Let's Get Honest! Blog

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

Archive for the ‘History of Family Court’ Category

Wisdom, Moderation, and Justice, or is it just Commerce? (Or, I’ve Got Georgia on my Mind)

with 2 comments

What IS it about this State?

Wisdom, Moderation and Justice

Great Seal of the State of Georgiaseems to be the Georgia State motto, which I just looked up,

and unlike other states, is part of the State Seal.  The other side shows:

Great Seal of the State of Georgia

Actually, that’s just an excuse to bring Georgia up — but, however, a visitor from Georgia apparently had my Michael Anthony Nelson post  on his/her/its [if a business] mind today.    Michael Anthony Nelson appears to be a talented con-man who missed his calling, possibly by circumstances of birth, and got caught.  He has nothing on some of the groups I’ve seen running to and fro around the halls of justice, government, and commerce, these days, and in the past few decades.  It’s getting harder and harder to distinguish the commerce from the justice.  But so hard to figure what (or who) is the commodity, and who is buying and selling.

Also, Georgia must produce wisdom, because I learned recently that one of its former? judges from Cobb County, Georgia now sits on the Coordinating Council of one of the top national centralized justice systems in the country. . . Judge Adele Grubbs, of the Superior Court of Cobb County Georgia.  

This council has 18 members:  9 “Ex Officio” members headed up by Attorney General Eric Holder and heads of major US Agencies within the Executive Department, and 9 Practitioner members appointed by:  Speaker of the House, Senate Majority Leader, and the President of the United States.  You can imagine what a powerhouse that is, and out of all 50 states and territories, a Superior Court Judge from Georgia was one of three personally chosen by the CEO of the United States of America.

This gets interesting to me, because on a recent radio show called “abusefreedom.com” listeners heard the story of (yet another) divorce/custody case where the mother was jailed for, it seems, 18 months based on something relating to bankruptcy sale of the house.  Within the first month of being jailed without cause (and obviously without a warrant, so how to defend from nonextant charges?) she obviously lost her job, and (as I recall) obviously custody, although it appears that the charges related to what happened to the family home AFTER it had been removed from both parents’ control. Perhaps check out:  http://www.blogtalkradio.com/abusefreedomlive.

Maternal Nightmares in Georgia (I have heard of three cases personally so far; two court veterans who don’t feel safe from their ex in the state (after custody actions) and the other mother who did jail time.  At least one of these was in Cobb County.   I can’t give details because cases are still open.

PARENTING COORDINATION CORPORATIONs less than COORDINATED (in Georgia):

I already knew about Georgia that the entirely obnoxious (to mothers at least) field of parenting coordination (training) — run by the AFCC crowd, and coaching court professionals how to get paid to remove children from biological mothers based on alienation  – which I ran a four-post series on — has two major “practitioners” one of who was from Georgia, and I’d heard horror stories from this one as well.  The pair Susan Boyan and Anne Marie Termini are now practicing elsewhere I guess, and I sort of gave up on finding out where (in which state) they are legally incorporated:

(These two women are not the largest fish in the pond, or the biggest blip on my radar, but a persistently annoying one, in what it represents, and the principles that are being broken.  As with Oklahoma Marriage Initiative & how the Bush appointee/FRC man functions, Jeffrey Reiger (last post, bottom) I’ll figure it out one of these days.)

Parenting Coordination Training

                 The FIRST and ONLY Comprehensive Parenting Coordination Training Program!

The Cooperative Parenting Institute (CPI) – - – -

WHO?  See below these paragraphs….

is an internationally recognized leader providing high quality parenting coordination training programs.  Since 1997, the CPI has dominated the field of parenting coordination by creating the only comprehensive step-by-step PC training model. The Institute offers 20-24-26 hour parenting coordination/facilitation training opportunities each year.  A 12-hour advanced training is available for the experienced parenting coordinator. The training programs meet the requirements established by state statutes.  In addition, the presenters are available for custom designed training in your local area.

Susan Boyan, LMFT and Ann Marie Termini, LPC are recognized leaders and innovative trainers.  {{and modest, too!}} As skilled parenting coordinators, since the early 1990′s, Ann Marie and Susan have facilitated many complex and highly conflictual divorce cases  {{With what results?  Highly conflictual [is that even a word?] = Probably many including domestic violence and/or child abuse, probably some with some serious money on one or both sides, too}}  They have drawn on their extensive experience, research and interactive approach to prepare professionals for the challenging {{But financially and very emotionally rewarding if you are into power over others}} role of a parenting coordinator {{a field created by AFCC for their non-judge members’ benefit, fought for in legislatures by their lobbying groups, etc.}}

(Also from the site:)

STANDARDS OF PRACTICE:  The first parenting coordination standards were written in 2003* by the Cooperative Parenting Institute as part of their training model for parenting coordination. The AFCC recognized the importance of developing their own guidelines and did so with the assistance of parenting coordinators in 2005. For more information on the AFCC standards visit http://www.afccnet.org.

(Georgia Corporations Search records:)

COOPERATIVE PARENTING INSTITUTE, INCORPORATED 08010511 Non-Profit Corporation *Formed 2/6/2008, Admin. Dissolved 9/26/2010

Georgia Corporations search by “officer name” on “Boyan” shows these:
Susan Boyan BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
SUSAN BOYAN BOYAN & BOYAN, INC.
  NATIONAL PARENT COORDINATORS ASSOCIATION, INC.

The “National Parent Coordinators Association, Inc.” was formed in Feb. 2002 and Admin. Dissolved in May 2008, with officers Boyan & Termini (you can look yourself at Georgia’s Secretary of State site which (unlike California’s) at least allows a search by Officer or Registered agent, too.  They are doing this business in Georgia, Pennsylvania, Texas and have in Illinois, and apparently churning out people (on a referral list) with the label “LPC” behind them — yet, where is a single 990 tax return (if nonprofit, an EIN#) or if not a nonprofit but some sort of corporation or LLC, or LLP — in which state?  Notice the training fees.

If CPI or ParentCoordination Central is a registered name owned by a different company, which one? Reader Comment invited. They “dominated the field of parenting coordination” since 1997, which had no standards of practice til 2003?  Those standards were allegedly written up by a corporation which didn’t exist at the time.  The National Association was functional in 2008, and (like CPI) dissolved probably for not filing.  And people trained by them are paid to control the futures of kids??   But never mind – -not today’s main points.

 

 

1. The OFFICE:  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), Serving Children, Families, and Communities

Serving Children, Families and Communities” — isn’t that what the local, county & state courts are already supposed to be doing, plus our legislators, governors, and county commissioners, etc.?  The motto sounds like something out of a healthy marriage grantee  playbook:

Mission:  The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) provides national leadership, coordination, and resources to prevent and respond to juvenile delinquency and victimization. OJJDP supports states and communities in their efforts to develop and implement effective and coordinated prevention and intervention programs and to improve the juvenile justice system so that it protects public safety, holds offenders accountable, and provides treatment and rehabilitative services tailored to the needs of juveniles and their families.

