSPIRING COMMITMENT TO HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIPS,RESPONSIBLE PARENTING AND ECONOMIC STABILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN.	1	NEW	RONDA M RONDA	$ 798,380
MULTI-PURPOSE SENIOR CITIZENS PROGRAM, INC	KY	SHELBY	90FM0036	MULTI-PURPOSE COMMUNITY ACTION AGENCY COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROGRAM	1	NEW	PAT PAT	$ 344,904
Meier Clinics Foundation	IL	DU PAGE	90FM0051	MEIER CLINICS, FAMILY BRIDGES, HEALTY MARRIAGE INITIATIVE	1	NEW	NANCY NANCY	$ 2,500,000
Mission West Virginia, Inc.	WV	PUTNAM	90FM0052	N/A	1	NEW	TORRI TORRI	$ 683,935
More Than Conquerors Inc	GA	DE KALB	90FM0053	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	NEW	PHILLIPIA PHILLIPIA	$ 798,798
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	1	NEW	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 899,694
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	2	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 200,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	2	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$- 962,992
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	HEALTHY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	2	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 699,755
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON FAMILY RELATIONS	MN	ANOKA	90FM0001	SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH	2	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	MICHAEL L BENJAMIN	$ 450,000
NATIONAL OFFICE OF SAMOAN AFFAIRS	CA	LOS ANGELES	90FM0055	NATIVE HAWAIIAN AND OTHER PACIFIC ISLANDER (NHOP) HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	JUNE JUNE	$ 685,308
NEW MEXICO STATE UNIVERSITY	NM	DONA ANA	90FM0037	NEW MEXICO BORDER REGION HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT	1	NEW	ESTHER ESTHER	$ 799,999
NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES	OR	MULTNOMAH	90FM0002	GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT.	1	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	ROSE ROSE	$ 0
NORTHWEST FAMILY SERVICES	OR	MULTNOMAH	90FM0002	GREATER PORTLAND COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT ASSISTING OVER 19,500 LOW INCOME FAMILIES GAIN FAMILY AND ECONOMIC STABILITY OVER THE 3 YEAR PROJECT.	1	NEW	ROSE ROSE	$ 1,395,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OK	OKLAHOMA	90FM0032	THRIVING MARRIAGES: RETREATS FOR SPECIAL NEEDS POPULATIONS	1	NEW	MARY JO MARY JO	$ 776,304
OPERATION KEEPSAKE	OH	SUMMIT	90FM0056	MARRIAGE IS FOR KEEPS	1	NEW	PEGGY S PEGGY	$ 798,054
PHOENIX PROGRAMS OF NEW YORK,INC	NY	NEW YORK	90FM0025	PHOENIX HOUSE CONNECTIONS	1	NEW	NAOMI NAOMI	$ 618,768
PROJECT S.O.S., INC.	FL	DUVAL	90FM0033	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE ANDRELATIONSHIP GRANTS	1	NEW	PAM PAM	$ 672,703
PUBLIC STRATEGIES INC	OK	OKLAHOMA	90FM0026	FAMILY EXPECTATIONS	1	NEW	SAMMYE SAMMYE	$ 2,500,000
Parenting Center (The)	TX	TARRANT	90FM0031	EMPOWERING FAMILIES PROJECT	1	NEW	JENNIFER JENNIFER	$ 797,093
RECAPTURING THE VISION, INTERNATIONAL, INC.	FL		90FM0028	RECAPTURING THE VISION INTERNATIONAL: THE MARRIAGE/RELATIONSHIP PROJECT TARGETING HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS 18-25.	1	NEW	JACQUELINE JACQUELINE	$ 799,230
STARKVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT	MS	OKTIBBEHA	90FM0035	BUILDING STRONG FAMILIES	1	NEW	JOAN JOAN	$ 699,874
Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project	CA	SACRAMENTO	90FM0059	FLOURISHING FAMILIES PROGRAM	1	NEW	CAROLYN CAROLYN	$ 798,825
Scholarship and Guidance Association	IL	COOK	90FM0038	FAMILY LIFE SKILLS PROGRAM	1	NEW	MARTHA MARTHA	$ 794,180
Shalom Task Force	NY	NEW YORK	90FM0008	COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION IN THE ORTHODOX JEWISH COMMUNITY OF NEW YORK CITY AND THE METROPOLITAN NYC AREA	1	NEW	DANIEL DANIEL	$ 541,633
TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY-SAN MARCOS	TX	HAYS	90FM0007	STRENGTHENING RELATIONSHIPS/STRENGTHENING FAMILIES (SR/SF)	1	NEW	W. SCOTT W. SCOTT	$ 617,280
TEXAS TECH UNIVERSITY	TX	LUBBOCK	90FM0002	NATIONAL HEALTHLY MARRIAGE RESOURCE CENTER	1	NEW	JAMES D MITCHELL	$ 512,993
THE DIBBLE FUND FOR MARRIAGE EDUCATION	CA	ALAMEDA	90FM0010	BUILDING BRIGHTER FUTURES	1	NEW	CATHERINE M CATHERINE	$ 794,846
TOLEDO AREA MINISTRIES	OH	LUCAS	90FM0040	KEEPING IT TOGETHER	1	NEW	DONNA DONNA	$ 799,999
UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES	NY	BRONX	90FM0057	UNIVERSITY BEHAVIORAL ASSOCIATES MARRIAGE & RELATIONSHIP EDUCATION PROGRAM	1	NEW	SCOTT SCOTT	$ 799,999
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA	FL	ORANGE	90FM0039	PROJECT TOGETHER	1	NEW	ANDREW ANDREW	$ 2,184,508
UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE	TN	KNOX	90FM0022	RELATIONSHIP RX: INTEGRATING A COUPLES INTERVENTION PROGRAM INTO A PRIMARY CARE SETTING	1	NEW	DEBBIE DEBBIE	$ 723,508
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY	UT	CACHE	90FM0001	SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH	1	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	BRAIN J BRAIN	$ 0
UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY	UT	CACHE	90FM0001	SMART STEPS TO HEALTHY RELATIONSHIPS IN UTAH	1	NEW	BRAIN J BRAIN	$ 785,612
WAIT Training	CO	DENVER	90FM0054	THE COLORADO HEALTHY MARRIAGE PROJECT	1	NEW	JONEEN JONEEN	$ 1,605,705
YOUTH & FAMILY SERVICES OF CANADIAN COUNTY, INC	OK	CANADIAN	90FM0058	SAFE AND LOVING RELATIONSHIPS FOR AT-RISK YOUTH	1	NEW	TRACY TRACY	$ 338,367

**”Elizabeth’s New Life Center has a logo:  the Elizabeth in question was the mother of John the Baptist, (per Bible), the cousin of Jesus and prophet heralding his coming.  Another overtly Christian group, million$$ grant.  This one looks pretty Roman Catholic….

http://www.elizabethnewlife.org/

In 1989, Steve and Vivian Koob, along with their church, founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center (ENLC) as a compassionate response and option to the abortion clinic operating in their neighborhood. ENLC opened its first office in the Five Oaks neighborhood of the city of Dayton to serve pregnant women facing unexpected pregnancies.

I am glad that Steve and Vivian Koob founded an organization to follow their vision (I suppose).  However, according to the State of Ohio, it was founded as a nonprofit, at least, in 1992, not 1989.  The evidence is here: (because of “paste” function, business name doesn’t display.  LINK to search is here; remember to include the “S” in “ELIZABETHS”)   [Jon Husted Ohio Secretary of State Business Name Search]

Entity Number Business Name Type Original Filing Date Expiry Date Status Business Location County State 832233 CORPORATION FOR NON-PROFIT 11/30/1992 11/01/2012 Active DAYTON MONTGOMERY OHIO ELIZABETH’s NEW LIFE CENTER BUSINESS FILING — see dates.

In 1994, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased a vacant building beside the abortion clinic and renovated it into a women’s center with medical capabilities. The following year ENLC opened its first Mother and Baby Boutique to provide needy clients with material assistance to establish family life, and in 1999 began providing abstinence education services to schools in an effort to expand efforts to prevent teen pregnancy.

Not mentioned:  Abstinence education not proven to reduce teen pregnancies, in fact it’s been an abysmal failure from what I hear.

About that same time, Elizabeth’s New Life Center purchased and renovated a medical building on Forest Avenue in front of Grandview Hospital’s emergency room. That facility currently houses administrative offices, Women’s Center-Dayton, Holy Family Prenatal Care, classrooms, a nutrition center, and a chapel accessible to both clients and staff.

ENLC continued its growth as the youth development department was awarded highly competitive federal grants to provide abstinence education to area schools in 2002, 2005, and 2008. In 2006, Elizabeth’s New Life Center also was awarded one of the largest federal healthy marriage demonstration grants in the country to establish Marriage Works! Ohio and offer marriage education across Southwestern Ohio.

COngress shall make no law establishing a religion.  They don’t have to any more.  All that’s needed is to fund corporations that did.  No Thank You, George Bush!)

“Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives”

The Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (OFBCI), was established January 29, 2001, when President George W. Bush “issued two executive orders related to faith-based and community organizations. The first executive order established a White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. The second order established centers to implement this initiative at the Department of Justice, along with the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Housing and Urban Development.”[1]

Government by Executive Order, it’s definitely problemmatic.  We’re in it. 

I should get this ebook, published 2008, in anticipation of Presidential Election:  The Court and the Cross, by Frederick Lane

Today Elizabeth’s New Life Center operates from six women’s centers, three in Dayton and ones in Warren, Hamilton, and Shelby counties. The Dayton boutique (??) continues to operate from the Five Oaks building, and Marriage Works! Ohio operates from a facility on Main Street in Dayton.

TO CLARIFY MY POSITION:  My viewpoint on abortion changed considerably after (1) I became a mother, and (2) I had to deal with a jealous relative who’d opted for abortion, then went after my kids.   Before then I was far more liberal and neutral.  However I STILL do not think we should allow religious groups to take government funding for abstinence education.  Then again I don’t think the Federal Government should be in so deep into education either– first of all, because their model is antiquated and based on authoritarianism and designed to slow down children from learning, and to keep the lower castes in place.  YES, I believe that.  A lot more arts (etc.) education would go further to dealing with literacy and math (not to mention probably violence) issues in the schools, but as fate? would have it, the opposite approach is taken.  I see the schools as a caste-sorter, by economics and race, and so do statistics.  Be that as it may, this organization has prospered because of then-President George Bush, and his decision to break down church/state.

This organization has several trade names, had a merger or so, and the original incorporator (registered agent) was from a law firm out of “10 Courthouse Plaza” in Dayton.  I can’t upload the articles of incorporation (at this point).   And I don’t see they are filing in my 990-finder, an E perhaps TAGGS will give me a nice DUNS#, but usually duns# only show on TAGGS if you can search by EIN, which I (haven’t found yet).  THey are most definitely soliciting donations on the web. The board of 12 has 3 women on it (only) one of who is the Warren County (OH) Prosecutor  Another board member is the County Auditor.

Vivian Koob (one of the two founders) has a bio also showing a connection with State Government (and pro-life activism):

Vivian Koob
Executive Director

Vivian Koob founded Elizabeth’s New Life Center with her husband Steve in 1989. Vivian holds a Master of Education degree as well as a Master in Rehabilitative Counseling. Before founding Elizabeth’s New Life Center she taught high school and spent 12 years working for the State of Ohio Bureau of Vocational Rehabilitation. She also spent years as a stay-at-home mom for her large family of natural, adopted and foster children. The Koobs’ blended family includes 12 living children and 16 grandchildren.

One of their programs listed, “Marriage Works!” (a trade name of this group, its Ohio SOS records say) includes “FE grants,” i.e. clear Fatherhood emphasis:

Funding for this project was provided by the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Grant:  90FE0035.  Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. Participation in all Marriage Works! Ohio programs is voluntary. View Our Privacy Notice Copyright 2008, Marriage Works! Ohio.

While MARRIAGE WORKS! is a collaboration, This ELIZABETH NEW LIFE center is the “Lead Agency,” according to the website, which is soliciting donations.  WHO HOLDS THE EIN#?

Marriage Works! Ohio is a collaborative effort of diverse organizations united to help build healthy families and healthy communities throughout the Miami Valley of Ohio by providing marriage and relationship education for couples.   

SIX Counties are involved in “Marriage Works!”  Among the other agencies is a “Family Violence Prevention Center.”

I experienced the religious-based marriage counseling as a response to domestic violence in the home (long ago).  I assure the general public (speaking for at least my Northern California urban area), the religious groups are not one iota better addressed to handle DV (or interested in doing so if it’s going to reduce warm bodies in the pews, or tithes by evicting a batterer) than they were last decade.  Nor do the religious leaders seem any more inclined to treat it as a reportable crime which it is (and child abuse absolutely is for pastors).   So here is what to the outsider looks like a “Family Violence Prevention Center.” and when a person comes in, she will be receiving services provided by a lead agency pro-life Catholic group, whose web and public presence has been funded by fatherhood education.  I notice that this FVPC also leads to a “DIVERT” Violence program.

The focus will be on family preservation through treatment, and stopping battering through training the batterer.  People get killed that way, but this is how the field of DV has been altered (a sea-change) to accommodate the Marriage/Fatherhood agenda.  And as I will be showing NEXT post, the groups doing this are many times chronically dishonest, and sometimes crooks, when characterizing WHO THEY ARE as an organization.

• DIVERT:  Xenia and County DIVERT crisis response in collaborative partnerships with law enforcement jurisdictions throughout Greene County to offer home and community based services to families experiencing domestic disputes or domestic violence
  Jackie Weckesser, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 26
  Jennifer Henderson, DIVERT Crisis Response Specialist, 937-376-8526 ext. 27
• Domestic Violence Intervention Program: (DVIP) , therapeutic and educational group counseling for batterers working to prevent future cycles of violence. Fee for service
  Cherie Dixon, DV Intervention Counselor, 937-376-8526 ext. 31

At the bottom of this “DIVERT” page are the links showing possibly origins or technical support in setting up the web.  I notice NCADV is one.  Upcoming post on them, too:

Privacy Policy | Donate | Contact | Apply for a Job | Apply to Volunteer
NCADV.org | NRCDV.org | NDVH.org | ODVN.org

This brochure shows how one organization, when it added considerable funding, became more and more entrenched in the County Government, got a spanking new building in 2000, named after the donor (what takes place in it, who knows) and probably have not YET told any women coming for help, or totally traumatized that in the same approximate year, the Ohio Legislature created a “Fatherhood Commission” and required that it targeted counties with a lot of single-mother households (probably to get access to the TANF funds that go with them).

It began as a shelter, before VAWA and probably many laws against domestic violence had even been passed.

The Greene County Domestic Violence Project began as a two-bedroom apartment in Yellow Springs in 1979 as a project of the Greene County Welfare Department. In 1980, the agency incorporated as a private, not for profit corporation and the shelter moved to its first house in Xenia, which had one staff and several students. The project relocated twice more until 1984 when it settled into its long-term site in a large Victorian House in the Water Street District of Xenia where it remained until 2001.

It morphed into a mental health agency and a new facility:

And, in 1995 the Xenia Police Division and GCDVP collaborated to form a nationally recognized program entitled DIVERT that partners law enforcement with domestic violence crisis workers for home based follow-up. Today, DIVERT services are being made available throughout Greene County and the agency has been able to operate satellite educational programs in Fairborn.

Violence Free Futures….

