Let's Get Honest! Blog

Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family –and "Conciliation" — Courts' Operations, Practices, and History

Author Archive

“ICF”, or is it “I C F”?? and why the “NRCSPHM” must be strategic to our national defense…

with 2 comments

(Today, 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 fourCommunity-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 Institute, 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 records, 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 accont 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-deductibel, 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 
Fiscal Year 2009 Total: $- 202,966 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

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

  

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

Fairfax

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

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 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.

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

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 Clearspending logoin 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 decided 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 (USAAn 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/f acilitate (or bribe) fathers to pay child support better, or GOOD Dads to be more involved with their chidlren 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 have been “has.”  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

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 # Click here to sort in ascending order. 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 Click here to sort in ascending order. Address Type Count
1 POLICY STUDIES INC. 1515 WYNKOOP ST STE. 400, DENVER,
CO 80202, US
Trade name Registrant 12 
[Next 2>]
Found 12 matching record(s).  Viewing page 1 of 2.
# ID NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. 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 NumberClick here to sort in ascending order. 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:

Jefferson County Child Support Enforcement Home Page!

Fatherhood Program 

Learning to be the best dads we can be!

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

Circle of Parents

“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: Fatherhoodphoto of dad and baby

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!

[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.

Explained from “The Horse’s Mouth” — in yet another multi-color, logo-decorated newsletter (Date August, 2011):

PARTNERS FOR KDS:  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 “head 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:”


[furniture/logo.gif] 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)
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

Return to Home  

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 Services
Staff
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 University
Kristina Lavato-Hermann
School of Social Welfare
San Francisco State UniversityChristine Mattos
F&E Steering Committee
California Department of Social Services

David Meyers, Sr. Attorney
Center for Families, Children & the Courts

Administrative Office of the Courts/Judicial Council of California
Mark Miller, Training Director
Los Angeles County Department of Children & Family Services

Kate 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 . . . . 

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General Seal and Site Header

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 GR9004013, August 2004. 
http://www.justice.gov/oig/grants/_ojp.htm-69k- Cached

Audit Report
 Claremont, California. Report No. GR9004013 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.

What services we offer!View our classes! Contacts!Your resources!Find out what you need to know!

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
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
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
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
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
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
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….)

    with 2 comments

     

    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:)

    1. 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.
    2. 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

    Title and Company:

    Company Address:

    Po Box 447
    PlacervilleCa 96114

    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:

    SmartMarriages

    (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

    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.

    • 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 HurtTurn 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”)

     

     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.

     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:
    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
    Past
    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.
    Excel Icon
    Page 1 of 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