AMBER Alert | National Sex Offender Public Web Site

(sounds like diversionary type programs — prevent & intervene, yet hold offenders accountable, provide treatment and rehabilitative services).

LEGISLATION:  Congress enacted the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (JJDP) Act (Pub. L. No. 93-415, 42 U.S.C. § 5601 et seq.) in 1974This landmark legislation established OJJDP to support local and state efforts to prevent delinquency and improve the juvenile justice system.    {{Why were local and state efforts failing or in need of support?}}  On November 2, 2002, Congress reauthorized the JJDP Act. The reauthorization (the 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act, Pub. L. No. 107-273, 116 Stat. 1758) supports OJJDP’s established mission while introducing important changes that streamline the Office’s operations and bring a sharper focus to its role. The provisions of the reauthorization took effect in FY 2004 (October 2003).

Not to the topic of my post except to note that the reauthorization happened during the administration of Pres. George W. Bush and a year after 9/11.

2.  The Coordinating Council of this Office:  “CJJDP”

Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

The Coordinating Council—an independent body within the executive branch of the federal government—coordinates all federal programs and activities related to juvenile delinquency prevention, the care or detention of unaccompanied juveniles, and missing and exploited children. It has a number of other mandated responsibilities and also engages in activities such as building collaborations and disseminating information. Part of the Council’s mandate is to make annual recommendations to Congress regarding juvenile justice policies, objectives, and priorities. To help shape these recommendations, the Council holds quarterly meetings open to the public that provide a forum for the exchange of information, ideas, and research findings.

The Council has nine members representing federal agencies and nine practitioner members representing disciplines that focus on youth. The Attorney General serves as chairperson and the Administrator of OJJDP as vice chairperson. For additional information, visit the Coordinating Council’s Web site.

When I hear the word “practitioner” coming from an official source any more, I just about shudder.  Is a judge a “practitioner? now?  Anyhow, here are the 3 CJJDP members

Appointed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives

Adele L. Grubbs 
Judge
Superior Court of Cobb County, Georgia

Pamela F. Rodriguez
President
TASC, Inc. (Treatment Alternatives for Safe Communities)

Gordon A. Martin, Jr.
Associate Justice
Massachusetts Trial Court

It turns out Judge Grubbs is British and has a British law degree!  This is about half her bio, and if I had a custody case in Georgia, I’d look up every single one of these organizations:

The Honorable Adele Grubbs began serving as a Superior Court Judge for Cobb County in January 2001.

Coinciding with the inauguration of President George Bush and his signing of the first two executive orders, inviting in the Faith Based Orgs.

Prior to her election to the Superior court Judge Grubbs served as Judge of the Juvenile Court of Cobb County for 5 years. She handled delinquent and troubled juveniles, heard custody cases, and assisted the Superior Court of Cobb County. She presided over criminal and civil jury trials, including domestic, family violence, and custody cases; divorces; and civil and criminal motions. She was previously copartner in a private law practice for 26 years and served as Assistant District Attorney of Cobb County. Judge Grubbs was elected to the Board of Governors for the State Bar of Georgia, where she has served for 11 years on the Consumer Assistance Program, Children and the Courts, and Child Support Committees.

… continued:

She is past president and current trustee of the Cobb Bar Association and past president of the Cobb Division of the Georgia Association of Women Lawyers. Judge Grubbs has served as a volunteer juvenile probation officer and as an attorney for the Fraternal Order of Police. She helped establish the Guardian Ad Litem Program in Cobb County. Judge Grubbs lectures at the State Family Seminar, the Indigent Defense Seminar, and the Cobb County Guardian Ad Litem Seminar. She is founder of the Cobb Justice Foundation, in which more than 100 lawyers offer legal aid to residents of Cobb County. She has served on the boards of Cobb Children’s Centers, Inc. the Marietta High School Foundation; and the American Heart Association. She received the 1997 Cobb County Woman of Achievement award. A native of England, Judge Grubbs holds a British law degree, L.L.B. from the University of Manchester, England.

I would get — definitely — a printout from the county of payroll, statement of conflict of interest (with so many corporations and boards she’s on involved), and as a matter of fact, across the nations, GALs, though I can see the need, have been problematic for women attempting to leave abuse.  Just a minor reminder — Georgia is Bible Belt, it still has issues with racism, and no doubt sexism.  Moreover, I would like to know when this judge began to reside in Georgia, or the US — just for a little reminder, the USA was originally colonized by Great Britain and there remain certain constitutional differences, like the Bill of Rights.

Cobb Children’s Centers, Inc.  (I cannot find this name in the Corporations Search)

I looked up these three also:

Appointed by the President of the United States

Laurie Garduque -
Director, Juvenile Justice
MacArthur Foundation

Byron Johnson
Professor
Baylor University – a Texas Baptist University.

Trina Thompson
Presiding Judge
Juvenile Justice Center

GEORGIA & BRUCE & NANCY SCHAEFER:

The commodity is human lives (and the real estate and assets formerly attached to them), particularly children.  The commodity is in talk which pries loose kids from parents for a fee, which former (late) Senator Nancy Schaefer was dilligently addressing shortly before she became a murder victim.  Allegedly (I don’t believe it for a moment, and am not alone in this) of her husband.

Her report, from “fightcps.com”

Report of Georgia Senator Nancy Schaefer on CPS Corruption  (posted Feb. 2008)

Links to similar reports & discussions

From Wikipedia on “Nancy Schaefer

She had also sought to wrest the Republican nomination forGeorgia’s 10th congressional district from Paul Broun in 2008, but withdrew her candidacy before the primary election.[7] Throughout her career as an activist and politician, she was a champion of Christian conservative causes, opposing abortion and gay rights and promoting the display of the Ten Commandments in public places.[3][2] Upon her death, fellow State Senator Ralph Hudgens eulogized her as “almost like a rock star of the Christian right”.[7] She was a senior official in the Baptist church, having served as a First Vice President of the Georgia Baptist Convention.[3]

Schaefer died at her home near Turnerville in Habersham County on 26 March 2010 with her husband of 52 years, Bruce Schaefer. Police concluded the deaths to have been a murder–suicide perpetrated by her husband.[8][9][2]

Not everyone buys the “murder-suicide” (which brings into question, should we buy others that show up so much?).  She had been exposing the federal incentives to the states to traffick in separating children from their parents.

The Strange Death of Nancy Schaefer (2 items), from which:

I feel led to make an exception and bring to your attention another non partisan subject: The high profile investigation that has been initiated into Friday’s death of a former Georgia state senator.

Garland

Saturday March 27, 2010

On Friday, former Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband were found dead in their home in Habersham County. Even before a GBI investigation could be initiated, media outlets began pronouncing that their death was a “murder-suicide” and shut off most public comment posting on their web sites. The “murder suicide” theory implies that Sen. Schaefer’s husband shot her and then killed himself (or vice versa). Both Habersham County and the Georgia Bureau of Investigation began investigating the case as a “murder suicide” rather than the more obvious murder made to look like suicide”. Like so many people, I have known former Sen. Nancy Schaefer for 15 years and spoken to several people who know her better than I do. They believe that the “murder suicide” theory is highly unlikely for any one of the following reasons:

I never knew this woman, nor heard any of her short, concise videos (I hope still available) on the child trafficking through DCFS topics.  Yet mothers from around the country — and yes, fathers — know that there is indeed a going business in children for sale — and more, or less, literally, depending on the circumstances, and yes, absolutely — by virtue of the courts and judicial systems as we know them.  As bribery, extortion and slavery often go together (and require a similar mentality, a “user” mentality), this is one reason I am so hot under the collar about FINANCIAL improprieties as evidence and tracks often (not always, but often) pointing to serious human rights abuses.  I mean, do people abuse others just for fun, or is there usually some profit in it?