In 1997 the agency began to set a goal to secure a new facility and requested the help of the community. Seventeen community leaders formed the Shelter Facility Task Force and began to search for a site for the new facility. The Board decided to mortgage the aging property and invest the loan to begin a capital campaign which would require that the agency hire a Development Officer. The Shelter Facility Task force located a potential site, the Xenia Grace Chapel which was up for sale

(“Violence-Free Futures” is echoes of the wording from one of the major resource centers, formerly the Family Violence Prevention Fund, now “Futures without Violence.”  As such, it focuses on prevention through education [[which has NOT been shown to work]] — which of course it will help provide.)

(reading this brochure, and recognizing what it represents, I am feeling a little sick….)

Or that there was an Ohio Task Force on “Changing the Culture of Custody” which was basically AFCC-central, and even flew membership out to Arizona to take input from such membership, including prominent “Parental Alienation” promoter (and published author marketing books through the courts also), Philip Stahl Ph.D.

It was named after one of the County Commissioners, in fact the President of the County Commissioners:

The Greene County Commissioners The Hon. Kathryn K. Hagler, Pres. 61 Greene Street Xenia, Ohio 45385 (name at bottom of link having been served of a certain notice on a civic project):

Hon. Hagler has been involved with the Governor’s Child Support Task Force.  As Child Support — at this point — has been re-tooled and adjusted to accommodate “Fatherhood” (see Clinton 1995 Executive Memo, etc.) — and child support offices throughout the nation, it seems (Indiana comes esp. to mind) to solicit participation in fatherhood programs (see above grantees) under — extortion, at times — in exchange for participating in prolonged custody battles they may not even want — etc. – – – – – This would seem to me a mild conflict of interest, at a minimum.

Here’s the blurb on the woman the building is named after:

KATHRYN K. HAGLER 

Kathryn K. Hagler began her 19th year (third year of a fifth term) as a Greene County Commissioner with the start of the year 2001. Prior to her service to Greene County, Mrs. Hagler was a school teacher for 35 years. In 1982, she began a new phase in her life when she became Greene County’s first female County Commissioner. During her time as a Commissioner, Mrs. Hagler helped initiate a program in which retired teachers volunteer their time to assist Greene County jail inmates work toward their general (high school) equivalency diplomas. Awards and recognitions Mrs. Hagler has received include: the Paula J. Macilwaine Award (for her GED program), the Ervin J. Nutter Award (for her service to the community), the Senior Citizen of the Year Award from the Golden Age Senior Citizens Center, and recognition from the Ohio Senior Citizens Hall of Fame and the Women’s Hall of Fame. Over the years she has been involved with Greene County United Way, American Business Women’s Association, the Governor’s Child Support Task Force, the Altrusa Club, and Greene County Domestic Violence. Mrs. Hagler is very committed to families and children of domestic violence. Because of that commitment, Mrs. Hagler and her family were the largest donors to the capital campaign for victims of domestic violence. On June 1, 2000, the Greene County Domestic Violence Project named their new facility after Mrs. Hagler for her commitment. The Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Prevention Center is scheduled to officially open on June 12, 2001.

Fathers and Families is very active in Ohio, it says here, and rejoices about advances it has won in the Child Support arena.  The article following this one rejoices at a nonpaying mother being thrown in jail for nonpayment, as it encourages the opposite for fathers:

F & F’s Hubin Praises Ohio Child Support Changes in Columbus Dispatch

Monday, September 26th, 2011 by FAF Staff

Donald Hubin, Ph.D., Chairman of Fathers and Families of Ohio’s Executive Committee, was quoted in Child- support changes arrive: New provisions give struggling parents leniency(9/25/11) in the Columbus Dispatch, a 200,000 circulation newspaper in Ohio’s capital.

Under the new Ohio policies, for which Fathers and Families has advocated and supports, child support enforcement agencies will not be able to seize the driver’s licenses or professional licenses of any obligors who are paying at least half of their child support obligations. Given the terrible economy, and the fact that many obligors’ obligations are not being modified downward to accommodate for their lower wages and/or job losses, this is an important measure.

Kimberly C. Newsom, executive director of the Ohio Child Support Enforcement Agencies Directors’ Association, (OCDA) said the laws have been flexible and enforcement efforts have changed as the sinking economy made it harder for many parents to pay support.

“As Ohio started going into an economic recession, counties weren’t suspending licenses as much. They were working with parents and trying to assist them with employment or getting them into work programs to try and get them employed,” Newsom said.

In Franklin County, parents are often referred to job training or co-parenting classes, said Susan Brown, director of the county’s Child Support Enforcement Agency.

I’ll bet they ARE being referred to co-parenting classes which will definitely help feed hungry children and increase the income in whoever is raising them. (sure, yeah).  I’m sure a single mother whose Dad is behind in child support would rather have a co-parenting class (mothers are solicited to attend too, you know!) than the child support.  Particularly if there was domestic violence in the marriage or partnership previously.    .

My Prior Post with some research on Franklin County, OPNFF, OHIO fatherhood initiative, and more of these matters  (Scroll down).

Link at “Columbus Urban League” — A.A.M.I. (African-American Males Initiative) shows some of the partners and funders — and referrers to classes.  This is Franklin County:

Father 2 Father Columbus Urban League African-American Male Initiatives

Mission To assist men in becoming the instinctive, responsible, & nurturing fathers they desire to be. While also, educating the general public on the unique, important, & essential role that Fathers play in the development of their children. Scope of Services Provide a classroom curriculum that develops the attitudes and skills needed for responsible fatherhood and helping men discover and cultivate their nurturing potential. Assistance with issues regarding child support, visitation, and family law matters, ultimately advocating for policy change/implementation that make these very areas more father friendly. Partners Columbus Urban League’s (CUL) – African-American Male Initiatives (A.A.M.I.) Columbus Urban League’s Head Start Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OFC) Franklin County Child Support Enforcement Agency (FCSEA) Ohio Practitioners Network of Fathers & Families (OPNFF) Nationwide Children’s Hospital (Family & Volunteer Services) Target Audience Class Curriculum – ‘Nurturing Father’ African-American fathers between the ages of 16-35 referred by CUL Head Start, Franklin County Child Enforcement Agency & Juvenile Court System. There will be a dual class format (One AM – One PM) on 3 month cycles. Each class will consist of 12-15 fathers giving us the ability to serve 100 fathers per calendar year.

Kathryn K. Hagler Family Violence Center, or No Family Violence Center — GREENE COUNTY is highly involved (and vice versa) with the “National Fatherhood Initiative” (NFI started in 1994 with a cronyism-based grant from Wade Horn before he quit HHS, like JUST before), with the Greene County Child SUpport system, and with Green County Commissioners.

Here’s a recent link to their 2011 goings-on, which was apparently prepared in part with another PR firm who has made it big by going with the Fatherhood Flow:  “PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.” (see my post on PSI in Denver vs. PSI in Denver), which runs (I think) the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, in large part.

A Rapid Ethnographic Assessment of Programs & Services (REAPS)

for Fathers in Greene County, Ohio

Prepared By:

With Contributions From:

Public Strategies, Inc. Ohio State University Extension—Greene County

An Initiative of the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood

April 2011

In part, it reads:

Introduction

The Ohio Commission on Fatherhood (OCF) has partnered with National Fatherhood Initiative (NFI) in 2011 to assist 12 Ohio counties mobilize around responsible fatherhood. Greene County was one of the 12 counties selected to participate in this Community Mobilization Initiative.

Of course, this is going to start out with the usual blather blaming society’s ills (by omission, by deduction) on single mother households.  Not being honest enough to call it this — they call it “father absence”  Women exist, as nouns, in this dialogue, implicitly, primarily as the brood mares.

Children who live absent their biological fathers are, on average, at least two to three times more likely to be poor, to use drugs, to experience educational, health, emotional and behavioral problems, to be victims of child abuse, and to engage in criminal behavior than their peers who live with their married, biological (or adoptive) parents.1

As of April 2011, and based on my reading of what these grants are doing (and how they have changed the courts) that poverty could be attributable about as much to the war on single mothers which this rhetoric has waged, as much as  not having a Daddy in the home, per se.  Some Daddys need to get OUT of the home, because they are violent; others refuse to work while they are living WITH their kids, preferring instead to let mothers do it.  There are varieties of families and varieties of Daddy-in-the-home scenarios, as well as a huge variety of Daddy NOT in the home scenarios.

None of this centralization and collaboration (taxation WITHOUT appropriate representation, or informed public consent) accounts for OR allows the true diversity of ways there are to earn a living, raise (and educate) a child, or escape poverty WITHOUT being forced into high-stakes, high-conflict custody litigation, and paying heavily into the system that — by its own words, and I can see plainly by state on-line databases — doesn’t even account for money it takes from children, while diverting child support enforcement monies (that pesky $4 billion) away from actually distributing child support they have collected.  I truly do believe that our country would be better off — ENTIRELY — without this whole agency, based on its track record.

If I as an employer had a track record that lousy, I’d definitely be fired.  Instead, I was taken repeatedly out of paying jobs where my work was needed and appreciated (as a single mother) to answer frivolous lawsuits in a process where no cause of action was ever proved, let alone most of the time even alleged.

Children who grow up without their fathers are at greatest risk for child abuse. In fact, the presence of a child’s father in the home lowers the likelihood that a child will be abused. Compared to living with both parents, living in a single-parent home doubles the risk that a child will suffer physical, emotional, or educational neglect.9 There were 1,436 new allegations of child abuse/neglect in Greene County in 2009.1

Any allegation is OK when it comest o justifying more county-absed or state-based “interventions” in private lives.  The fact is, Dads do abuse children — where in this statement is such an acknowledgment?  And where, in the group of “single-parent home” where child abuse was alleged — is the separation of ten these into cases where the child abuse was by the custodial mother (or her boyfriend) — versus the child abuse and/or MURDER (after which child abuse ceases because the child is dead, sometimes along with the father/abuser)   — and those where the child abuse happened on a court-ordered weekend enabled by the access/visitation (or other father-involvement) program.  Although these children were “living” in single-parent homes, the abuse happened from ONE parent, and the other one complying with court orders — again, at times.

I have been talking here about a Marriage/Fatherhood County grantee — they got $2.5 million in 2011 alone — based in Warren County OHIO, who turns out to e a pro-life, Catholic-based group (adamantly so) that has targeted abortion clinics and hospitals to get their message out.  IT turns out that two on the board of this organization work for Warren County, and then the Executive Director has worked for the state.  I think that any group getting $2.5 million (or over $1 million) in this economic climate should not only be watched but scrutinized — because that amount indicates the Secretary of HHS and public policy has another “brainstorm” of some idea, and is throwing money behind it.

While this one appears to have stayed legitimate and above-board, many (on the list above here, the TAGGS chart) absolutely have not.  We have GOT to stop this ongoing trotting out of fatherhood rhetoric to enable more grants — which are not tracked.  EVERY SINGLE EIN# should be posted and public be enabled to find out whether their websites are telling the truth about an organization.  FAILURE TO FILE is a red flag  I can’t talk about this group yet, until I see an IRS form (even if they have been a church to start with, as an organization taking federal grants, they should have an EIN — and they really should also have a DUNS#, enabling us to look for contracts, too, and outside the HHS).

This one also appears to be heavily networked with a group that believes domestic violence can be stopped through marriage and relationship education (that’s the model).  This education is often going to happen through the web, therefore once set up, it will be having a low overhead, and turn profits for someone.  We deserve to know WHO, as they go about solving the problems of poor people!

For the record, then, and in light of “Elizabeth’s New Life Center” (Inc. 1992, not 1989, and having several registered trade names also) being the lead agency of “Marriage Works!” a multi-county collaborative, and every single one of their websites (almost) soliciting donations, here is who in Greene County Ohio (where a Commissioner got a building named after her, by donating so much to it), was ALSO collaborating to RAPIDLY MOBILIZE more fatherhood STUFF:

Greene County Leader Focus Group Results

The Greene County focus group on fatherhood was attended by nineteen individuals representing a diverse cross section of the community and included representatives from the Ohio Commission on Fatherhood.

The following community sectors/organizations/individuals participated in the discussion (Note: some organizations had more than one representative and some people represented several sectors).

Adult Probation Anderson Williamson Insurance Child Support Children’s Service Board County Commissioner Drug & Alcohol Initiative Family and Children First Council Fairborn City Schools Greene County Career Center Greene County Combined Health District Greene County Community Foundation Greene County Fatherhood Initiative Grant Greene County Public Transit System Greene Leaf Therapeutic Community Program Juvenile Court Parent Education and Support Xenia Association of Churches & Ministries

No one representing the mothers, or custodial parents’ interests when there has been violence — was probably even aware of this meeting, much less present.

The ideas they came up with were predictable, and please note that FATHERHOOD PROGRAMMING was to be incorporated into the FAMILY VIOLENCE PREVENTION CENTER (named after a County Commissioner).  Also marriage promotion….

When asked what assets or resources existed in Greene County that could be mobilized, expanded or used to promote responsible fatherhood the following were mentioned:

24/7 Dad Breakfast for Dads Churches – particularly if they opened their gyms and facilities for activities Daddy and Me Carnival (Early Childhood Collaborative Coalition) Family Violence Prevention Center programming Graduation Reality and Dual Role Skills – Family & Consumer Science program for pregnant and parenting teens Green County College Success Program The Marriage Resource Center Money Management Classes Urban Light Ministries – InsideOut Dad and other programs, Visitation Center.

The link is here, notice that “fatherhood” is a *.gov proposition:

http://fatherhood.ohio.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=yxKCPn6VuPA%3d&tabid=93

This action plan — and the meeting involving it — was straight out of the mouth of the National Fatherhood Initiative;  It is a marketing plan.  If you do not understand THIS GROUP (and its origins) — you do not understand why $119 million is needed for programming and how that is just to set up an infrastructure to transfer a lot MORE money from child support to programs that reduce, compromise or eliminate child support for our kids — and direct monies instead to those who support and design programs.

MARRIAGE PROMOTION = FATHERHOOD PROMOTION = USUALLY PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS.

EXAMPLE:  PUBLIC STRATEGIES, INC.  (a PR Firm in Oklahoma).

I have JUST now showed you that Public Strategies is working directly with National Fatherhood Initiative to “Rapidly MObilize” more fatherhood (stuff & programs).  See the “REAPS” link, the “Fatherhod.ohio.gov” link — right above here.  Now, I probably know Public Strategies a little better than you do, unless you study this topic, live in Oklahoma, or work for them.  You can also see them, bolded in maroon font, in the chart above, of grantees of the new “90FM” grant series to promote — what else, marriage and fatherhood.

In fact, they just got another $2.5 million, alongside Elizabeth’s New Life Center, alongside also California Healthy Marriages Coalition, which I am going to flat-out SAY I believe is a fraud (a front group), so I will now have to prove this in subsequent post).

But here is the “OKMARRIAGE.COM” link telling the origins of this Oklahoma Marriage Project (from top-down, Governor, and Department of HHS), choosing the PR Firm Public Strategies Inc. (WHY might be  a very good question) and explaining an intention to bypass Commissions to Study, and passing Legislation, but through a “multi-sector” approach to (Ramrod it through).  which, as you can see, they are also recommending in Ohio.  When the word “mobilize” is used, the idea is obviously that an emergency exists.  It is a MILITARY term, that’s what it calls to mind.  The intention is to bypass the slower (but more due-process, and more public-input-wanted!) processes designed into state and federal constitutions and instead, get the thing going FAST.

Here’s what they say about their origins and how they GRABBED $10 Million of TANF funding (intended for welfare:  Food stamps, cash aid, helping poor families) to set up the infrastructure to funnel more grants to anyone who was of the same belief system (as to the causes of poverty and child abuse), and away from those who didn’t, including families on welfare that probably needed the help.  Moreover, the double-whammy is, money is ALSO diverted from Child Support Enforcement at times for similar purposes. Here we go:

OKLAHOMA MARRIAGE INITIATIVE “ABOUT US“

OMI History

In 1998, University of Oklahoma and Oklahoma State University economists produced a joint study on what Oklahoma needed to do to become a more prosperous state.

And  someone probably funded that joint project.  Coincidentally, in 1998, the US Congress was passing Fatherhood Resolutions (as in 1999), Welfare Reform had just happened, and nationwide a condition of receiving welfare funding to states mandated that every state create a centralized state distribution unit (SDU), or forfeit their TANF funding.  TANF was the welfare reform that changed program funding to block grants to states….It figures in here. Maybe that was coincidental, but I doubt it.

National Fatherhood Initative DOES have congressional and senate contacts / “Task Forces” and has from shortly after its (1994) founding.  As it says, here:

(NFI’s) TASK FORCES ON RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD

Shortly after its founding, NFI formed Task Forces in the U.S. House and Senate to identify elected leaders who were supportive of the goals of the responsible fatherhood movement. 15 years later, the Task Forces continue to serve as a vehicle to mobilize support for NFI events on Capitol Hill and to generate support for legislation that impacts responsible fatherhood.

• Senate Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood – Click to see that OK had one, “Inhofe”)
• Congressional Task Force on Responsible Fatherhood

(Back to the OMI About us Page)

Their conclusions included the usual economic analysis relating to tax issues and regulatory reform issues, as well as some surprising results. The economic researchers found some social indicators that were hurting Oklahoma’s economy. They mentioned the high divorce rate, high rates of out-of-wedlock births and high rates of child deaths because of child abuse. One OSU economist wrote in an editorial, “Oklahoma’s high divorce rate and low per-capita income are interrelated. They hold hands. They push and pull each other. There’s no faster way for a married woman with children to become poor than to suddenly become a single mom.”

As evidence of his serious commitment to this [DIvorce leads to poverty and child abuse] issue, [Governor] Keating put his Cabinet Secretary for Health and Human Services, Jerry Regier, in charge of developing a plan of action for the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. In addition, Public Strategies (PSI), a small public affairs/public relations firm, was awarded a project management bid and, from the beginning, national experts {{GEE — I wonder which ones! }}  advised various aspects of the Initiative. This leadership outlined the main themes and components of the OMI. They deliberately decided not to appoint a Commission to “study” the issues, nor did they propose a legislative package of reforms. Instead, they decided on a multi-sector approach with both a secular track and a faith-based track. The OMI was to be a public/private partnership, guided by high-level leadership and strong operational, day-to-day management. Its major focus at this initial stage was delivering education services to the public, conducting research, and working with the faith sector to develop marriage-strengthening services.

I would have to characterize this as a State Governor (who is head of the State EXECUTIVE branch) intentionally overstepping his bounds, deliberately avoiding the legislative branch, to push through his own plan, using federal funds that WERE supplied to the state of Oklahoma through legislation.  Intentionally NOT having a commission study the issues is suspect.   Now read the next part carefully

Initial activities were funded with private foundation monies and discretionary state dollars. Howard Hendrick, Department of Human Services (DHS) Director, pointed out that using TANF monies to fund the initiative fit within the intent of the family formation goals of the 1996 federal welfare reform law. The DHS Board set aside $10 million of undedicated TANF funds for OMI activities. The funds were earmarked primarily for developing marriage-related services, and leaders acknowledged that efforts should be made to make them available to low-income populations.

FORMERLY, AFDC (pre-1996) would have made sure this was to low-income families.  But the sea-change to TANF BLOCK_GRANTS TO STATES intentionally freed up the possibility of states doing more creative things with these funds.  This was great if you’re into promoting marriage and fatherhood, and probably no accident.  Look at who was pushing the 1996 reform, and you have a lot of answers….

Right there you can see it was not restricted to low-income population, but efforts should be made to let poor people know their option to take marriage education (etc.) classes, for their own good, of course.

I just saw on-line an advertisement for a psychologist at Public Strategies firm (Glassdoor.com)  The pay was $72K.

Thus, the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative was launched and has grown to become the broad-based social service prevention project that it is today. The OMI has made sound decisions-by both policy and political standards-to build on the best [paid-for] research available, to invest in research to learn about marriage and divorce in Oklahoma, and to assess, to the extent possible, the effects of its activities and programs.

From “http://www.okmarriage.org/ProgramHighlights/MarriageProblems.asp” = the “OMI – ABOUT US page”

“PUBLIC STRATEGIES” started in 1990 (site says):

Clients are primarily HHS/ACF and other corporations.  Listed under “Corporate” clients is “PREP” which is itself a company that feeds off marriage education policy.  Two professors from Denver (also on the advisory board to Public Strategies) co-founded a Colorado Business to produce/sell this product, itself clearly focusing off Marriage Education grants  See “PREPinc.com.”  Nonprofit clients include The Dibble FUnd (itself also a corporation feeding off Healthy Marriage education policy.

about us

Established in 1990, Public Strategies (PSI) began as a public relations and event planning firm with only two staff members with a client base that included the Oklahoma City Cavalry professional basketball team. In a matter of years, PSI became the only firm in the United States to develop and maintain a state-run healthy marriage initiative, which has since become the longest-running and most in-depth endeavor of its kind in the country.PSI has grown into a culturally and professionally diverse firm with 150 staff members, and offices in Oklahoma, Colorado and Washington, D.C. We have a solid success record of client-centered project management and strategic planning services for a variety of clients in the public and private sectors.

Public Strategies is committed to helping organizations and individuals reach their full potential while maximizing their impact on the public good. Our clients represent the impact that PSI has had on an array of fields including education, business, faith, criminal justice, child welfare and human services.

http://www.publicstrategies.com/default1.asp?ID=2

WELL, enough for one day, eh?

////

///

OCSE: Child Support Enforcement/Federal Grants to States: Let’s Look at the “TAGGS” HHS Charts (CFDAs 93.563 & 93.564)

(POST is incomplete — but I’m going to post anyhow for a sample of some of the funding for child support, and how one can look up Who’s Who when a nonprofit exists to take some of that extra-special “child support research and demonstration” (etc.) grant monies, especially when it is combined with other money in fatherhood initiatives to help men with their child support and custody issues (i.e., taking TANF money to promote fatherhood to encourage child support payment in hopes that it will trickle down to less overall TANF $$ == huh?)

I realize that few people are going to get through 20K words of text from my last post. However, it should be clear by now that a lot of child support COLLECTED simply ain’t reaching the customers, although that was the ostensible (as opposed to “evolving”) purpose of child support enforcement, to start with. Today, I am providing some visuals, from the Grants to States for Child Support Enforcement, culled from the “TAGGS.hhs.gov” database I keep yakkin’ about.

2016 update: Database TAGGS.hhs.gov has recently got a “facelift” on its search pages.  It generates a re-usable link (“url”) for any report — among the options on the top right of a generated report, you’ll see buttons for “Export to Xl,to pdf, to text, and furthest right, will generate a “tinyurl” link to copy and save.  This

CFDA 93.593, “CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT” Grants to States — selected Years 2010 & 2011

These are the columns one can select for any Advanced Search on TAGGS: “OpDiv” would be for example, “ACF,” Program Office — in these cases — would be OCSE, Office of Child Support Enforcement.

Grantee Institution Grantee Address Grantee City Grantee State Grantee Postal Code Grantee Country Grantee County Grantee Type Grantee Class

Fiscal Year Operating Division Program Office Grant Title Award Number Award Code Budget Year Action Issue Date Principal Investigator

Award Action Type Award Class Award Activity Type CFDA Number CFDA Program Title Award Abstract Text Recovery Act Indicator

I learned yesterday that a Supreme Court Case had verified that a man (or woman) about to be incarcerated for FTP (failure to Pay) child support does NOT have a constitutional right to a public defender — because it’s a “civil” right involved. That’s official now.

Families Lose in Child Support Case

By Joy Moses | June 22, 2011

The Supreme Court’s Recent Decision in Turner v. Rogers Suggests More Work Ahead

There were no winners in the Supreme Court’s decision yesterday in Turner v. Rogers. The Court decided that the appointment of an attorney is not required when parents, who are typically fathers, face jail time for not paying child support. This decision means more fathers will likely end up in jail. The Court required some lesser protections that could help fathers avoid jail time, but more action is needed from outside the courts to help these families. Fathers obviously lose since their freedom is on the line when they’re unable to launch the best possible defense. For many, there is a legitimate defense that they are simply too poor to pay. Half of all child support debtors are the poorest men in society, and 70 percent of past due payments are owed by those making $10,000 or less. Some men are more at risk than others because they have the highest unemployment rates, including those who are black (17.5 percent), Latino (10.1 percent), and/or have limited education and skills (13.7 percent). But mothers lose, too. The Court says {broken link} men can’t be guaranteed attorneys because women may not have them. This is certainly fair—unless you focus on the fact that women may not have attorneys. Equalizing this disadvantage is better than some other options. But what if both parents had the help they needed? . . . Children lose as well. Court and child support systems that are meant to serve their best interests will continue to fail far too many, reaching some issues beyond those that were before the Court. When their dads refuse to pay, punishing them with jail time is helpful. But what about the children with fathers who can’t afford to pay, have difficulty representing themselves, and end up in jail? For them there’s now zero chance that their dad will work and pay support, and it’s much harder to see him behind bars. Importantly, an opportunity is lost to help the child through more family-friendly child support policies that increase the ability to collect via help with employment and fostering father-child connections.

This author has  a B.A. from Stanford and a J.D. from Georgetown and is a Senior Policy Analyst at a Progressive organization.

Senior Policy Analyst with the Poverty and Prosperity program at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, she was a Children and Youth Staff Attorney at the National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty. The majority of her practice focused on the education rights of homeless students, 

Therefore, I allege that, although she has been focusing on different (and quite valid) issues she is smart enough to figure out what’s up with the child support & access visitation grants system (among others), and how fathers are already having grants-funded free legal help to “facilitate” their family connections.   It seems she has come to a decision that the Fatherhood Policies are needed, and working — as seen by her other articles, and publishing one with Jacquelyn Boggess, co-founder of CFFPP (search my blog) and also a member of Women in Fatherhood, Inc. (A recent nonprofit profiting from HHS fatherhood grants). . . . . CFFPP, as we may recall, is a nonprofit that changed its name to remove the word “Father” from the title and use instead “Family” to be less obvious about how “fatherhood” they actually are in practice, and focus.

Sisters Are Doin’ It for Themselves, But Could Use Some Help: Fatherhood Policy and the Well-Being of Low-Income Mothers and Children (2010) by Joy Moses (Center for American Progress), Jacquelyn Boggess, and Jill Groblewski >>

EXCERPT FROM THIS ARTICLE ASKS and ANSWERS its own question: The tension between progressive notions about strong independent women and the benefits they get from help with child rearing is just one philosophical question underlying the debate about the relationship between women and fatherhood policy. Others include:

• Do policies that promote responsible fatherhood fail to recognize that women also face significant financial hardships and structural barriers on the road to self-sufficiency?
• Do all women and families have the same stake in fatherhood responsibility policy without regard to differences associated with socio-economic status and race?
• Do discussions about fatherhood amount to attacks on single mothers?

Although the authors understand the underlying concerns giving rise to these questions, we would answer all of them with a “No.” First, we contend that it’s not necessary to pit fatherhood responsibility policies against the interests of women, especially low-income single mothers who rely on federal social services programs. Rather, fatherhood policy is family policy that benefits all family members, including mothers. Suggesting the need for social services programs that encourage and facilitate fathers’ economic and emotional support for their families need not equate to a lack of recognition of the challenges faced by these women or an indictment against single mothers.

I deduce that Ms. Moses has not participated in a custody war against a former abuser and been baptized in the fire of this process, post-1994….  First of all, those questions, while nice philosophically — were not asked here in an open format Notice, the link to the post has no COMMENTS format, typical).     The detached tone and generic terms, asserting that Fatherhood Policy benefits all family members — is simply false; TANF funds are diverted to fatherhood projects on the presumption that there is a trickle-down benefit.   Abstinence Education (still going on), Marriage promotion, and increasing and expanding the child support enforcement apparatus into “family-friendly” ever-evolving programs DOES help provide jobs — for those administering the programs and evaluating them, that is.   I found this site, the other day, chasing down a multi-million $$ organization called “MDRC” (or “Manpower Research Development Corporation”) which puts the giant (as to funding, in the DV prevention arena) “Minnesota Program Development, INc.” (MPDI), a.k.a. the outfit from Duluth which is pushing supervised visitation so hard, and collaborating (or one of its subsidiaries / offshoots, Battered Women’s Justice Project, “BWJP”) with the AFCC (my favorite acronym for this blog, I guess — it comes up nearly every post) — to undermine the language defining crimes as crime, re-characterize individuals as family members, and both responsible for criminal activity by one of them, and so forth  The Child Support Enforcement in Kentucky (Family) Courts has a nice little extortion unit for fathers found in arrears — either go (back) to jail, or get a “get out of jail free” pass if they will participate in a court-favorite program Turning It Around (how to be a man, a father, and other things probably aimed at the 6th grade level, although it’s to men who have sired children)….. the kicker in this one being that it probably also gets grant funding — and if Dads participate, there’s an incentive for the states to get supportive grants. “Turning It Around ” works with the “Home Incarceration Program, yes:

“Turning It Around” is a collaborative effort, which works in conjunction with the Home Incarceration Program, with most of the attendees coming from contempt proceedings in Family Court in non-support cases. The purpose of the program is to increase the collection of child support payments, reduce recidivism in contempt cases, and encourage and increase cooperative parenting. Turning It Around may be offered as part of a plea agreement for those facing sentencing. Compliance with the program requires making weekly child support payments as well as attending a twelve (12) week class.

It appears that in 1975, Kentucky restructured its courts.  This 2002-2003 Report on the courts has a flowchart showing when a Family Court was added, and describing some of its programs, including “Turning It Around”:

In 1975, Kentucky voters supported a constitutional amendment to the Judicial Article that provided for a unified, four-tiered judicial system for operation and administration, called the Court of Justice. Judicial power of the Commonwealth of Kentucky is thus vested in one Court of Justice, which is divided into the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, trial courts of general jurisdiction known as Circuit Courts, and trial courts of limited jurisdiction known as District Courts. In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier. . . . In FY 2002- 2003, the average number of cases heard by family court judges was 1,477 per judge  {X 33 judges in this court}, representing cases originally within the jurisdiction of the circuit and the district courts.  {And it says approximately half the citizens in the state…?} … the Department has coordinated training for family court judiciary and staff, disseminated information via development of a quarterly newsletter, website, a family court benchbook and various reporting materials. The coordination of legal and social services and the provision and support of many programs, including but not limited to divorce education, Families in Transition, Turning It Around, Domestic Violence Information Sessions and truancy court projects have had a significant impact on the citizens of Kentucky

YES of course it has.  This report is actually some good reading, including relating how it was in 1996 that the JURISDICTIONAL basis for Family Court was established in 1996 (odd, funny, how that dates to WELFARE (TANF) REFORM year and the addition of access visitation grants to help support programs such as they mentioned above — divorce (parenting) education, and so forth.   This report shows NINE new justice centers being built (mostly in 2000ff) and notes that:

In the 2002 general election, Kentucky voters overwhelmingly approved passage of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment, thus creating a Family Court division of the Circuit Court tier.