So, now there is a one-year follow up on this death, and I believe we (meaning WE — you here?  You can tolerate my writing?  then check this out, whether you are a perp, participant, or protester) should look at it, and think about this — it was a U.S. Senator.    There have been Presidents assassinated and shot at; we have also had – this past year — another (female) Senator shot and seriously wounded.  These are not all by crackpots loners.  What was the reason for them?

This 15 minute YouTube (I haven’t watched it, but saw the first frames) and another apparently respond to “Nancy Schaefer High-Level CPS Crimes Investigation,” and are the context for what’s below:

From “POLITICAL VINE – Insider Politics in Georgia.  A dose of political caffeine   with no sugar added” (I like the banner)

One Year Follow-up on the Death of Senator Nancy Shaefer & Bruce Shaefer

by PV

Introduction

It has been one year and one day since Former State Senator Nancy Schaefer and her husband Bruce were found shot to death in their Habersham County home. Now, Garland Favorito has written a report that follows-up the investigation by the GBI into the claimed “murder-suicide” causation of the Schaefers’ deaths.

NOTE: Normally, Garland Favorito covers issues of voting machines and elections in Georgia through his 501-c-3 organization called VoterGA. However, in this case, Garland knew Senator Schaefer personally. And, as he did last year, he has put together a report laying-out the GBI investigation (or, perhaps, lack thereof) into the deaths of the Shaefers.


Release Date: March 26, 2011

SCHAEFERS KILLED WITH MYSTERIOUS GUN, GBI DESTROYS EVIDENCE, CLOSES “SUICIDE” CASE

THE GBI INVESTIGATION

It has been exactly a year since former Georgia State Senator, Nancy Schaefer, and her husband Bruce, were found shot to death in their bedroom. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation (GBI) completed its work in December and recently made the case file summary available under Georgia Open Records Request laws.   The conclusion was based primarily on extensive suicide notes that contained specific instructions to the family and could have only been produced by Bruce or someone with first-hand knowledge of the family. There were also no visible signs of forced entry. The hand printed notes that were found in the bedroom indicated that financial problems were a motive…

THE MURDER WEAPON

The findings in the case file would be highly convincing except for one major problem never before reported. The Schaefers were not killed with the small caliber gun that the family knew they owned. They were killed with a higher caliber, untraceable weapon that no family member had ever seen before. The weapon was originally shipped to a dealer in a remote part of southern Florida in 1982 and the ownership records have since been destroyed, possibly as a result of a natural disaster. The case file was unable to establish how the Schaefers, who lived in Georgia during the 1980s, acquired the murder weapon . . .

HE AUTOPSY REPORT

The GBI autopsy report found that the wounds of Bruce Schaefer were consistent with a suicide finding but the report was unable to rule out the possibility that he was murdered. The autopsy report and initial investigative case summary did not find any difference in the times of death for the couple. They imply that that the times of death were the same, which is a virtual impossibility. The notes show that Bruce wrote them after shooting Nancy and it would have taken hours for him to write and assemble the material for the notes before he shot himself.

THE SUICIDE NOTES

The final investigative summary cites the extensive, detailed suicide notes found at the scene as the most overwhelming evidence of suicide. But the case file shows that the GBI performed no handwriting analysis to authenticate those printed notes as originating from Bruce Schaefer. The multi-page, extensive suicide notes are also strange in the sense that there is no mention of the 13 grandchildren who Bruce loved so much.

THE ALLEGED FINANCIAL MOTIVE

The suicide notes contain a foreclosure letter and precise details for settlements involving over $25K of credit card debt, but they provide little or no information on the Schaefers’ assets and income. Although containing many other instructions there are no instructions on how to liquidate any retirement accounts, stock investments or uncollateralized property that the Schaefers owned. Only a couple of insurance policies are present but it is unclear what value, if any, that they would have in a murder-suicide. The Schaefers already had put their house on the market and showed virtually no concern about any pending foreclosure right up until the night before their death. They still had roughly $100,000 of equity in the home even after reducing the sale price. They were advised by one of their sons, who is in the real estate business, that it was unlikely they would lose the house.

In other words, the “financial motive” was on shaky ground.  Perhaps someone is projecting their own motive onto the Schaefers and hoping it would stick.  I wonder who owns their house now. (It could be looked up).

This is going to relate more to my post, below (i.e., assets transfer in Georgia circles)

THE VIDEO

Most Georgians are unaware that the metro Atlanta area has been nationally ranked as the largest center in the country for child sex trafficking. Most are also unaware that Sen. Schaefer was a national leader in the fight against related child abuse and perversion in government run, Child Protective Services (CPS). The GBI was repeatedly informed that Nancy was wrapping up a video documentary, a possible book and other supporting references on the subject. She told friends that this work would expose corruption in Georgia’s Department of Family and Child Services (DFACS) and that several high profile, powerful Georgia politicians would be implicated. These people would have the means and incentive to prevent her work from being produced. While the GBI documented case inquiries from the general public there is no documentation of the inquiries received from government officials.

Georgia Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation, any Bureau of Investigation.  Moral? Think — and get your information into other (unknown if possible) hands before you talk.

The GBI collected little information about the work that Nancy Schaefer had done. They interviewed only one person who was involved in helping to produce the video documentary. They did not obtain a copy of the video or interview its producer, William Fain. They also did not attempt to retrieve the documentary from the producer even though the Schaefers had arranged funding for the video and the producer was not necessarily entitled to ownership rights.

THE THREATS

The GBI was aware that Mrs. Schaefer had received threats and warnings as a result of her work. She had already begun taking security precautions. The information she collected was believed to be so sensitive that she could be targeted for professional assassination. Close friends still fear that someone befriended her and committed the crime. The GBI investigation did little to rule out that possibility.

A former federal investigator I contacted told me that a double killing with an untraceable gun should have automatically triggered a normal murder investigation that would have considered all possible scenarios. But, In spite of the threats, Mrs. Schaefer’s high profile work and the mysterious gun, the GBI made an immediate initial conclusion that the couple committed a murder-suicide. . . .

DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE

During the time from June to December of 2010 individuals, including myself, filed open records requests for reports but the requests were denied because the case was still open. When Special Agent Whidby wrote the Final Investigative Summary in December of 2010, t he GBI had destroyed all items that were seized or created at autopsy. They then completed closing the case in February of 2011 and made the file available.