{{NOTE:  In 2001, then-President George Bush initiated — by Executive Order — the OFFICE of FAITH-BASED AND COMMUNITY etceteras, aggressively helping put faith-based organizations, including plain old churches — on the federal grants stream and interspersed throughout government, meaning that they could also apply for funds to teach:  Parent Education, and “How to be a Man” etc…}}

Family Court. With ratification of the Family Court Constitutional Amendment in all 120 counties, the Kentucky Constitution has seen the most sweeping change in the structure of our court system since we adopted a unified four-tier court system in 1975. This historic moment came during the 2002 general election when more than 75 percent of Kentucky voters approved passage of the Family Court Amendment. This mandate permanently added Family Court to the state’s court system and proved that the people of Kentucky have overwhelmingly embraced the concept of “one family, one judge, one court.” Family Court, which is involved in {{I.E. NOW REGULATING AND AFFECTING..}} the most intimate and complex aspects of human nature and social relations, provides a court devoted exclusively to the needs of families and children. It currently serves 2 million people in 42 counties — nearly half of Kentucky’s population. My goal is to see that within 10 years every family in the state has access to a court that makes families and children the highest priority.

Kentucky’s court pages has one of the most active set of programs for kids, Moms, Dads, of any states that I’ve seen.  It was here I found a parenting education class (Kids First) which led directly to a nonprofit (I’ll say it:  “Front Group”) in PENNSYLVANIA — of course AFCC in origin and intent.  I wonder if some double-billing goes on (and how much) as has been discovered already in other programs around the country, in custody cases. In 2002 also, an “Alternate Dispute Resolution” Department was added (like many others nationwide).  While this may be appropriate in many types of situations, this process is unfair and DANGEROUS to parents, I’m referring primarily to mothers, whose custody case stems from violence issues.  It dilutes protections, attorney-client confidentiality,and to the extent mediators are court-paid (and/or AFCC-trained, meaning they are going to be hostile towards mothers) it is a bad deal for everyone involved.  I obviously am opposed; in what other areas of crime is a victim MANDATED to mediate with the perp, leaving the decisions to be influenced by a person whose very position has a built-in motive to extend the litigation?  Here it is:

Chief Justice Joseph Lambert approved the creation of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Services Department in April 2002. The mission of the Department is to promote, facilitate, and maintain the effective use and growth of alternative means of resolving disputes. Initiatives include mediation training for general civil and family mediators, small claims mediation programs, and guidelines for mediators and mediation training. The AOC-sponsored training program is the most thorough alternative dispute resolution initiative to date. Several week-long seminars are designed to train lawyers, judges, educators, mental health and human resource professionals, family court staff, pretrial mediators, and AOC management. The proliferation

FEB, 2011 article by this justice defending himself against a newspaper attack:

n any event, let me set the record straight. In my 10 years as chief justice, I established family courts in Kentucky, and those courts now serve 75 percent of our population. At my request, the General Assembly authorized construction of 50 or more judicial centers, almost all of which are located in rural counties that often get little attention from state government. Those court facilities provided thousands of jobs for Kentuckians who needed work, and they were built with money to be repaid over 25 years borrowed at historically low interest rates. I was also instrumental in establishment of the senior judge program, which has resulted in far greater efficiency than ever before in Kentucky courts. Hardly ever is a court day lost because the judge is unavailable. When judges are ill or must attend to family matters, as in the federal system, a senior judge is available to fill that seat for the day or week of the regular judge’s absence. Jurors, witnesses, and others don’t have their time wasted. I also established nearly statewide drug courts, whereby non-violent offenders are given treatment and are closely supervised by judges and caseworkers. Drug court have been about the only significant progress made in recent years in combating the scourge of drug abuse.

He complained that he was not given (by the senior judge) leave to run for Attorney General while in his position as family judge; this JAN 25, 2011 (blog quoting said )article mentions some of the financial conflicts of interest — and the major court-house construction projects in some detail:

Lambert established guidelines for leaves of absence in 2005, a time when he was rumored to be considering a run for governor in 2007. Minton has not granted any judge a leave from the program. Lambert apparently only granted one, for a judge to complete an advanced degree at Yale University. It comes as no surprise that Lambert’s decision about running for public office is so closely tied to his financial planning. As chief justice, he designed the senior judge program that will provide him, and others, a generous retirement. Lambert also conceived the widely criticized $880 million courthouse construction program and hired the residential architect who designed his own home to oversee it. The firm that sold the bonds on the lion’s share of the courthouse projects employed Lambert’s son for a time. And the construction company that got more than half the courthouse business contributed generously to the judicial campaigns of Lambert’s wife, Debra.

Here’s a nice 2007 Continuing Legal Education Commission schedule, from the Kentucky Bar, giving thanks for contributors:

␣ ABOUT THE HANDBOOKS AND PRESENTATIONS ␣ Handbook materials are the result of the combined efforts of numerous dedicated professionals from around Kentucky, and elsewhere. The KBA gratefully acknowledges the following individuals who graciously contributed to this publication: AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination  (the link is a Google search, it brings up my posts on the topic as well as of course a course selling information at a discount to AFCC members on how to implement “parenting coordination” (translation — how to steer a family court case against mothers, I kid you not….), how to basically CHANGE courts, and a potpourri of other AFCC agendas  They really are a marketing outfit….  Parenting Coordination Task Force (a concept pushed by this group) consisted of:  “ The members of the AFCC Task Force on Parenting Coordination (2003 – 2005) were: Christine A. Coates, M.Ed., J.D., Chairperson and Reporter; Linda Fieldstone, M.Ed., Secretary; Barbara Ann Bartlett, J.D., Robin M. Deutsch, Ph.D., Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson, J.D, Philip M. Epstein, Q.C. LSM, Barbara Fidler, Ph.D., C.Psych, Acc.FM. Jonathan Gould, Ph.D., Hon. William G. Jones, Joan Kelly, Ph.D., Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D., Robert N. Wistner, J.D.

Overview and Definitions

Parenting coordination is a child-focused alternative dispute resolution [ADR] process in which a mental health or legal professional with mediation training and experience assists high conflict parents to implement their parenting plan** by facilitating the resolution of their disputes in a timely manner, educating parents about children’s needs,*** and with prior approval of the parties and/or the court, making decisions within the scope of the court order or appointment contract.

 

3 para. of rant, here, plus come copyediting notes: [**”assists . . . .. to” is a grammar mistake!  “Assist” is a transitive verb that takes a direct object.  They wrote the sentence without one.  It’s “assist in implementing/implementation” or “Help Parents implement.”  And these are the perpetual teachers…The task force boasts TWO “M.Ed.”s, a JUDGE, a JD, and a bunch of Ph.D.’s — did they do this on their dissertations?][***”EDUCATING PARENTS ABOUT CHILDREN’S NEEDS” already has a cash-supported grants stream dedicated to it, called access and visitation ($10 million/year nationwide, and California, where some of these are, gets about $1 million of that still).  Maybe what the parents need, instead, is lower legal bills — and fewer AFCC personnel on their case, particularly the ones that double-bill the grants program, and the parents, and/or are affiliated with the SF court system and Kids Turn (which is trading funds [i.e., a lien!], or was, with the SFTC, Trial Courts, system mysteriously….). Labeling parents “high-conflict” when one parent may or may not be having a “conflict” with the law-breaking, or child-endangering behavior of the others, is a word-trick used by such professionals to place themselves as the supposed “adults” in the matter, reframe what may be some VERY serious issues as “disputes” and sometimes reframe actual domestic violence, threats to kidnap, etc. as “conflict” — squarely blaming both parents for the behavior of ONE.  There are very, very few truly neutral individuals in this world — EVERYONE has a viewpoint.  However, few parents, particularly mothers, are aware of the influence and viewpoints of this organization and how neutral it is on pedophilia and abuse, and how activist it is in preventing women from leaving such situations with their children safe.   I seriously doubt that many people outside some of us mothers who have been diligently blogging this, in recent years (following upon NAFCJ and a VERY few others original exposures of the origins of the AFCC) understand how VERY large a part of the AFCC is #1.   Driven by simple greed — the money motive to market their own materials, and have a monopoly on the marketplace; #2.  Unbelievably activist, narcisssitically so — they position themselves to, and do, re-write laws (or add new ones), or by PRACTICE simply undermine and reverse existing state codes; #3.  Improperly continue to handle CRIMINAL matters in the FAMILY context — pleading caseloads all the time.         I have been systematically looking up (researching, if you will) AFCC individuals, task forces, memberships (i.e., who are judges where) nationwide as part of advocacy for noncustodial mothers in shock (including myself, initially) at what happened to our civil rights?    The behaviors and patterns of AFCC are very predictable, and their rhetoric uniform — rarely does an actually new IDEA come up — just a new market niche.  SImilarly, the nonprofits formed by man of the AFCC-personnel have a few commonalities — namely, they are geared to get court-referred business, they take sometimes grants monies, and they relentlessly conference, publish and collaborate to change the language and practice of law to a direction that this group, in particular, likes.  They are inbred with bar associations, the APA and several other groups as well — I know this because I look, closely The success of this organization which began as a SLUSH FUND IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY COURTHOUSE (from the best I can tell, and others — in articles written about this in the 1990s; don’t take it on my word — go to “the money trail” in Full Disclosure.net which follows Richard Fine’s case and work) depends upon inherent greed and egotism.  Parents are perceived as a PROBLEM, and they are the SOLUTION.   The success — besides who is positioned where in the judicial and court-referral professions — is also demonstrated by the total silence of domestic violence groups on this one.     To take the “veil” off — combine some listening, some reading, and then go check the financials!   Ask, how long are adult mothers and fathers supposed to be forced into educational materials designed at the FIFTH GRADE level (I found one today, may blog it tomorrow)???      The people most qualified to help their children, for the MOST part, are the parents — they live with them, they know them!   With this court system having been around now for several generations, many of the troubles we are seeing — like familicides, terrorism, fatalities on court-ordered exchanges, and/or kidnappings by parents to avoid payment of child support ! ! – or to get even — are now elements of the difficulties single mothers face.     I do not believe that the family court system (which exists primarily because of these individuals — some still practicing — to start with) is reformable, and I DO not believe it is broken — I believe it is doing exactly what it was designed to do — provide steady income growth for an otherwise low-paying field (psychology, absent the Ph.D.s), and a cult-like evangelizing of products (parent education, batterers intervention, supervised visitation, etc.) — which will provide secure retirements for the people who (a) designed and/or (b) parroted and helped affiliate-market them. )      

OK, I know that was 3 LONG paragraphs, but at least I kept it to only 3!

 

Parenting coordination is a quasi-legal, mental health, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process that combines assessment, education, case management, conflict management and sometimes decision-making functions.

Correction:  It is an all-expenses paid (to the coordinators) method of engaging in dubious QUASI-LEGAL and so-called “MENTAL HYGIENE” processes which BECAUSE OF THIS have ZERO business in OR around the courtroom UNLESS the parents opt for it — BOTH of them, and WITHOUT court coercion. Do they expect, in the cases of impoverished parents, to take some of their fees from the already compromised TANF funding, or what? ALSO — PARENTING COORDINATION is yet another tool of the trade of playing the PARENTAL ALIENATION card in a custody hearing and calling for “intervention” (a la Dick Warshak or Matt Sullivan, Ph.D. & Friends) “reunification.”  In other contexts, this would be called deprogramming, a practice which in the 1970s was played on some young adults by their parents, and was criminal — because it involved kidnapping.   It’s claiming that brainwashing happened (whether or not it did, and without true discretion) and so justifying coercive, “INTERVENTIONS” “Intervention Strategies for Parenting Coordinators in Parental Alienation Cases” (AFCC author Susan Boyan and probably the other one also) Ms. Ellis’ book, above is Copyright 2000 by the APA, and has of course a chapter on “Parental Alienation Syndrome:  A New Challenge for Family Courts (p. 205)” and by the end, p. 267, she gets around to “Evaluation of Sexual Abuse Allegations in Child Custody Cases.”  (Note:  PAS is real — see chapter title; but Sexual Abuse apparently is not, because it only surfaces next to the word “Allegations” emphasizing doubt (like Sexual abuse just doesn’t happen in families, or in divorcing families?) — and in the context of how to EVALUATE . . . . ALLEGATIONS.     Typical AFCC priorities…..”Lead” with PAS, and then — if forced to — say “sexual abuse” but never as if it were truly an issue.) It is a MAJOR issue….. (The Franklin Coverup)  Click on the link summary — the material is very disturbing, though…. Now, let’s reconsider why the AFCC, with it UNTRACKED and EVER-EXPANDING FUNDING AND REVAMPING OF THE LEGISLATIVE AND JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS emphasizing instead PROGRAMMING activities (endless trainings……) IS SO URGENT TO DESTROY ANY LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION OF THE HORRORS OF THIS CRIME AGAINST CHILDREN, AND AGAINST ONE (OR MORE) OF THEIR PARENTS WHEN THEY ATTEMPT TO STOP IT. https://events.afccnet.org/store/online_bookstore Susan M. BoyanAnn Marie Termini: The Psychotherapist as Parent Coordinator in High-Conflict Divorce: Strategies and Techniques; December 2004 Cooperative Parenting and Divorce: A Parent Guide to Effective CO-Parenting   August 1999 WELL, this post was to be a little sample — only — of some places that “child support enforcement” monies (grants/which are incentives) are going to the states.

 BACK to Ms. Moses’ article though:

To be fair, the Supreme Court decision did include some important protections the Obama administration suggested in its brief to the Court. The Court required safeguards that are alternatives to an appointed attorney such as telling men that they can avoid jail if they can’t afford to pay and providing them with an opportunity to demonstrate that they can’t pay.

The man in question from South Carolina did time for failure to pay amounts less than $60/ week. I’m so glad to know that our country is willing to go after the “real” culprits and thieves in lifes — people who cannot afford defense attorneys — and just SO “uninterested” in actually distributing money garnished (improperly and sometimes, in excess of court orders) from parents amounting to, sometimes, millions of dollars per state. SOME CHARTS: I did a basic search on the CFDA category “93563” which is Child Support Enforcement, plain and simple — and I selected only the years 2011 and 2010. I’d like this to exhibit how in different states (and tribes) different agencies collect, and how much money is spent on this. By publishing the street addresses fo the state (or tribe) designated agency, people can then search on-line for those addresses and see what else is going on at that street address. Although this is more helpful for private companies or nonprofits, it’s a good habit to develop. For Year 2010 only (seeing as we are not through with 2011 yet), this is the report:

FY 2010 Grants to States, Tribes, and D.C. for Child Support Enforcement

CFDA Prog. No.	OPDIV	Popular Title	Number of Awards	Number of Award Actions	CAN Award Amount
93.563	ACF	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	180	1,037	$3,604,010,339
Page Total			180	1,037	$3,604,010,339
Report Total			180	1,037	$3,604,010,339

 

Same category, FY 2011:

CFDA Prog. No.	OPDIV	Popular Title	Number of Awards	Number of Award Actions	CAN Award Amount
93.563	ACF	Child Support Enforcement (CSE)	170	713	$3,258,225,288
Page Total			170	713	$3,258,225,288
Report Total			170	713	$3,258,225,288

(So, one can see where I got my “$6.8” billion figure  from by adding the totals, there). USASPENDING.gov (year, 2010, same code) shows:

Total Dollars:$3,604,010,339 (probably includes some contracts, not just grants….)