Garland then lists 13 unanswered questions, and I’ll end with #13 and thank him for some fine work. As I say, we know that the family law system – not just the CPS — also separates children from one — or sometimes eventually both — children, and that the system which then would support them — namely the child support one — has a reputation now for huge “black holes” of expenditures and increasingly expansive (and evolving year by year) “diversionary” programs, which aren’t monitored properly.  Thank you sir (I assume it’s a he) for the work, and know that one mother I spoke with (one of those who had to pay to see her sons) called me in alarm originally at the news and wanted a nationwide day of recognition from our blogging circles; i.e., women whose children have been given to their former batterers or the children’s molesters, and are still fighting in the courts to stay housed, fed and in contact with those kids.  I would not often go all out for someone of such conservative (let alone Baptist) persuasion (see blog), but this couple seems to have been the genuine article.  I hope people read this site often and think about what their own priorities are — entertainment, or stopping child trafficking with their own taxes they provide the IRS to distribute to the states (etc.).  I wouldn’t have posted this much (today), but am moved by it, which a proper investigation or report will often do.

13. Why would the GBI be unwilling to properly investigate and rule out the possibility of a professional assassination given the circumstances and high profile nature of the case?

CONCLUSION

GBI spokesperson, John Bankhead, initially promised Fox 5 News “there will be a thorough investigation” given the high profile circumstances of the case. That thoroughness obviously never materialized. The Final Investigative Summary contains only one paragraph to summarize the findings of murder-suicide, relying on the suicide notes for that conclusion. There is no rationale in the summary to explain how the conclusion was reached, what other scenarios were considered or how other scenarios were ruled out. While the GBI may have come to the correct conclusion, the only thing consistent with a “thorough investigation” seems to be the amount of time that the case was left open.

The limited investigative scope is appalling considering the high profile circumstances surrounding the Schaefers’ deaths. Case file evidence mentioned in this report illustrates that the GBI was unwilling to investigate the case to the point where they could rule out professional assassination. They also destroyed all items seized or created at autopsy so now their actions can never be reviewed or questioned. Their conduct raises a legitimate question as to whether or not they could have been compromised or manipulated by officials implicated in former Nancy Schaefer’s documentary and materials. Their investigation may even become more questionable than the killings themselves.

PERMISSION TO REPRINT GRANTED

Garland Favorito
404 664-4044

REFERENCES

Regardless of how the couple may have died, former Senator Nancy Schaefer lived the last couple of years of her life dedicated to helping children and families who were victimized by the very government agencies that were supposed to be helping them.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

GEORGIA & THE PHOEBE FACTOIDS

Georgia is where the Phoebe Factoids came from — and the publication of which was used to set up two men who were exposing the corruption in “Nonprofit” hospitals which had huge offshore profits  –and overcharged uninsured customers.  I blogged this (“The Profit in Nonprofits, and 2 Men in Georgia“) , as my understanding of the word “nonprofit” and “set-up” increased in depth.   Actually — this case  just recently hit the Supreme Court:

Phoebe Factoid Suit Argued in Highest Court

(by By Jennifer Emert - bio | email posted 10/31/2011, updated 11/04)

[[a video shows here ]]

WASHINGTON, D. C. -

The U. S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Today in an Albany case that could decide whether government officials are entitled to absolute immunity from civil lawsuits if they knowingly provide false testimony to a grand jury.

Charles Rehberg was charged with assault, burglary, and harassment for sending anonymous faxes known as Phoebe Factoids that criticized how Phoebe Putney Hospital conducted business.

Then District Attorney Ken Hodges and Chief Investigator James Paulk subpoenaed phone records to figure out who sent the faxes.  Rehberg filed suit saying they violated his constitutional rights and accusing Paulk of lying to the grand jury.

The suit against Hodges was tossed out, but the suit against Paulk is going before the nation’s highest court.

(It is offensive for any one to provide false testimony to a grand jury, but particularly offensive if a District Attorney does, as they are to prosecute criminal behavior, not engage in it!)

To bring a false indictment, people kind of think well that’s not that big of a deal, but I can assure you it’s a big deal. It costs a lot of money to defend criminal cases and we don’t have insurance for that kind of thing and in my case I spent a lot of money putting those charges aside and proving them to be false as did Rehberg, so bringing an indictment has consequences for the defendant,”  said Palmyra Surgeon Dr. John Bagnato.

Copyright 2011 WALB.  All rights reserved.  {{NOTE:  My understanding is, this is Fair use, see below link}}

These appear to me to be two VERY brave men, and honest ones — and we need to have a culture and legal climate that supports, not attacks, this.  Clearly, we don’t.

GEORGIA LOOKS BEAUTIFUL.  REMIND ME TO VISIT SOMEDAY:

 
  1.  - Report images

GEORGIA AND ITS FATHERHOOD PROGRAM:

It was created as a division with the DCSS in 1997:

(from “Redwardslaw.com“)

In 1997, the Division created its Fatherhood program to further that mission. Through this initiative, parents unable to meet their court-ordered child support obligations are provided with employment assistance.

The largest state-run program of its type in the nation, the Georgia’s Fatherhood Program has served more than 15,000 non-custodial parents {{yet, it’s called a FATHERhood program}} in the past decade. It takes three to six months to complete the program; it helps parents {{fathers, principally}} receive vocational training, obtain General Education Diplomas (GEDs), and acquire full-time employment.

The Georgia initiative is similar to other programs in sister states. District of Columbia and Rhode Island programs work with non-custodial parents, mainly fathers, to obtain job training and placement. In Alabama’s incarnation of the Fatherhood Initiative, parents are provided counseling, education and training, as well as employment opportunities.

Child support obligations can create frustration and stress for unemployed non-custodial parents. However, many states, like Georgia, have found a way to help. Initiatives like the Fatherhood Program do more than save taxpayer dollars: they help break the cycle of poverty that threatens our nation’s children.

(sure … towards end of post we look at a state auditor of another fatherhood program)

From “Fatherhood.Georgia.gov” you can get a fine description:

Where fatherhood program customers come from:  under threat of, or having been, jailed for failure to be able to pay child support:

From a Cobb County Divorce firm, “Marsh & Wolfe” posted Sept. 2011:   Georgia Fatherhood Programs Suffering Due to Budget Constraints:

A prominent Georgia-based fatherhood program will be discontinued after 15 years of operation due to decreased funding from the Department of Labor. The program was meant to help fathers obtain an education, a job and success in their career. It was originally implemented to help fathers who were delinquent on child support payments or had lost visitation rights, but the program eventually opened registration to mothers as well.

This is the eleventh such closure of a fatherhood program in Georgia due to decreased funding, including one at Chattahoochee Technical College in Marietta.

The public side:

Resources

The following links contain interesting and informative materials which are related to the efforts of the Georgia Fatherhood Program:

Child Support Enforcement
The mission of the Child Support Enforcement (CSE) is to reduce the public and private burden of raising financially abandoned children to adulthood. Its goals is accomplished through the location of absent parents, the establishment of paternity, the establishment and enforcement of support obligations, and the distribution of payments. In collaboration with the Department of Technical and Adult Education, Special Services Division, CSE began the Georgia Fatherhood Program to enhance the recovery of child support from non-custodial parents by offering education and skills training to the parents.