NOTE:  these are GRANTS only — for contracts, plus grants, plus loans, plus (etc.) one would have to hop on over to another database, such as USASPENDING.gov.  however (the thing is) with both of those, the amounts are provided from the agencies themselves; there might be a better way to actually see what went out (like the individual state grants received documents, etc.) There are also SPECIAL PROJECTS for Child Support — CFDA 93601…

CFDA Prog. No.	OPDIV	Popular Title	Number of Awards	Number of Award Actions	CAN Award Amount “2010”
93.601	ACF	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	118	257	$17,306,652
93.601	CDC	Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects	1	1	$601,234
Page Total			119	258	$17,907,886
Report Total			119	258	$17,907,886

NOW, what exactly are those projects?  I decided to take a look (FY 2010) and recognize quite a few names – especially the first one here:

Program Office	Grantee Name {Yr “2010”}	City	State	Award Number	Award Title	Budget Year	CFDA Number	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions	Award Abstract
OCSE	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	93601	JESSICA PEARSON	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	93601	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Circuit Court for Baltimore County	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	93601	PETER J LALLY	-$1,215	View Abstract
OCSE	Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	KENT K SMITH	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	BEN LEVEK	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	BEN LEVEK	$24,300	View Abstract
OCSE	Florida State University	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0107	USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES	1	93601	KAREN OEHME	$100,000	View Abstract
OCSE	IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	JOE FINNEGAN	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	2	93601	JANET NELSON	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	93601	JOY LYNGAR	-$1,203	View Abstract
OCSE	NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	93601	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	93601	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	93601	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170	View Abstract
OCSE	STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	DAVID P POPOVICH	$22,816	View Abstract
OCSE	Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	93601	RALPH MILLER	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	93601	RALPH MILLER	$25,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency	AKRON	OH	90FI0109	OCSE DEMONSTRATION	1	93601	JENNIFER BHEAM	$83,330	View Abstract
OCSE	TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	93601	MICHAEL HAYES	$0	View Abstract
OCSE	The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	93601	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$50,000	View Abstract
OCSE	Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.	TUSCALOOSA	AL	90FI0108	CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY	1	93601	TERESA COSTANZO	$100,000	View Abstract
OCSE	UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	93601	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$48,995	View Abstract
OCSE	URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	93601	SANDI CRAWFORD	$33,052	View Abstract

I’ll look up a few (that I know less about, for example, Karen Oehme in FL is a known position….): MICHAEL MAGNANI in NY (apparently relates to a Drug Court): Michael Magnani Director Division of Grants and Program Development New York State Unified Court System 25 Beaver Street, 11th Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: 212-428-2109 Fax: 212-428-2129 Email: mmagnani@courts.state.ny.usFor example:

Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.  EIN#63-12904,

I looked this one up at NCSSDATAWEB.org — revenues showing over $2 million. 990 nonprofit purpose:

“TO EMPOWER FAMILIES BY PROVIDING SUPPORT SERVICES THAT DEVELOP SKILLS AND RESOURCES TO IMPROVE THE FAMILY’S QUALITY OF LIFE, PREPARE THEIR CHILDREN FOR SUCCESS IN A COMPETITIVE SOCIETY, AND ALLOW EACH INDIVIDUAL TO REALIZE HIS OR HER POTENTIAL FOR SELF-SUFFICIENCY”

With this nonprofit purpose, I shoulda been a nonprofit as a mere parent — this is what parents generally do!   They basically want to be some other family’s “family.”     So at what point is this outsourced to nonprofit organizations instead, supported by federal grants?   ‘Howsabout’ empowering parents by consistently refusing to violate their fundamental rights as individuals and help keep YOUR local neck of government honest and accountable for its use of OUR money (via IRS, or wage-garnishments in child support programs, or sales taxes, etc.) and your officials, accountable for its use of all program funds? Their 2010 IRS filed Form 990 shows program income revenues ZERO; contributions and grants, $2,082,707 — considerably higher than last year (which was $1,917,454) of which $2,5K (roughly — and lower than last year’s which was over $6K) INVESTMENT income.  There are 17 officers and directors… Part III, #4, they are required to report have a ‘Statement of Program Service Accomplishments” (with  expenses and revenues — and this section is blank.!  This is th section that justifies the tax-exempt purpose.  Instead, they simply re-stated their purpose (not what they actually DID)… and claimed that doing (whatever) cost “$1,968, 563” “All Other Achievements Description” — (after a number of blank pages of the form — and this is a statement, not an “achievement”) reads: FORM 990, PAGE PART I,LINE4D (the part I just noted was blank, but shouldn’t have been……)

“CHILDREN’S TRUST FUND OF ALABAMA AND DHHS GRANT AND FAMILY RESOURCE PROGRAM GRANT USED TO PAY SALARIES AND EXPENSES OF DHR CASE CONTRACTS FOR THE COUNTY AND CITY OF TUSCALOOSA AND TO PAY TFRC SALARIES AND EXPENSES RELATED TO CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION PROGRAMS” “Organization’s process to review Form 990″:  ” NO REVIEW WAS OR WILL BE CONDUCTED”  (that seems obvious.  AFter all, it’s only $2 million, right?) “GOVERNING DOCUMENTS DISCLOSURE EXPLANATION FORM 990, PAGE 6, PART VI, LINE 19 NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC” Here are a bunch of directors:   “

• TONYA ADAMS-NELSON DIRECTOR
• CARLA BAILEY DIRECTOR
• AVANTI BAKER DIRECTOR
• ELIZABETH BEEMER DIRECTOR
• MARY BETH CAVERT DIRECTOR
• ROBERT WHALLI JR DIRECTOR
• HELENE HIBBARD DIRECTOR
• ALISON HUDNAIL DIRECTOR
• TOM LEDBETTER DIRECTOR
• AMANDA MULKEY DIRECTOR
• SANDRA RAY DIRECTOR
• MIKE RUSSELL DIRECTOR
• TAMMY YAGER DIRECTOR
• KIM THOMA BAILEY PRESIDENT
• DEBRA NELSON -GARDELL VICE-PRES
• STEVEN K CASE TREASURER
• LESLIE GUY SECRETARY

(Alabama has been dealing with tornado damages…) solicitation (same address) from a group dealing with youth homelessness:There’s a blog and this shows a history — of TOP spot Family Resource Center.  It began (like many nonprofits) with someone formerly in government social service work, and a grant of $80,000 — not bad for a startup:

What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been

In 1999, a group of concerned community members came together to create the East Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. The goal was to create a place where underserved members of the Tuscaloosa community could come to gain access to services that were already available in other parts of town. The board of directors hired as the agency’s first executive director Teresa Costanzo, a social worker with management experience as the director of the Hale County Department of Human Resources. The budget in that initial year was $80,000; there were three employees.

Teresa’s Vision:

Very soon, Teresa’s vision began to exceed the limits of east Tuscaloosa, so, in 2001, the board of directors decided to drop the “East” from the name, making it the Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc. The agency [TECHNICALLY, it’s a “nonprofit” not an agency] continued to grow, as did the array of services provided. Soon, the community began to think of the agency as a “one-stop-shop” for a wide array of family needs. In an effort to reflect this perception of the agency, the board decided to begin operations under the business name Tuscaloosa’s One Place, a Family Resource Center.

{{More likely, this was a phrase promoted by the management, similar to the One-Stop-Justice-Centers started on the West Coast and encouraged in part by faith-based grants funding availability}}

Through the years, many of our services have changed. We now offer many school-based programs, several career-development programs, an on-site adult education program, an English-as-a-second-language program, healthy relationship programs, a juvenile detention alternative initiative, a Hispanic outreach program, and home visitation programs, to name a few of our services. We press approximately 800 volunteers, from all walks of life, into service for our community every year, and that number is growing. Our budget for the most recent fiscal year was approximately $1.5 million; we now have approximately 25 full-time employees and 80 temporary or part-time employees. To say that we’ve changed would be an understatement.Through all these changes, though, the agency’s constant has been its executive director. Teresa continues to be at the forefront of everything TOP does. Her oversight has been and still is the key factor in the agency’s place in the community.

And she got $100K of “Child Support Special Resource & Demonstration” project funds.  Recently. ALABAMA UNDISTRIBUTED CHILD SUPPORT COLLECTIONS(posted in an Iowa Fathers’ group), 2005:

ALABAMA

$11,765,750

$8,271,986

70.3%

$3,493,764

29.7%

(Columns:   NET, PENDING & % of NET (cols. 2&3) Unresolved & % of NET(last 2) Fatherhood Groups tend to be up on Where is the Money Going? — as here (but as we look below, TANF money IS being diverted to Fatherhood programs, at $30 to $50K a pop; and I have a 2011 list)  In that link, I see the group complaining that money was given to the Administrative Office of the Courts, and not “promoting responsible fatherhood”  (??the courts are where that promotion would be most likely to take effect!) MEANWHILE, this appears to be an outfit offering MARRIAGE CLASSES with a “Focus on the Family” (very strong) emphasis = NOT good.  See:

Marriage Classes/Curriculum 1. Classes Offered by Tuscaloosa’s One Place. http://www.etfrc.org, P.O. Box 40764, 870 Redmont Drive, Tuscaloosa, AL 35404 (205) 462- 1000 (Contact Wanda Martin, wmartin@etfrc.org Relationship/ Marriage Educator, Family Support Specialist; or D’Undray Peterson,

www.etfrc.org They have the solicitation part of the website all nicely set up:

We also accept monetary donations to support our programs. Because we are a non-profit social service agency, all donations are tax deductible. Please mail or deliver monetary donations to our offices, conveniently located in Alberta City or click below. Become a fan on Facebook!!

There’s the “Home visitation” services under “Parenting” and here is the “Let’s Help Dad with His Custody Case” (reduced or free legal fees) segment. Dads who are not actually getting legal results from these grants should complain to their local legislator, because that’s the purpose (also, for each State to conduct social experimentation at the direction of the Secretary of HHS, as 45 CFR 303.109declares): Apart from trouble with using the word “assist” or “assisting” correctly, this segment appears to have been part of the “special demonstration” funded program, above?  Tax-funded, so noncustodial MOTHERS can know that their tax dollars, if they are employed, are going to the good cause of a nonprofit organization taking advantage of its tax-exempt status to help connect the fathers with REDUCED-FEE OR FREE LEGAL SERVICES, no doubt to also help them with custody matters as well.

D.A.D.S. Program (Dads Are Dynamite)

The DADS program is designed to assist non-custodial fathers comply {{“in complying”}} with child support obligations. Participants in this program will receive job search assistance as well as learn skills to strengthen their relationship with their child and his or her primary caregiver. DADS participants receive individualized case management services, which includes assisting those fathers who are underemployed become {{“in becoming”}} gainfully employed.

One night per week, fathers will participate in a class/support session to discuss issues unique to non-custodial fathers. ** Legal services are also available to fathers at either a free or reduced fee.  Fathers interested in voluntarily participating in this program should contact Tuscaloosa’s One Place to schedule an initial intake. Call David De Shazo at (205) 462-1000 to sign up.

**if these are unique to noncustodial fathers, they do not apply to noncustodial mothers.  They are family court &/or child support matters.

HOPEFULLY no one providing such services has any inappropriate relationships with (a) any family court judges or (b) program disbursement authorities in any of the grants being used to assist the fathers, such as we found (1999) in the Karen Anderson, Amadaor County (CA) case, where her ex-husband’s attorney just so happened to also have authority over the A/V funds, and just-so happened to also be in business? with a little nonprofit outfit receiving those funds…..

$1,500 of Tuscaloosa’s 2011 proposed Community Developmt Block Grant going to this DADS program

However “DADs are DYNAMITE” got $50,000 — from TANF funds — in The CHildren’s Trust Fund in this (Alabama Dept of Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention )

THE LINK above IS LOADED WITH FATHERHOOD FUNDING (DESIGNATED “TANF” ON THE RIGHT COLUMN AS WELL)  — PLS. BROWSE.   Clearly the way to reduce childhood abuse and neglect is to dedicate public funds to fatherhood policies, including some that will provide legal help (reduce/low-fee) in their child support and most likely child custody/visitation cases — which the mothers do NOT have a source of legal help for, for the most part.  How does that work out when the reason for separation (or not cohabiting) was abuse to start with?

Other groups that received from this fund (dated March, 2011) include:

Grantee / Program / Source / $$

• Baldwin County Fatherhood Initiative, Inc./ (same)- TANF funding – $50K  [for-profit, inc. 2004]
• Alfred Saliba Family Services Center / Saliba Center Fatherhood – TANF funding – $40K
• Autauga County Family Support Center / “DADS” / TANF – $40K
• Family Guidance Center of Alabama / Fatherhood Program / TANF – $5oK
• Family Services Center of Coffee County / Coffee County Fatherhood Initiative / TANF – $35K [Non-profit, reg. 1998, but no reports since 1999 and where is the EIN#?  Cotter R. Rainer, III, purpose “assist families in need of prevention” at 203 EAST LEE STREET

ENTERPRISE, AL (currently an attorney’s office, Tindol- M. Chad & Cotter- R. Rainer- III Attorney) ACTUALLY — here is a Youtube 41second blurbon this one (date?) — I think it’s being offered at the courthouse, a judge announced:

The judge says the program will help the non-custodial parent pay his child support and have a relationship with his child.

Coffee County District Court Judge Paul Sherling says the state court system has awarded grant money to the county for a fatherhood initiative. He says that when a person charged with nonpayment appears in court and says he can’t afford to pay, he’ll have an alternative.

The program will direct the parent to a 12-week seminar program designed to help him find ways to earn income and pay for his child. The fatherhood initiative will be offered through the Coffee County Family Services Center.

This “eprise” site is interesting — because along with this article, are several others involving, for example, child abuse, murder, and complaints that the courts are short of money: this site states who helped get this money.

County gets almost $45,000 for fatherhood program

• A new program designed to help fathers help their children has received a financial boost. District Judge Paul Sherling announced that Coffee County has been awarded nearly $45,000 from the state court system to fund a fatherhood initiative.
  08/27/2010 6:00 AM
  |0 Comme
• An Enterprise man was sentenced to 90 years in prison on six charges involving sexual abuse of three minor children.District Judge Paul Sherling sentenced Jack Ellis Hockemeyer, 54, to serve 15 years in state prison on each charge, with the sentences to run concurrently, meaning he will serve a maximum of 15 years.Sherling imposed the sentence Tuesday afternoon following Hockemeyer’s guilty plea on one count of sexual abuse of  child under age 12 and five counts of second-degree sodomy involving minors over age 12, but under age 16ENTERPRISE, Ala. —      The 12th Circuit District Attorney Office’s recent child support roundup was its most successful to date, collecting more than $25,000 for Coffee County families. Assistant District Attorney Chris Kaminski said, as of Friday, the office has collected $25,573.69. Five more people remained in the Coffee County Jail on cash bonds, which will increase the total, he added. Kaminski said Friday’s total was “by far the best we’ve had.” From late March until April 8, the DA’s office allowed anyone behind on child support payments to catch up or arrange a plan without a penalty. Twelfth Circuit District Attorney Tom Anderson said about 80 percent of this year’s collections were obtained during that period.
  