Recent modifications to Child Support in Georgia show complex formulas, which basically show that yes — children are a commodity and a parent’s time with his/her own offspring post-separation is a marketable timeshare, pro rata (shared income model).  Then again, whatever the court says is in the best interests of the child.  Or any other number of formulas which the court may — or may not — choose to apply.

National Center for Strategic Nonprofit Planning and Community Leadership
NPCL is a nonprofit organization created for charitable and educational purposes. The mission of NPCL is to improve the governance and administration of nonprofit organizations and strengthen community leadership through family empowerment. It assists community-based organizations in better serving young, low-income single fathers and fragile families.

Sounds nice.  The President of this Washington, D.C. nonprofit, Jeffrey M. Johnson, runs “Master Trainer Institutes” on fatherhood; such licensed trainings for proprietary curricula are all over the field.    I’m getting tired of this — fatherhood is an ideology.  Run these classes as a for-profit, and don’t engage people who prey on captive (sometimes, in the case of prisons) audiences, literally.    Make’em pay taxes!

 He is regularly invited to testify before the United States Congress on matters pertaining to low-income fathers and strengthening families. He played a principal role in passage of the first national fatherhood legislation in Congress, The Fathers Count Bill Dr. Johnson is also the author of several publications including Fatherhood Development: A Curriculum for Young Fathers.

For thirteen years Dr. Johnson was an adjunct professor of Educational Administration and Leadership at Trinity University (formerly Trinity College) in Washington, D.C.

He is also the 1999 and 2003 recipient of the President’s Award by The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families. This award annually recognizes outstanding leadership in the promotion of responsible fatherhood.  Dr. Johnson is a member of The Peoples Community Baptist Church in Silver Spring, Maryland where he serves as President of the Men’s Fellowship Ministry.

This man is off the deep end — there are woman in urban neighborhoods too.  His trained trainers branch out to other states with this cult and run “Train the Trainer” things, according to doctrine.  Here’s one in Ohio — which has its own Fatherhood Commission, and its Office of Faith-Based BS as well, which began with a bang — by squandering grants money, after steering it to a Bush-associated organization “WeCare” (out of state), and as SLIGHTLY rescued in reputation by a glowing report from Byron Johnson — who turns out to be on the CJJDP (above).

Ohio recently had a horrible scandal in a supervised visitation facility at Trumbull County.  A woman whose child had already been removed into foster care AT BIRTH — and was killed by blunt force trauma and asphyxiation, by a foster mother before age 2, then was with the father of a (now 13-month old little girl) engaging in “supervised visitation” inside a public — state/county-funded facility (check details) — after having taken parenting classes for the privilege! — and used this access to the little girl to sexually assault her (including penetration), captured it on a CELL PHONE, and a relative that noticed this (no official did!) — on reporting it, lost HER 2 year old son also to the state.  Parents were naturally shocked and outrage, and I was in phone contact with some of these (as I have been watching Ohio recently, meaning, on-line).  They attempted to visit a meeting where a discussion of this (outrage) was being held — it was a public meeting, or should’ve been.  They were turned away at the door!   The group was going to self-investigate, and eventually the executive director of this outfit (Trumbull County Children’s Services, or something similar) rather than getting a reproof — got a promotion!  (Nick Kerosky).  The FCFC model which it is part of comes under “Fatherhood” commission — emphasizes “flexible funding” to get around some of the restrictive rules, and this particular facility — which got a new building shortly after the nonprofit running it? was formed — was funded:  Get this!    about 50% by a statewide “Children’s Levy” — and about 22% Federal.

In other words, the citizens of this state, and others, are participating financially (whether knowingly or willingly is another matter) in setting up situations to torture young children, sometimes have them killed, and most of the time, remove them from their biological mothers.  I don’t know what I would’ve done as a mother, if after labor someone took my child.  Who would that NOT drive insane?  The media has been notably silent on WHY these children were removed.   . . .  There’s more.  I actually looked at the mother and father’s criminal dockets in the case (not that they didn’t deserve to be in jail a long time for such crimes — and they’re in their 20s) . . . and the father had a pro-active attorney (who is paid per action, apparently) and the mothers action docket was blank.  Even in public defense, there is a gender gap.  The father, moreover, had been a juvenile sex offender.

This is the outfit, and you can look up the rest yourself:  Look at the PR piece, from the Executive Director Nick Kerosky (photo of white male):

October 31, 2010 marked the end of an era here at Trumbull County Children Services. On that day Marcia Tiger retired after 34 years with our agency and I assumed the reins as Executive Director. I have big shoes to fill certainly and change in leadership can be challenging, but change can also be energizing. It brings new ideas, a fresh perspective and opportunities for growth.

At the same time, there is change in Columbus. We have a new Governor who has made it very clear that he wants to reduce an $8 Billion budget deficit. In order to accomplish that, we know there will be major cuts in state funding. These will certainly impact all state funded agencies and the families we serve, but, there is also opportunity.

We have a great spirit of community here in Trumbull County. Our community is like a sturdy oak tree providing protection to our families and children. Children Services anchors strong roots of hard- working people and diverse traditions here. The leaves of our tree are the many community partners who we work with and who help care for our families. Our long, healthy branches are collaboration and teamwork. Compassion, energy and enthusiasm nourish our roots.

Actually, public monies do.  Lots of them.

My vision for child protection in Trumbull County is community-based, family-centered and prevention- focused. We provide quality services with compassion. We are accountable to ourselves and our community, as well as the state.

The actual story, in part:

CSB File: No reprimand given to manager after abuse cases

October 22, 2011
By ADAM FERRISE – reporter

WARREN – A department head at Trumbull County Children Services who oversaw the cases in which one child was killed by her foster parent and another child allegedly raped during a supervised visit inside the agency’s building by a known sex offender was never officially reprimanded by superiors, according to a review of her personnel file obtained by the Tribune Chronicle.

Marilyn Pape, a department manager at CSB, who answers directly to the agency’s executive director, had been promoted to a newly created position that oversaw foster care placement about a year before 21-month old Tiffany Sue Banks was killed by her foster mother that CSB placed her with.

Two calls and a message left seeking comment from Pape were not returned. Marcia Tiger, the former CSB executive director, who promoted Pape and gave her glowing performance evaluations, said she would not comment because Trumbull County Prosecutor Dennis Watkins advised current CSB Director Nick Kerosky not to speak to reporters.

Kerosky defended Pape’s employment history Friday, pointing out the excellent performance evaluations done by his predecessor.

Pape works directly under Kerosky and oversees several CSB functions. She earns more than $77,000 a year plus fringe benefits. {{bringing it up to $129K, the article adds later)

”She’s been an employee here for 26 years and has received nothing but glowing recommendations,” Kerosky said.

Kerosky also responded Friday to Watkins’ call for the Ohio Bureau of Criminal Identification and Investigation to determine whether any employee was criminally negligent when two relatives recorded themselves performing sexual acts on a 13-month-old girl in CSB’s care inside the agency in mid-July. Watkins made the recommendation after attorney David Engler, representing a relative of the two children who were related to one another, called for Watkins to ask for an independent criminal investigation.