  Former Elba lawman {stepfather} charged with torture, willful abuse of child

  (and let out on $5K bail after THIS:)

A 3-year-old child is now in the custody of the Coffee County Department of Human Resources after his stepfather was arrested and charged with torture/willful abuse of a child.  {{WHERE WAS MOM!??!}} Coffee County Sheriff’s Office Chief Deputy Ronnie Whitworth said the child’s grandfather reported the incident to law enforcement authorities. Jeffery Hayes Fuller, 28, of County Road 349, Elba, was arrested and charged with the Class C felony Dec. 22. Fuller is reportedly a former Elba police officer and a former firefighter. Whitworth said the baby was found badly bruised in the buttocks region with blood coming from the wounds.   Fuller reportedly confessed to paddling the child with a hand-gripped paddle, then placing the child on a hot pad and then rubbing peroxide on the wounds. Fuller was released from the Coffee County Jail on a $5,000 bond and ordered by Judge Paul Sherling to have no contact with the child. Whitworth said the case remains under investigation. (SORRY about all those extra hyperlinks)…..

REPEAT THE MANTRA:  Fatherhood training will reduce child abuse and prevent it……  Here’s a 30 yr old Army Sgt caught with 18 videos of child porn (same judge, which is how it came up)  – he’s in jail. . . . .    “The child pornography evidence against Hogan includes 18 videos and pictures of him sexually assaulting 2 out-of-state girls, ages 8 and 10. Authorities arrested Hogan Jan. 28 on charges of second-degree possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia and felony possession of a controlled substance.”

THIS “family services center” appears to be not just a regular nonprofit, but one of the many situations that appear to be a public/private project involving an actual building; it was dedicated in 1998, per this article (and also articles of incorporation):

Coffee County Family Services Center receives 2010-2011 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding

Check presented in the amount of $103,400

Linda HodgeThursday, Dec 02,2010

Elected officials, officials from the Alabama Department of Abuse and Neglect Prevention and the board of directors of the Coffee County Family Services Center all gathered Tuesday morning, Nov. 30, in Enterprise, Ala. for the announcement of the 2010-11 Children’s Trust Fund grant funding. Coffee County Family Services Center received $103,400 from the Children’s Trust Fund to be used for child abuse and neglect prevention programs. “I can not tell you how much we appreciate this money and their (Alabama Dept. of Abuse and Neglect Prevention) support of our programs,” said Judy Crowley, executive director of the Coffee County Family Services Center.

The Coffee County Family Services Center opened its doors in 1998, and Crowley said that also was the first year the local organization received grant funding from the Children’s Trust Fund for assessment referral, which remains a number one priority today as the programs most highly utilized area.  In regards to the 2010-11 grant funding announced Tuesday morning, Crowley said the monies will be used also to assist with all child abuse and neglect prevention programs, as well as, the Building Blocks program and the new Fatherhood Initiative program.

This is a listed nonprofit (Here’s the 2009 “990 “filing from NCCSDATA.org — though mostly blank, it confirms that it gets about $265K grants/contributions per yr and Judith Crowley earns only around $40K.  There is no description of services provided . . . . . it does have an EIN# (721374603 ) Heritage Training and Career Center, Inc / Faithful Fathers Fatherhood Program / TANF – $30K (THERE are 11 pages of this, and I don’t feel like going through all – -most pages have several, not just one or two, fatherhood programs on them) Any of these can be looked up (for example, the last one shows at the Alabama Secretary of STate site as existing, yes, as of 2007 — and as a nonprofit, but I don’t see any filings yet.   ”

Entity ID	Entity Name	City	Type	Status
565 – 632	Heritage Training and Career Center	MONTGOMERY, AL	Domestic Non-Profit Corporation	Exists

This group (under a “Cynthia Brown”) when I looked up the street address, is a “New or Rejoined Nonprofit” member of the Montgomery chamber of commerce:

A “Billy W. Jarrett Construction Co., Inc.” at this address apparently got a contract (for a North Carolina Military project) …. There are also 5 entities, some LLC’s  incorporated (or registered agent) by a “Cynthia Brown,”(without middle initial)  not that this isn’t a common name…

EVERY/ANY one of these organizations (in whichever state) can be looked up as to:  Incorporation (Secretary of State) and any related dbas (other names it does business as), if nonprofit, the NCCSDATAWEB.org or other site showing some of the 990 filings for these groups; their websites, their directors, and other LLCs they form.  SOMETIMES these are front groups that exist ONLY to catch the fundings.

EVERY organization (for example) that is taking TANF funds in particular, can and should be looked up and checked up (especially for any Alabama residents with access to internet) — again there is a LOT of fatherhood funding showing up here:   http://www.ctf.alabama.gov/Grantees%202010-2011/2010%202011%20Grantees%20Funded%20as%20of%20March%2029%202011.pdf

AND, of course the “Healthy Marriage” part as well, right underneath help to enroll in Food Stamps.  (If you are Title IV-A, your Child Support qualifies for Title IV-D, and as such a diversion into marriage promotion will of course help establish the steady payments of fathers). (A LINK from the TUSCOLOOSA ONE-STOP group)

Alabama Community Healthy Marriage Initiative

AGAIN, here is the child support funding for “Regular” (not “research and special demonstration”) child support.  In each State, County — your county — what does this translate to, and who is watching?  Who is profiting — are the children subject to the child support order profiting, and is this consistently effective in reducing TANF expenditures?

CFDA 93.593, “CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT” Grants to States — selected Years 2010 & 2011

Also for scope, the chart should show how which agency gets this varies from state to state. The “activity type” is at all times described as “SOCIAL SERVICES” and note that the grants type is either NEW, or Administrative Supplement/Discretionary — meaning, they asked for more… I left blank the column Private Investigator — because it’s agencies getting the monies. Keep in mind also that some states farm out the responsibilities to private contractors, some of whom I have been researching, and the large ones of which have been in several cases caught in major money-laundering or fraud. This is good to keep in mind when considering how quickly one state (South Carolina) is to contribute (further) to the racial inequality in the US prison system by jailing low-income black males for nonpayment of child support — and then going to the public and complaining that the child support system is unfair to low-income black males (although the literature saying this typically calls the males “fathers” and the mothers’ households, “female-headed households” as if they were domesticated breeding stock (which, viewed in certain lights, they are…. being treated as). FOR A SAMPLE of this chart:

Grantee Name

Grantee Address

City

State

County

Grantee Type

Award Number

Award Title

Budget Year

Action Issue Date

CFDA Number

Award Action Type

Sum of Actions

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804AK4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$217,656

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904AK4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/07/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$471,245

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904AK4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$154,695

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,435,990

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,971,304

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$873,529

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,370,981

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$113,038

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,857,781

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,527

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,558,010

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004AK4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$522,227

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$2,394,674

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$666,335

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,766,654

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$807,328

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,424,624

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,270,146

AK ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION

550 WEST 7TH AVENUE, 4TH FLOOR

ANCHORAGE

AK

ANCHORAGE

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104AK4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,564,608

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0804AL4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$443,330

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904AL4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,870,128

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904AL4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,563,098

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,878,920

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,738,775

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,666,800

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$270,313

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,294,300

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$609,699

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,197,264

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004AL4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$384,262

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$12,437,200

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$17,670

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,295,520

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,975

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,514,100

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$816,471

AL ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

50 RIPLEY ST S GORDON PERSON B

MONTGOMERY

AL

MONTGOMERY

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104AL4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,712,928

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

0804AR4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$606,262

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

0904AR4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$882,220

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,081,749

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,336,191

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$954,627

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,324,393

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$781,215

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,779,830

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,503,484

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,637,460

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1004AR4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$75,008

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$9,824,903

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,897,250

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,537,998

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,644,995

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,733,689

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,761,165

AR ST DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE AND ADM

PO BOX 1272

LITTLE ROCK

AR

PULASKI

Other Social Services Organization

1104AR4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,481,843

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

0804AZ4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$424,427

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

0904AZ4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$687,232

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$7,236,581

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,991,382

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,324,572

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,682,219

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,350,417

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,093,961

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,748,400

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1004AZ4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,547,956

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$10,840,894

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,085,910

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,450,246

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,402,213

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,570,129

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,960,501

AZ ST DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC SECURITY & VOCATIONAL REHA

POST OFFICE BOX 6123

PHOENIX

AZ

MARICOPA

Rehabilitation Organization ( Other Than Criminal )

1104AZ4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,249,743

BLACKFEET TRIBAL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT

TRIBAL OFFICE

BROWNING

MT

GLACIER

Educational Department

10IBMT4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$296,873

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

0804CA4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,520,413

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

0904CA4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,981,714

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$20,049,309

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$145,968,345

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$38,513,768

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$129,832,458

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$10,597,780

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$62,305,239

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1004CA4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$107,984,151

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$125,931,992

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,448,771

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$122,438,508

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$20,997,400

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$129,166,305

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,142,721

CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

744 P STREET, MAIL STOP 20-72

SACRAMENTO

CA

SACRAMENTO

Welfare Department

1104CA4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$94,719,355

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10ICOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$695,218

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10ICOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$579,348

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10TCOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

NEW

$463,479

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

10TCOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$463,478

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$634,920

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,100

CHEROKEE NATION OF OKLAHOMA

POST OFFICE BOX 948

TAHLEQUAH

OK

CHEROKEE

Indian Tribal Council

11ICOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,281

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$659,158

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$549,298

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$136,183

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

10IAOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$336,160

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$476,612

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

03/31/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$97,022

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$397,177

CHICKASAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 1548

ADA

OK

PONTOTOC

Other Social Services Organization

11IAOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$608,870

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$194,631

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,193

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,192

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMT4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$129,754

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$208,457

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$173,714

CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE

ROCKY BOY ROUTE

BOX ELDER

MT

HILL

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMT4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$138,971

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

0804CO4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$271,490

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

0904CO4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$713,994

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,963,471

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,858,500

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$792,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,057,020

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$918,244

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,702,000

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,404,043

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,696,534

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1004CO4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,224,106

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$9,840,330

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$911,350

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,499,260

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$286,137

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,561,620

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$689,647

CO ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES

1575 SHERMAN STREET

DENVER

CO

DENVER

Welfare Department

1104CO4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,398,700

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/13/2010

93563

NEW

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$177,492

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

10IAID4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$152,137

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$221,058

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$184,215

COEUR DALENE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 408

PLUMMER

ID

BENEWAH

Indian Tribal Council

11IAID4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$147,372

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

WA

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$397,415

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

WA

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

WA

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$331,179

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

WA

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$264,942

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

WA

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWA4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$460,212

COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES

P.O. BOX 150

NESPELEM

WA

OKANOGAN

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWA4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$383,510

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$134,424

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$112,021

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,314

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

10IFOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,440

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$159,310

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$165,209

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$132,758

COMANCHE INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 908

LAWTON

OK

COMANCHE

Indian Tribal Council

11IFOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$73,755

CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES

P.O. BOX 278

PABLO

MT

LAKE

Indian Tribal Council

11IDMT4004

2011 OCSET

1

12/01/2010

93563

NEW

$238,765

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$143,989

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,991

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$95,994

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$147,185

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,983

CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF THE UMATILLA INDIAN RESERVATION

P.O. BOX 638

PENDLETON

OR

UMATILLA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$127,804

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

0804CT4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,790,720

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

0904CT4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$609,139

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,193,136

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,637,365

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,408,041

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,266,669

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,895,077

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$367,943

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,326,324

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1004CT4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,200,208

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$11,887,422

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,270,701

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,778,199

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$37,738

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,966,424

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$953,656

CT ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFF OF FINANCIAL MGMT

25 SIGOURNEY STREET, 7TH FLOOR

HARTFORD

CT

HARTFORD

Welfare Department

1104CT4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,278,236

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0804DC4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$83,962

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0904DC4004

2009 OCSE

1

10/08/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$802,300

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

0904DC4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$136,662

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,593,280

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,241,838

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,604,840

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,217,637

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,100,520

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$971,680

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,123,940

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1004DC4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$563,656

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$4,032,033

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$301,643

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,597,460

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$961,498

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,479,620

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$69,798

DC OFFICE OF CORPORATION COUNSEL

441 4th street, nw

WASHINGTON

DC

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Welfare Department

1104DC4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,672,240

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

0804DE4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$58,246

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

0904DE4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$276,175

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$4,373,359

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,935,571

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$201,342

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,532,156

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,306,420

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,179,132

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,635,337

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,889,253

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1004DE4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,432,595

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$7,499,212

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,070,262

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,503,364

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,450,993

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,230,650

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,116,225

DE ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & SOCIAL SERVICES

1901 N DUPONT HIGHWAY

NEW CASTLE

DE

NEW CASTLE

Health Department

1104DE4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,056,512

EASTERN SHOSHONE TRIBE

P.O. BOX 538

FORT WASHAKIE

WY

FREMONT

Indian Tribal Council

08IBWY4004

2008 OCSET

1

10/19/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$401,375

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

0804FL4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,789,799

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

0904FL4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,159,234

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$22,719,061

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$56,042,541

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,179,266

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$53,033,364

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,227,388

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$38,803,054

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$17,299

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$48,079,001

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1004FL4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/30/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,556,024

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$56,287,376

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,588,919

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$52,482,981

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,808,111

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

03/17/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,677,187

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$46,465,236

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,538,373

FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

500 SOUTH CALHOUN ST, RM 143

TALLAHASSEE

FL

LEON

Other Social Services Organization

1104FL4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$51,635,458

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$165,653

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$171,413

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$143,054

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$92,097

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10ICWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/19/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$21,440

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10TCWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

06/05/2010

93563

NEW

$59,393

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

10TCWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

08/30/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$567,600

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$179,039

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$149,199

FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY

P.O. BOX 396

CRANDON

WI

FOREST

Indian Tribal Council

11ICWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$119,359

FT BELKNAP COMMUNITY COUNCIL

FT BELKNAP AGENCY

HARLEM

MT

BLAINE

Indian Tribal Council

09ICMT4004

2009 OCSET

1

09/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$283,281

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

0804GA4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$370,916

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

0904GA4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,857,146

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$15,500,754

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,978,898

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$999,477

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,305,654

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$738,535

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,026

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,246,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1004GA4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,015,821

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$20,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$7,174,590

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,008,830

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,496,254

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,049,097

GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES

2 PEACHTREE NW, SUITE 27-295

ATLANTA

GA

FULTON

Welfare Department

1104GA4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$24,496,254

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0804GU4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$41,400

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

0904GU4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$115,246

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$345,101

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$300,126

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

12/09/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$529,436

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$66,329

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$554,629

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,190

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$156

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$710,340

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1004GU4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$317,016

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$759,911

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$66,203

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$727,644

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$318,769

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

02/09/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$200,000

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$604,521

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$274,696

GU DEPARTMENT OF LAW

194 HERNAN CORTEZ AVE, STE 309

AGANA

GU

AGANA

Planning & Administrative Organizations

1104GU4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$675,165

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804HI4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$162,504

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904HI4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$346,576

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$382,743

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,942,600

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,895,080

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$242,655

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,798,060

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,994,191

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,236,960

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$525,251

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004HI4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$982,476

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$3,090,400

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$948,371

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,962,200

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,092,179

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,530,200

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$713,234

HI ST OFFC OF ATTNY GNRL, DIV OF CHILD SUPPRT/ENFORCMNT

601 KAMOKILA BLVD, SUITE 207

KAPOLEI

HI

HONOLULU

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1104HI4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,001,440