Two relatives, Cody Beemer, 22, 332 Austin Ave. S.E., and Felicia Banks Beemer, 21, were charged with rape and a slew of other charges. Both pleaded not guilty to charges and are being held in the Trumbull County Jail. They were also charged with allegedly making a similar recording of them performing sexual acts on a different 18-month-old male relative. That boy was not in CSB’s care, but after police found the evidence of the video, CSB took custody of him.

…NOTICE:   “Beemer, according to court records, was serving probation after he pleaded guilty to assaulting Banks Beemer in March.

See notice for upcoming CSB meeting if you are a local resident:

Next Public Children Service Board (CSB) Meeting in Trumbull County, Warren, OH is Tuesday, Nov. 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm - Dear Citizens,

Please keep your eye open to any last minute changes, which MUST be published and notice given to the public in a timely manner.
This is a public meeting on 11-15-11 and the public does not have to sign in to attend.  CSB and their staff are on the Public Payroll – we pay them and the employer has all rights to attend a meeting to see what their employees are doing!  FYI – The Trumbull County Commissioners appoint the Board Members of Children Services in Trumbull County.  There is already an injunction filed against CSB for denying citizens access to a public meeting on 10-18-11, which is to be heard on Friday, 12-2-11 at the main courthouse by Judge Stuard at 9 am

What this notice tells us is that the people that showed up at the previous board were put out and/or required to sign in to attend.  Other links claim it’s systemic and not just in one county the the CSB (this outfit) is not following rules for removal of a child from the home.  These nightmare situations were facilitated by a statewide system called  fcf.ohio.gov, which leads to links (on the left) that all have lovely names:

  • *The OCTF was created in Ohio law in 1984. OCTF funds primary and secondary prevention strategies that are conducted at the local level and activities and projects of a statewide significance designed to strengthen families and prevent child abuse and neglect. The county FCFCs serve as the OCTF local advisory boards and receive funding for primary and secondary prevention strategies…
  • (More:) “Anything we do to strengthen and support families in our community helps to reduce the likelihood of child abuse and neglect.”
  • (Grants:)”For April 2011, the Ohio Children’s Trust Fund (OCTF) is providing nearly $45,000 to twelve county Family and Children First Councils (FCFCs) to support their April Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention activities and events”
  • Trumbull County got $2,000 to hold an event reminding parents that it’s important to play with their children
  • OH Job & Family Services (which funds TANF, OCSE, Foster Care, Adoption Assistance, Medicaid, Access Visitation, etc. — has a huge incentive to adopt out and get kids into foster care.   It should be looked at: here’s a link.  This centralized agency manages a LOT!):
Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
OH ST DEPARTMENT OF JOB & FAMILY SERVICES  COLUMBUS OH 43215 FRANKLIN 809376072 $ 13,576,468,286

Despite all those wonderful-sounding names — “Youth, Partnership, Care, Child, Family Grow, Help Me, Trust Fund” —  bottom line is here, through some of this [at least] one child was murdered (supervisor salary — $77K, public funding) and another from the same Mom, raped, and now the same public that paid for this to happen, and the salaries of people that let it happen, will pay also for jail, and two public defenders, not to mention the foster care of a surviving young male victim (removed from another home) and so forth.  Not to mention the personal cost.  So I recommend taking a look at “flexible funding” here — because in state after state, these philosophies and initiatives are exactly that — real “flexible” when it comes to rules & laws.

Flexible Funding Pool:

The OFCF Flexible Funding Workgroup was formed in January 2010 with the purpose to identify opportunities and provide flexible funding to local public agencies in order to better meet the needs of children, families, and adults.  {{Of course that’s what its about}} The group included staff from the OFCF Cabinet agencies.

Local public agencies will now have the flexibility to transfer specific State General Revenue Funds (GRF) to the local flexible funding pool managed by the FCFCs. Although State GRF allocated to various local public agencies have requirements on what the funds can be spent on, the State GRF transferred to the flexible funding pool sheds those requirements.  Therefore, even if counties currently “pool” funds, those state funds must still meet its requirements for spending.  This new FCFC Flexible Funding Pool removes all of those requirements and can be used to meet the needs (prevention, early intervention, treatment) of children, families, and adults in the community.

To understand any association or organization, one really needs to understand its funding, its corporate structure and who pays the salaries of its staff.

END of “OHIO” SECTION

triggered by the awareness of NCPL (again) and its CEO’s agenda

(BACK TO REFERENCES FROM GEORGIA FATHERHOOD)

National Fatherhood Initiative
The National Fatherhood Initiative was created in 1994 to counter the growing problem of fatherlessness by stimulating a broad-based social movement to restore responsible fatherhood as a national priority. With the help of many notable Americans,

Just grants with the actual word “Fatherhood” in them from Georgia.  Just Grants, and just from HHS:
notice the recipients — DHR, a children’s shelter:
Program Office Grantee Name City Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
ACF GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ATLANTA PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants RUSSELL EASTMAN $ 310,000
ACF GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants NANCY F FRIAUF $ 474,640
HSB PARTNERSHIP FOR COMMUNITY ACTION, INC. DECATUR FATHERHOOD DEMONSTRATION 93600 Head Start BRENDA E TAYLOR $ 375,000
OFA GA ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES ATLANTA PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants RUSSELL EASTMAN $ 592,367
OFA GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants JASMINE MCCOY $ 250,000
OFA GWINNETT CHILDRENS SHELTER BUFORD PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 93086 Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants NANCY F FRIAUF $ 250,000
(yeah, well, this one has connections with technical colleges and relates in 2011 that their funds, which apparently were in good part ARRA funds (see my last post on the GAO report on ARRA grantees) were drying up.
Georgia Fatherhood Program Loses Money

On behalf of Hill / Macdonald, LLC posted in Child support on Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Several Georgia technical colleges have lost funding for their long-running fatherhood programs, which provide education and support services to both father and mothers with the goal of strengthening families and serving the low-income community. The colleges are working to find alternative funding for the programs, but until that happens, this underserved population may again fall through the cracks.

In Georgia, fathers and mothers who are unable to make their court-ordered child support payments have relatively few options. Most fly under the radar in order to avoid being found in contempt of court and either forced to make payments through wage garnishment or some other means, or sentenced to jail. In response to this no-win situation, the fatherhood programs were created in 1996 to help noncustodial fathers who were facing contempt charges for nonpayment of child support.

The program was later opened up to mothers, and its goals were broadened. Now, the fatherhood programs at Chattahoochee Tech in Mariette, Athens Tech, Atlanta Tech, and 9 other technical colleges throughout Georgia focus on providing support services for parents to help them achieve education and career goals. A major component of the program is increasing participants’ ability to make money so they can more easily support their children and their family. The fathers who are enrolled in the program have an average of three children each.

The last few years of the program were funded by the American Reinvestment Recovery Act.