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

0804IA4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,034,154

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

0904IA4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,750

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

0904IA4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,535,162

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$9,033,996

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,519,024

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,688,235

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,723,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,814,802

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,063,100

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,992,298

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,357

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,376,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1004IA4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,392,854

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$11,526,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,266,820

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,076,500

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,690,379

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,213,200

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$5,496,825

IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES

1305 EAST WALNUT

DES MOINES

IA

POLK

Welfare Department

1104IA4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$10,776,500

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

0804ID4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$227,639

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

0904ID4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$207,448

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$1,282,527

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,403,756

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$423,956

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,987,028

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$471,286

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,325,460

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,925,578

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,861,854

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1004ID4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,715,774

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$4,235,706

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$954,759

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,504,043

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$679,903

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,467,225

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,180,751

ID ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & WELFARE

450 WEST STATE ST, 9TH FLOOR

BOISE

ID

ADA

Health Department

1104ID4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,684,935

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0804IL4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,048,070

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0904IL4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$87,230

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

0904IL4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,727,004

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$30,172,273

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,235,953

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$31,611,964

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,853,722

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$34,984,718

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,780,679

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$34,504,934

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1004IL4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,040,629

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$28,644,219

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,935,737

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$28,382,830

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,077,767

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$37,210,017

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,258,566

IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES

2200 CHURCHILL RD C2

SPRINGFIELD

IL

SANGAMON

Welfare Department

1104IL4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$33,507,714

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

0804IN4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,046,221

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

0804INHMHR

2008 HMHR

1

10/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$198,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

0904IN4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$164,556

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

0904IN4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$8,868,855

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,487,923

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,041,143

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,324,023

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$3,952,413

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,629,715

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,602

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$14,137,408

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$8,314,548

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1004IN4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/13/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,242,000

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$13,396,113

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,293,314

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,961,368

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$9,942,425

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,775,367

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,624,634

IN ST FAMILY SOCIAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

POST OFFICE BOX 7128

INDIANAPOLIS

IN

MARION

Welfare Department

1104IN4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,090,305

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$102,908

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,757

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

10IGOK4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$68,604

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GIOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

NEW

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GIOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/12/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11GTOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/12/2011

93563

NEW

$73,145

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$109,717

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,431

KAW NATION OF OKLAHOMA

698 GRANDVIEW DRIVE

KAW CITY

OK

KAY

Indian Tribal Council

11IGOK4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$91,431

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$78,498

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$65,415

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,606

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

10IAMI4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$42,261

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11AIMI4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

NEW

$16,660

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$78,904

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,035

KEWEENAW BAY INDIAN COMMUNITY

107 BEARTOWN ROAD

BARAGA

MI

BARAGA

Indian Tribal Council

11IAMI4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$75,727

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$105,494

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,912

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$85,653

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

10IAKS4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$63,551

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$160,536

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$133,780

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF KANSAS

P.O. BOX 271

HORTON

KS

BROWN

Indian Tribal Council

11IAKS4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$107,025

KICKAPOO TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA

P.O. BOX 70

MCLOUD

OK

POTTAWATOMIE

Indian Tribal Council

09IIOK4004

2009 OCSET

1

06/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$263,587

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$95,783

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$79,819

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

10IBOR4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$63,854

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$104,487

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$87,072

KLAMATH TRIBE (ONAP)

POST OFFICE BOX 436

CHILOQUIN

OR

KLAMATH

Indian Tribal Council

11IBOR4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$69,658

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0804KS4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$279,439

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0904KS4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/24/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$72,200

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

0904KS4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$698,875

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$5,270,236

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,631,555

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,803,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,943,573

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$296,186

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,036,770

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,517,041

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

05/18/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,540

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,130,248

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1004KS4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$952,911

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$8,480,533

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$676,001

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,938,255

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,652,115

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,600,934

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$907,503

KS ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES

915 HARRISON STREET

TOPEKA

KS

SHAWNEE

Welfare Department

1104KS4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$7,238,308

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0804KY4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$782,208

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0904KY4004

2009 OCSE

1

05/11/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,296,286

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

0904KY4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,127,059

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$7,394,829

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,256,316

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$5,047,054

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$896,494

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,485,158

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,579,378

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$6,267,103

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1004KY4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,038,706

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$5,458,820

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,439,672

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,864,886

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$836,980

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,112,680

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$1,379,228

KY ST CABINET FOR FAMILIES & CHILDREN

275 EAST MAIN ST, 5TH FLOOR

FRANKFORT

KY

FRANKLIN

Other Social Services Organization

1104KY4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,229,773

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

0804LA4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$681,486

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

0904LA4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$4,929,044

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$8,336,935

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$15,790,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$4,964,952

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$19,915,563

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$2,040,488

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,164,782

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,715,603

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$16,778,349

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1004LA4004

2010 OCSE

1

08/06/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,436,578

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$14,405,038

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

12/09/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$2,573,946

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$11,881,604

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

01/24/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$1,164,059

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,933,756

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

04/26/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$102,845

LA ST HEALTH, SOCIAL & REHABILITATION SERVICES ADMIN

POST OFFICE BOX 44215

BATON ROUGE

LA

EAST BATON ROUGE

Welfare Department

1104LA4004

2011 OCSE

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,370,140

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE

113394 W. Trepania Road

HAYWARD

WI

SAWYER

Indian Tribal Council

10IEWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/13/2010

93563

NEW

$242,207

LAC COURTE OREILLES TRIBE

113394 W. Trepania Road

HAYWARD

WI

SAWYER

Indian Tribal Council

11IEWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/12/2011

93563

NEW

$257,793

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$97,241

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$81,034

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

10IAWI4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$64,828

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$106,825

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$89,021

LAC DU FLAMBEAU BAND OF LAKE SUPERIOR CHIPPEWA INDIANS

P.O. BOX 67

LAC DU FLAMBEAU

WI

VILAS

Indian Tribal Council

11IAWI4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$71,215

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

MN

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

09IDMN4004

2009 OCSET

1

03/25/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$223,202

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

MN

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

11ICMN4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

NEW

$81,077

LEECH BAND OF OJIBWE

115 6th Street, NW

CASS LAKE

MN

CASS

Other Social Services Organization

11ICMN4004

2011 OCSET

1

06/10/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$62,328

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

10/01/2009

93563

NEW

$265,452

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$221,210

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

10ICWA4004

2010 OCSET

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$176,967

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

1

10/01/2010

93563

NEW

$256,619

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

1

01/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

1

04/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$213,849

LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

2616 KWINA ROAD

BELLINGHAM

WA

WHATCOM

Community Action Organization

11ICWA4004

2011 OCSET

1

07/01/2011

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$171,080

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0804MA4004

2008 OCSE

1

12/17/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$917,199

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

0904MA4004

2009 OCSE

1

12/21/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$3,032,452

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

09/23/2009

93563

NEW

-$3,734,789

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

10/01/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,308,292

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

11/23/2009

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$781,695

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

01/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$12,023,485

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

03/05/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,261,339

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$9,746,540

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

04/29/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

-$6,413,634

MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE

141 PORTLAND ST FL 10

CAMBRIDGE

MA

MIDDLESEX

Law Enforcement Agency ( Including Criminal Rehabilitation )

1004MA4004

2010 OCSE

1

07/01/2010

93563

ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)

$13,883,799

This is 500 names (at least, the search results were sorted to show 500 names at a time) of approximately 1,308 names.  I’m not sure why several years displayed, i.e., why a 2009 date would show up.  However, the point is to get an idea of where & how much money is hitting is inbound, at least the state level. As this is PUBLIC money, anyone has a right to find out what is the local public payroll, how grants are being spent, who is allocating them to whom (Subgrants).  Some of this can be looked up on-line and some can be formed in a FOIA letter, which by law, has to be responded to in a certain time frame.  It may not be, but it is a legal right to request public information. AT ANY POINT — it’s appropriate to ask what are these grants being used for  They are Smaller, but they are in positions of influence, including some courts. ALSO notice the ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT / DISCRETIONARY BLOCK category seems the main category (sometimes being adjusted downward).  If I looked only at “NEW” grants for (YRS — “All”, i.e., database goes back to 1995).  Notice how active Center for Policy Research is — hardly surprising:  JEssica Pearson was a co-founder of AFCC (Per Liz Richards) and this Denve