Well, earlier they were funded through TANF:  From an ACF SITE (I’m simply referring to this, not explaining in full obviously):

Section 1115 Waiver Projects
These grants provide matching federal monies for demonstration projects that expand on current child support programs. The projects are funded using the child support formula grant matching rate of 66% Federal and 34% State or private non-IV-D funds; the projects are authorized by waiver provisions of section 1115 of the Social Security Act. Though varied, all projects emphasize the importance of healthy marriage to a child’s well-being, as well as financial stability, increased paternity establishment, and child support collection.

. . .

  • Georgia Department of Human Resources (Various Cities, GA).
    “Georgia Healthy Marriage Initiative: The Georgia Family Council is directing a project to provide marriage education integrated with child support information and motivation. The marriage curricula will vary by cities and organizations. Local coalitions will provide outreach through existing community, faith-based and public organizations. Project Period: April 1, 2005 to March 31, 2010.

    Mission


    Georgia Family Council (GFC) is a non-profit 501(c)(3) research and education organization committed to fostering conditions in which individuals, families and communities thrive. Carrying out that mission is a challenging endeavor that requires a multi-faceted approach. So GFC is organized under three Centers:

    GFC Receives Grant to Curb Domestic Violence

    Georgia Family Council has been awarded a $10,000 grant from the Verizon Foundation to train teenagers about healthy relationships and avoiding domestic violence.

    GFC has been hosting marriage and relationship training classes in communities throughout Georgia for years. This grant will bolster our efforts to specifically reach young people ages 13 to 18 to help them prevent and avoid domestic violence. Classes will be held in Gwinnett and DeKalb counties and in inner-city Atlanta.

    Healthy marriages and families begin with healthy relationships. GFC is committed to helping individuals learn the best ways to form and maintain strong relationships through our training classes in local communities.

Logo2

A GEORGIAN “IP” WAS ON MY SITE TODAY

ON A POST TALKING ABOUT MAIL FRAUD AND CON MEN.

(IP means simply internet address identifier).  They spent almost an hour on the Michael Anthony Nelson post — part of which relates to yesterday’s monster post on the expansion of TANF.

I wrote then:

Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiatives

by Karin Martinson and Demetra Nightingale

February 2008

odd — wasn’t that around the time Nancy Schaefer posted her statement?  No, just shortly after, her report was November 2007

Prepared for:
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) [* * *]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

(Intro paragraphs:)

The role of noncustodial fathers in the lives of low-income families has received increased attention in the past decade. As welfare reform has placed time limits on cash benefits, policymakers and program administrators have become interested in increasing financial support from noncustodial parents as a way to reduce poverty among low-income children. Although child support enforcement efforts have increased dramatically in recent years, there is evidence that many low-income fathers cannot afford to meet their child support obligations without impoverishing themselves or their families. Instead, many fathers accumulate child support debts that may lead them to evade the child support system and see less of their children.

To address these complex issues, {{that rained down from the sky, and that we don’t want to directly attribute responsibility for….}} states and localities have put programs in place that focus on developing services and options to help low-income fathers find more stable and better-paying jobs, pay child support consistently, and become more involved parents. In part because of the availability of new funding sources and a growing interest in family-focused programs,

Could it BE any more evasive??? Interest in family-focused programs is, just, well, like crops, just so happening to coming up through the fertile ground of mega-farms (no one bought seed, plowed, planted seed, watered, or even conceived of the idea of farming. This interest does NOT, we repeat, does NOT have anything to do with any of the founders of the National Fatherhood Initiative, or any other visionaries who foresaw a real crop of grants with a constant stream of clients, and is not, we repeat, NOT, a backlash to feminism. It just kinda sorta, you knew, “GREW.” We here, are just dispassionately reporting on what happened. (Give me a break…. )

this area is experiencing dramatic growth, with hundreds of “fatherhood” programs developing across the country.

Coincidentally, and surely not causally, related to the fine funds that are available here, and the replicatable business model that is being taught, or their close associations with — child support agencies, attorney general’s offices, welfare offices, and so forth. Those fatherhood programs just plain out developed, like a young girl entering puberty. Entirely unpredictable. It just happened.

Under the expanded purposes of Title IVA, authorized in the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (P.L. 104-193, also known as PRWORA), states have been able to use some of their Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funds to provide services to nonresident fathers, including employment-related services. PRWORA also authorized grants to states to assist noncustodial parents with access and visitation issues, and it required states, as part of their Child Support Enforcement Program, to have procedures requiring fathers who are not paying child support to participate in work activities, which may include employment and training programs. The Deficit Reduction Act (DRA) of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), which contains a reauthorization of the TANF program, also authorized funding to states and public and nonprofit entities for responsible fatherhood programs.

_ _ _ _ _ __ From my above post, with red font marking points I was making on the last post.

The Deficit Reduction Act (“DRA” to us) apparently opened the door wide for applying TANF funds to non-TANF families.  HOWEVER, a February 2008 regulation (HHS regulations can restrict or focus the law further) apparently said, well, no, keep it to TANF families — EXCEPT for marriage & fatherhood activities.

Now that was a BIG Exception — and it widened the door, seems to me, for more of the same nonsense.  Have we not had ENOUGH of this yet?

Where is all this money coming from and – more to the point — where is it going?  For what identifiable REAL (not just alleged) public benefit (tie the benefit to the authorizing legislation to the distributed dollars – if you can) should we continue authorizing TANF as is – and ignore not just the amount of the Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood fundings — but the consequences of them.

Should we just throw up our hands and say “oh well?”  because there are other worse emergencies and crises all around us?

Who (which specific sets of people) have just about copyrighted how to create a crisis, and take advantage of it?  I am not looking for scapegoats — (don’t like the practice) — I’m looking for where to put up the “STOP” sign, and how — the next time more of it is proposed. As it will be, pointing to past successes which have not yet (to my awareness) actually been reliably documented AS successes.  In relationship to program purpose.

The main program purpose of TANF is assistance to needy families so children can be cared for in their parents homes or homes of relatives.

The main program purpose of “Access Visitation” program (which FYI was a last-minute earmark not run by public scrutiny) is allegedly to increase noncustodial parenting time — actually as the Feds are not allowed to dominate state courts, the phrasing is “facilitate and support PROGRAM THAT” (facilitate and support, yada yada) increased noncustodial parent access and visitation.  And to do this because of the evolving nature of the child support system, and because enough Presidents felt that their interpretation of their oaths of office put “uphold and defend the Constitution” should be placed before program production for personal supporters.

Yeah, anyhow.

The publication above, “Ten Key Findings from Responsible Fatherhood Initiative,” produced by the Urban Institute under contract (not grant, contract) from HHS — is policyspeak, quoting often times its own kind, among policymakers.   It’s also formatted as a 3-color, tri-fold mailer bearing the Urban Institute information, and is clearly PR to support this initiative from whoever is on whomever’s mailing lists.

As it says, or said in 2008

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation, under contract number 100-01-0027. The authors gratefully acknowledge the guidance and comments provided by their project officer, Jennifer Burnszynski. Helpful comments were also provided by Linda Mellgren of ASPE and by Margot Bean,

Eileen Brooks, and Myles Schlank of the Office of Child Support Enforcement in the Administration for Children and Families/HHS. The authors also benefited from comments by Burt Barnow and John Trutko and editing by Fiona Blackshaw.