Grantee Name	City	St	Award	Award Title	Budgt Yr	Action Issue Date	Award Activity Type	Award Action Type	Principal Investigator	Sum of Actions
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0047	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALICIA LUCKIE	$200,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	1	08/30/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MARIAN LOFTIN	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	2	12/29/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	3	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$100,000
AL ST CHILD ABUSE & NEGLECT PREVENTION BOARD	MONTGOMERY	AL	90FI0077	FAMILY CONNECTIONS IN ALABAMA- (PRIORITY AREA #3)	3	01/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	VICKI C COOPER-ROBINSON	$0
Allegheny County Court of Commons Pleas	PITTSBURGH	PA	90FI0065	COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF ALLEGHANY COUNTY	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PATRICK QUINN	$99,978
BALTIMORE COUNTY HEALTH DEPT, PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES SVCS	TOWSON	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	06/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PETER J LALLY	$150,815
CA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	SACRAMENTO	CA	90FI0008	CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE IMAGING SYSTEM AND DATABASE FOR VOLUNTARY PATERNITY DECLARA	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$180,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0059	EXPANDING CUSTOMER SERVICES THROUGH AGENCY-INITIATED CONTACT	1	06/16/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR JESSICA PEARSON	$99,926
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/31/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$100,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/25/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$24,730
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0073	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	09/03/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$198,664
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$124,820
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	02/22/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	06/26/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/04/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$124,829
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DR NANCY THOENNES	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	02/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/15/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR NANCY THOENNES	$124,863
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	03/31/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0085	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	06/20/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PHEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JESSICA PEARSON	$99,908
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	10/23/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	2	09/18/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	08/02/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JESSICA PEARSON	$50,000
CENTER FOR POLICY RESEARCH	DENVER	CO	90FI0098	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA #3	3	09/25/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JESSICA PEARSON	$0
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	1	08/30/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	1	09/21/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	-$1
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	2	12/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$0
CHANGE HAPPENS	HOUSTON	TX	90FI0076	FAMILIES UNDER URBAN AND SOCIAL ATTACK, INC. PRIORITY AREA #3	3	09/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MS RIVA F OKONKWO	$100,000
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CANDACE COWLING	$199,323
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CANDACE COWLING	$124,898
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	03/17/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CANDACE COWLING	$0
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CANDACE COWLING	$124,674
CHILD AND FAMILY RESOURCE COUNCIL	GRAND RAPIDS	MI	90FI0087	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	4	08/29/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KARROL MCKAY	$124,938
CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	DENVER	CO	90FI0044	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PAULINE BURTON	$100,000
COLVILLE CONFEDERATED TRIBES	NESPELEM	WA	90FI0006	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARLA BIG BOY	$32,800
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC	ALLENTOWN	PA	90FI0048	SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PATRICIA W LEVIN	$177,374
COMMUNITY SERVICES FOR CHILDREN, INC	ALLENTOWN	PA	90FI0048	SPECIAL INPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 2	1	05/04/2005	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	PATRICIA W LEVIN	$99,227
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/25/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHERYL BREAUX	$100,000
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CHERYL BREAUX	$50,000
Christian Community Council	ALBANY	LA	90FI0084	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	01/24/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CHERYL BREAUX	$0
Christian Family Gathering	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0038	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ADVOCACY INTERVENTION TRAINING – SIPS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIA J JENKINS	$99,895
Circuit Court for Baltimore County	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0057	OCSE SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 5	1	04/07/2010	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	PETER J LALLY	-$1,215
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	FRANCINE B GOLDBERG	$100,000
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/13/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	FRANCINE B GOLDBERG	$25,000
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	10/22/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KENT K SMITH	$0
Cuyahoga County Prosecutor`s Office	CLEVELAND	OH	90FI0093	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KENT K SMITH	$25,000
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/09/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BEN LEVEK	$99,800
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BEN LEVEK	$24,300
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	11/18/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	06/06/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/02/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	BEN LEVEK	$24,300
DENVER CTY/CNTY DEPT HUMAN SVCS	DENVER	CO	90FI0094	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	06/16/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	BEN LEVEK	$0
ECUMENICAL CHILD CARE NETWORK	CHICAGO	IL	90FI0026	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA -1	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DEBRA HAMPTON	$50,000
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT	LAS VEGAS	NV	90FI0030	CHILD SUPPORT & DRUG COURT PROGRAM	1	06/27/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KENDIS STAKE	$50,000
Episcopal Social Services, Inc.	WICHITA	KS	90FI0079	RELIABLE INCOME FOR KIDS COALITION (PRIORITY AREA 1)	1	08/29/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR GAYLORD DOLD	$193,600
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & REHABILITATIVE SERVICES	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	NANCY LUJA	$79,495
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0009	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$25,864
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	03/28/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	NANCY LUJA	-$29,753
FL ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0022	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	NANCY LUJA	-$280
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$200,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	3	08/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Family Service Association of San Antonio, Inc.	SAN ANTONIO	TX	90FI0086	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	4	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RICHARD M DAVIDSON	$125,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	1	08/09/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis	SAINT LOUIS	MO	90FI0070	HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES	3	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	HALBERT SULLIVAN	$100,000
Florida State University	TALLAHASSEE	FL	90FI0107	USING FLORIDA???S SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAMS TO INCREASE ECONOMIC SELF SUFFICIENCY FOR LOW-INCOME FAMILIES	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	KAREN OEHME	$100,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	1	08/19/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$100,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$25,000
GEORGIA STATE UNIVERSITY RESEARCH FOUNDATION	ATLANTA	GA	90FI0074	GA STATE UNIV. RESEARCH FOUNDATION	2	12/18/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DOUGLAS G GREENWELL	$0
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH	PITTSBURGH	PA	90FI0080	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/01/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ERIC YENERALL	$200,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/24/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARIE THEISEN	$100,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0045	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 4	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MELINDA ROMAN	$99,090
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0066	CONNECTING CHILD SUPPORT TO THE COMMUNITY TO SECURE IMPROVED OUTCOMES FOR CHILDR	1	06/22/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAREN FROHWEIN	$100,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	10/26/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOE FINNEGAN	$0
IA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES/HUMAN SERVICES	DES MOINES	IA	90FI0095	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOE FINNEGAN	$25,000
IL ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTHCARE AND FAMILY SERVICES	SPRINGFIELD	IL	90FI0007	IMPROVEMENT GRANT	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARTIN D SUTHERLAND	$149,686
Imperial Valley Regional Occupational Program	EL CENTRO	CA	90FI0051	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MARY N CAMACHO	$141,858
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/29/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JUAN VEGAS	$100,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/28/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0088	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	PHYLLIS NANCE	$100,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/18/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
Kern County Department of Child Support Services	BAKERSFIELD	CA	90FI0097	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PHYLLIS NANCE	$25,000
LA ST DEPT OF SOCIAL SERVICES, OFFICE OF MGT & FINANCE	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0015	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GORDON HOOD	$50,000
LARIMER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MYRNA MAIER	$170,244
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	2	08/04/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MYRNA MAIER	$248,972
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	2	08/08/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	MYRNA MAIER	$0
LARIMER COUNTY DEPT. OF HUMAN SERVICES	FORT COLLINS	CO	90FI0014	CHILD SUPPORT ASSURANCE	3	08/27/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MYRNA MAIER	$249,781
LIVINGSTONE COLLEGE	SALISBURY	NC	90FI0025	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	01/03/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WALTER ELLIS	$49,668
LUMMI INDIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL	BELLINGHAM	WA	90FI0019	LIBC CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DAVID BUNTON	$129,181
Louisiana Family Council	METAIRIE	LA	90FI0060	LOUISIANA FAMILY COUNCIL	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GAIL TATE	$100,000
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	09/14/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DIANA OBBARD	$544,500
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	07/21/2000	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DIANA OBBARD	-$469,500
MA ST DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE	CAMBRIDGE	MA	90FI0024	INCOME WITHHOLDING & ASSET SEIZURE STRATEGIES	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DIANA OBBARD	-$38,000
MARRIAGE COALITION (THE)	CLEVELAND HEIGHTS	OH	90FI0054	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 2	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SANDRA G BENDER	$199,994
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0010	PATERNITY OPPORTUNITY PROGRAM	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GINA HIGGINBOTHAM	$100,312
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0052	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOHN LANGROCK	$200,000
MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES	BALTIMORE	MD	90FI0052	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 1	1	08/19/2003	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOHN LANGROCK	-$200,000
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/18/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JANE ALEXANDER	$99,792
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/24/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JANE ALEXANDER	$24,805
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY HEALTH	LANSING	MI	90FI0075	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	09/21/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	TANYA LOWERS	$0
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0032	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	06/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	NANCY CHRIST	$187,550
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$37,500
MICHIGAN STATE THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	2	11/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$0
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/22/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RICHARD BRANDT	$98,364
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KAREN SHIRER	$99,996
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	05/31/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DAWN CONTRERAS	$0
MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY	EAST LANSING	MI	90FI0071	CHILD SUPPORT DEMONSTRATION/SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	08/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAWN CONTRERAS	$99,952
MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT	LANSING	MI	90FI0064	OCSE’S SPECIAL IMROVEMENT PROJECT/PRIORITY AREA 1	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BILL J BARTELS	$100,000
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	1	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JANET NELSON	$100,000
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	2	09/28/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JANET NELSON	$25,000
MN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	ST PAUL	MN	90FI0041	INTERVENTION STRATEGIES FOR WORKING WITH LOW INCOME NON CUSTODIAL PARENTS – SIP	1	02/01/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LAURA KADWELL	$300,000
MONTANA SCHOOL DISTRICT	HELENA	MT	90FI0049	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 3	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BARBARA DELANEY	$149,464
MONTEREY COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT	SALINAS	CA	90FI0078	MOBILE CUSTOMER SUPPORT	1	09/02/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JAMES HANSEN	$200,000
MUSKEGON COUNTY COMMUNITY MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BOARD	MESKEGON	MI	90FI0050	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A. 1	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BRAIN P MATTSON	$199,772
Massachusetts Probate and Family Court	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	03/23/2011	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$0
Milwaukee County Dept. of Administration Fiscal Affairs	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0103	IMPROVING CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT (CSE) AND COURT COLLABORATION	1	11/17/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	JANET NELSON	$0
NATIONAL AMERICAN INDIAN COURT JUDGES ASSOCIATION	BOULDER	CO	90FI0055	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 5	1	12/19/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VINCENT L KNIGHT	$199,887
NATIONAL CENTER FOR STATE COURTS	WILLIAMSBURG	VA	90FI0034	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KAY FARLEY	$40,000
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0017	NATIONAL CERTIFICATION FEASIBILITY STUDY	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOEL K BANKES	$48,548
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	02/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$74,900
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	11/06/2002	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	THERESA MOASSER	-$20,982
NATIONAL CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT ASSOCIATION	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0039	CHILD SUPPORT CASEWORKER CERTIFICATION PLANNING PROJECT	1	09/21/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	THERESA MOASSER	$0
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0012	JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOY ASHTON	$36,125
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0012	JUDICIAL TRANING PROJECT	1	03/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOY ASHTON	-$9,605
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	1	08/19/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOY D ASHTON	$150,000
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	08/29/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JOY D ASHTON	$37,500
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	10/01/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	JOY LYNGAR	$0
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF JUVENILE COURT JUDGES	RENO	NV	90FI0082	2005 SIP GRANT	2	03/31/2010	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOY LYNGAR	-$1,203
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0023	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOAN ENTMACHER	$50,000
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0029	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	06/06/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOAN ENTMACHER	$50,000
NATIONAL WOMEN’S LAW CENTER	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0029	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	11/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JOAN ENTMACHER	-$50,000
NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0099	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KRISTIN RUTH	$78,842
NC ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE OF THE COURTS	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0099	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	03/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KRISTIN RUTH	-$78,842
NC ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES	RALEIGH	NC	90FI0046	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT P.A. 4	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BARRY MILLER	$200,000
NJ ST DIVISION OF PUBLIC WELFARE	TRENTON	NJ	90FI0028	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	06/12/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALISHA GRIFFIN	$50,000
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$99,830
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	08/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$24,325
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	03/03/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$24,997
NY STATE UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	10/23/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
New York State Unified Court System	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	11/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
New York State Unified Court System	NEW YORK	NY	90FI0092	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	12/21/2010	DEMONSTRATION	CHANGE OF GRANTEE / TRAINING INSTITUTION / AWARDING INSTITUTION	MICHAEL MAGNANI	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	KATHERINE MCRAE	$100,000
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	08/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	12/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	04/07/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	08/20/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	KATHERINE MCRAE	$24,170
OK ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	OKLAHOMA CITY	OK	90FI0100	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	04/14/2011	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	KATHERINE MCRAE	$0
OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER	FREDONIA	WI	90FI0067	PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	06/09/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA	$100,000
OPPORTUNITIES INDUSTRIALIZATION CENTER	FREDONIA	WI	90FI0067	PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY & PROMOTING HEALTHY MARRIAGE	1	03/08/2005	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	BERNADETTE W KARANJA-NJAAGA	-$100,000
OR ST DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE	SALEM	OR	90FI0104	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	09/01/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	BECKY L HUMMER	$88,371
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RYLANDA WILSON	$100,000
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	10/14/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	RYLANDA WILSON	-$47,438
PHILADELPHIA CITY HOUSING AUTHORITY	PHILADELPHIA	PA	90FI0083	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RYLANDA WILSON	$50,000
PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE	TACOMA	WA	90FI0001	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	WILLIAM VELIZ	$69,531
PUYALLUP INDIAN TRIBE	TACOMA	WA	90FI0001	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	03/31/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	WILLIAM VELIZ	$69,531
Port Gamble S’Klallam Tribe	KINGSTON	WA	90FI0018	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DALLAS I DEGUIRE	$50,400
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0002	DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT LIEN REGISTRY FOR RHODE ISLAND AND REGION 1	1	09/18/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$149,820
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JACK MURPHY	$149,380
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	2	06/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JACK MURPHY	$41,472
RI ST DEPT. OF ADMIN/DIV. OF TAXATION	PROVIDENCE	RI	90FI0013	CHILD SUPPORT LIEN NETWORK (CLSN)	3	09/19/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	JACK MURPHY	$40,840
SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY MAYOR’S OFFICE	SAN FRANCISCO	CA	90FI0063	INCREASE PARENTAL PARTICIPATION IN ESTABLISHMENT OF SUPPORT AND PATERNITY JUDGEM	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MILTON M HYAMS	$200,000
SAN MATEO CTY DEPT OF HEALTH SCVS	SAN MATEO	CA	90FI0011	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION & SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ILIANA M RODRIQUEZ	$97,437
SANTA CLARA COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	1	06/26/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RALPH MILLER	$100,000
SC ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0043	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS P.A 4	1	12/20/2002	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	THOMAS L CHRISTMUS	$414,574
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/24/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DEB DUNITHAN	$99,896
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/28/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DEB DUNITHAN	$49,934
SHOALWATER BAY INDIAN TRIBE	TOKELAND	WA	90FI0089	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/29/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DEB DUNITHAN	$24,991
SISSETON-WAHPETON SIOUX TRIBAL COUNCIL	AGENCY VILLAGE	SD	90FI0020	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION PROJECT	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	B. J JONES	$50,000
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	08/31/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CAROLYN A MYER	$99,703
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	09/05/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN A MYER	$99,962
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	2	08/27/2007	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN A MYER	$0
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	09/20/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	CAROLYN A MYER	$98,962
SOUTH BATON ROUGE CHURCH OF CHRIST	BATON ROUGE	LA	90FI0069	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	3	06/12/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	CAROLYN A MYER	$0
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHRIS P NELSON	$59,176
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	12/02/1998	DEMONSTRATION	ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPLEMENT ( + OR – ) (DISCRETIONARY OR BLOCK AWARDS)	CHRIS P NELSON	$13,711
SOUTHWEST DISTRICT HEALTH DEPARTMENT	CALDWELL	ID	90FI0004	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/15/2009	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	CHRIS P NELSON	-$48,235
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	03/16/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	VIVIAN L LEES	$78,843
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	VIVIAN L LEES	$60,082
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/30/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAVID P POPOVICH	$22,816
STATE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM	HERNDON	VA	90FI0102	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	10/15/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	DAVID P POPOVICH	$0
STRIVE DC, INC.	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0035	ASSIST EX-OFFENDERS OBTAIN AND MAINTAIN EMPLOYMENT, COMPLY WITH THEIR CHILD SUPP	1	02/20/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW		$75,000
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	07/25/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MR ALAN W DOWD	$83,498
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/15/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DR DAVID G VANDERSTEL	$24,995
Sagamore Institute, Inc.	Indianapolis	IN	90FI0090	DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MR JAY F HEIN	$24,995
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	09/07/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RALPH MILLER	$25,000
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	2	01/12/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	RALPH MILLER	$0
Santa Clara County Department of Child Support Svcs.	SAN JOSE	CA	90FI0101	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP)	3	08/20/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	RALPH MILLER	$25,000
State of Connecticut Judicial Branch	HARTFORD	CT	90FI0068	STATE OF CONNECTICUT JUDICIAL BRANCH	1	06/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARISSE S HUTTON	$100,000
Summit County Child Support Enforcement Agency	AKRON	OH	90FI0109	OCSE DEMONSTRATION	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	JENNIFER BHEAM	$83,330
THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT COURT OF MICHIGAN	DETROIT	MI	90FI0081	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT GRANT	1	08/10/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	JOSEPH SCHEWE	$145,950
TN ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	NASHVILLE	TN	90FI0058	TENNESSEE DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES	1	06/22/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHARLES BRYSON	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SCOTT SMITH	$123,870
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	01/18/2000	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SCOTT SMITH	$30,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0003	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATION AND SPECIAL PROJECTS	1	04/04/2001	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	SCOTT SMITH	-$18,242
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0033	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GARY CASWELL	$196,600
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0033	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS (SIPS) PRIORITY AREA – 1	1	04/23/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	JAMES MOODY	-$90,218
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0056	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 7	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	HARRY MONCK	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	1	09/01/2005	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	GILBERT A CHAVEZ	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	2	08/17/2006	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	NOELITA L LUGO	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0072	NEW PARENT OUTREACH PROJECT: A COLLABORATIVE PROJECT TO EDUCATE PARENTS ABOUT PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES, PATERNITY, CHI	2	12/06/2006	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	NOELITA L LUGO	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	08/06/2007	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ANITA STUCKEY	$100,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	08/08/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	12/11/2008	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	2	06/14/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/09/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	MICHAEL HAYES	$25,000
TX ST OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL	AUSTIN	TX	90FI0091	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	3	08/10/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	MICHAEL HAYES	$0
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	1	08/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	MRS PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$90,429
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	09/27/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$50,000
The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families	COLUMBIA	SC	90FI0105	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT (SIP) IMPROVING CHILD SPT ENFORCEMENT & COURT COLLABORATION	2	11/01/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	PATRICIA LITTLEJOHN	$0
Tuscaloosa Family Resource Center, Inc.	TUSCALOOSA	AL	90FI0108	CO-PARENTING WITH RESPONSIBILITY	1	08/30/2010	OTHER	NEW	TERESA COSTANZO	$100,000
UNITED MIGRANT OPPORTUNITY SERVICES, INC	MILWAUKEE	WI	90FI0037	LATINO/HISPANIC COMMUNITY CHILD SUPPORT OUTREACH PROJECT – SIPS	1	02/09/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHERYL COBB	$142,626
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	08/30/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CHRISTINE YURGELUN	$99,581
UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS	BOSTON	MA	90FI0106	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	08/31/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DENISE M FITZGERALD	$48,995
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	DURHAM	NH	90FI0016	CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DR. WALTER ELLIS	$49,668
UNIVERSITY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE	DURHAM	NH	90FI0016	CHILD SUPPORT GUIDELINES AND PAYMENT COMPLIANCE	1	01/03/2000	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	DR. WALTER ELLIS	-$49,668
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0061	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT – P.A. 6	1	06/21/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	LAUDAN ARON-TURNHAM	$100,000
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	1	06/23/2008	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	RENEE HENDLEY	$68,355
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	2	07/24/2009	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SANDI CRAWFORD	$48,881
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/25/2010	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	SANDI CRAWFORD	$33,052
URBAN INSTITUTE (THE)	WASHINGTON	DC	90FI0096	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT	3	07/29/2010	DEMONSTRATION	EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS	SANDI CRAWFORD	$0
VT ST AGENCY FOR HUMAN SERVICES	WATERBURY	VT	90FI0062	PROJECT WEB-MED SUPPORT	1	06/10/2004	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ROBERT B BUTTS	$100,000
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0005	CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT DEMONSTRATIONS AND SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	09/17/1998	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ART HAYASHI	$17,171
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0040	OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF	1	02/15/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS	$150,000
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0040	OUTREACH TO YAKIMA CTY LATINO &/OR HISPANIC COMM. TO EXPLORE THE BARRIERS TO EFF	1	03/12/2004	DEMONSTRATION	OTHER REVISION	CONNIE AMBROSE-SQUEOCHS	-$2,013
WA ST DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL & HEALTH SERVICES	OLYMPIA	WA	90FI0042	NEW APPROACHES TO ENGAGE NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT OFFENDERS JOB PROG AND PAYMENT OF	1	02/08/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	FRAN FERRY	$175,000
WV ST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN RESOURCES	CHARLESTON	WV	90FI0027	SPECIAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS	1	06/20/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	SUSAN HARRAH	$25,597
WY ST DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION	CHEYENNE	WY	90FI0021	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	1	09/07/1999	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	DAVE SCHAAD	$140,000
WY ST DEPARTMENT OF FAMILY SERVICES	CHEYENNE	WY	90FI0021	FOSTERING IMPROVED INTERSTATE CASE PROCESSING	2	08/28/2000	DEMONSTRATION	NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION	DAVE SCHAAD	$140,000
Womens Education & Legal Fund (CWEALF)	HARTFORD	CT	90FI0036	LOCAL NETWORKS – LATINO COMMUNITY – SPECIAL INITIATIVES PROJECT	1	02/02/2001	DEMONSTRATION	NEW	ALICE PRITCHARD	$183,313

r-based organization is often working the Child Support Field.  The for-profit arm is Policy Studies, Inc. — CPR is the smaller, leaner, nonprofit…This table has 224 rows; I will also upload it here, for easier viewing: ///