Yesterday, towards the end of a long, laborious (and duplicate-pasted) post, my key discovery in the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative — i.e., who jumpstarted this? — found (distressingly, from my point of view) that the HHS Cabinet member at the time, “Jeffrey Reiger” was a Bush man.  Bush 1, Bush 2, and even later (after OK), Governor Jeb Bush in Florida, where he apparently continued tearing up the place, giving contracts to cronies in appropriately (per “voice of freedom”) and making life worse, not better, for children in need of having their abuse STOPPED and poor families.

THEN, apparently by 2006, he ended up back, presiding over a glowing report of (his and others’) work at Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (as though — see above — it weren’t in some major ways, his project initially) — he shows up in the exact same office at HHS/ASPE.

If the American public (whoever that beast is) wishes to stop remaining so gullible and malleable  – we (especially those in — or rapidly exiting — the working middle class, yet not yet fully under control (through extortion — someone has your kids) as many “low-income” families become  – it’s time to judge not only who is speaking and not only what is said, but to learn better how to compare the two.

I’ve read so much, the dialects are becoming intelligible.  People from the same circles speak like each other.  ADD to this a little background on who, what, when, where, and why (or, for how much) — and you’re a lot less gullible and malleable.  ANYHOW — (the way my mind works) — the information I had on OMI (other than it was basically reprehensible) and WHERE it fit in the larger context of marriage, fatherhood, and turning America from a process-based to an out-come based, closed society — was lacking.

I didn’t have all the pieces.  But something in the picture had my attention.  What connected the dots was the key personnel in the HHS Cabinet for Governor Keating, which happened to be this person whose name I didn’t know and hadn’t noticed before, Mr Reiger.

OK, let’s break this grant contract, above, down some:

This brief was completed by the Urban Institute

under contract to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE)

at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

as part of the Partners for Fragile Families evaluation,

under contract number 100-01-0027.

In looking up (for readers’ sakes) “Partners for Fragile Families” — a term which by now any noncustodial mother in a custody BATTLE should know translates to “foundation-sponsored, OCSE-enabled Fatherhood Project” — I found another report, under the same contract, which says it for me:

https://childsupport.state.co.us/siteuser/do/vfs/Read?file=/cm:Publications/cm:Reports/cm:_x0034_11567_pff_outcomes.pdf

(intereting URL, eh– Child Support.State.Co.  )

Partners for Fragile Families Demonstration Projects:

Employment and Child Support Outcomes and Trends

Introduction

In recent years, policymakers and programs have paid increased attention to the role of noncustodial fathers in the lives of low-income families.

You betcha– it’s been a good livelihood for some! and with no end in site, as more noncustodial fathers happen every time there’s a split-up.  Some of these will be either behind in their child support (which could be by their choice, their ability level — or I’m sure it could  and has at times been “arranged” by ridiculously unreasonable child support orders.  They do this for mothers, I’m sure it can be done as easily for fathers, depending on the desired “outcome” in a case) — or disgruntled about not “accessing” more of their children (possibly through previous restraining order of some sort) — or they may not have been actually that interested in their kids. Anyhow, they have as a group DEFINITELy hit the radar of “POLICYMAKERS AND PROGRAMS.”

And this manner of PolicySpeak (the artificial third person, I call it — because it’s a report by a program participant to a policymaker.  It’s like a kind of code they speak to each other, not expecting noncustodial fathers (and certainly not mothers) to be listening in.  However, thanks to the internet, we can and, and now do).

With welfare reform placing time limits on cash benefits, there has been a strong interest in increasing financial support from noncustodial parents as a way to reduce poverty among low-income children.

Well, I don’t agree with that either, but as it’s not the main point here, I’ll bite my tongue (this time).

Although child support enforcement efforts have been increasing dramatically in recent years, {{hard to prove of disproof, and none offered here in the intro…}} there is some evidence that many low-income fathers cannot afford to support their children financially without impoverishing themselves or their families.

Meaning, presumably their new families?

To address these complex issues, a number of initiatives have focused on developing services and options to help low-income fathers become more financially and emotionally involved with their families and to help young, low- income families become stable.

Well, this is 2007, and National Fatherhood Initiative was formed in 1994 (from whence a lot of this) so yeah, the administration has an interest in regulating the emotional involvement of “low-income fathers.”  Just as a reminder, from DRA (year, 2005) forward, it didn’t have to be actually low-income fathers to qualify, and so forth.

Sponsored by the Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Ford Foundation,1 …

Sponsored by US Govt HHS branch and a wealthy foundation influencing LOTS of sectors of the US, such as higher education, Media (the link is to a segment on who’s behind WOrking Assets, a private telecommunications firm in SF), and of course, most aspects of American life & business.  If you haven’t thought much about the concept of “FOUNDATION” yet, now might just be the time, let alone individual ones.   They are intentional social change agents that work through almost every facet of life you daily may be dealing with.

http://www.fordfoundation.org/#  (in its own words — click on, for example, “issues” to get a scope).

Ford Foundation

Motto:   “Working with Visionaries on the Frontlines of Social Change Worldwide

QUESTION:  Suppose you don’t share this vision or approve of the “social change”??  Does your life matter, then?

(Yep and funding them, steering study to or away from various topics according to the foundation’s overall purpose(s))  THis is just one type of support they deal with:

  • Established in 1936  (AKA BETWEEN WORLD WARS I & II.  BEFORE WOMEN IN THE US GOT THE VOTE).
  • First regional office opened in 1952 in New Delhi
  • Provide grants to organizations in the United States, Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia

“To date, the foundation has committed $560 million for program-related investments, and sets aside annually an average $25 million for new investments.”

“More than $16 billion in grants distributed worldwide”  2010 Fiscal assets around $10 billion . . . .

OTHERS feel differently about the Ford Foundation.  I just found:

The Ford Foundation and the CIA:
A documented case of philanthropic collaboration
with the Secret Police
by James Petras
15 December 2001
Rebelión

This is too much to handle now, but just so we know we are not playing with small pitt bulls, but the big dogs, when something says “Ford Foundation,” here’s a chunk of that article.  In the SMALLER context of the complete disintegration of due process in the United States through the proliferation of what I write about (them grantees pushing marriage as the answer to society’s problems, and pocketing the profits in doing so)   .  here we go.  This is for my learning too, not just readers:

Introduction

The CIA uses philanthropic foundations as the most effective conduit to channel large sums of money to Agency projects without alerting the recipients to their source. From the early 1950s to the present the CIA’s intrusion into the foundation field was and is huge. A U.S. Congressional investigation in 1976 revealed that nearly 50% of the 700 grants in the field of international activities by the principal foundations were funded by the CIA (Who Paid the Piper? The CIA and the Cultural Cold War, Frances Stonor Saunders, Granta Books, 1999, pp. 134-135). The CIA considers foundations such as Ford “The best and most plausible kind of funding cover” (Ibid, p. 135). The collaboration of respectable and prestigious foundations, according to one former CIA operative, allowed the Agency to fund “a seemingly limitless range of covert action programs affecting youth groups, labor unions, universities, publishing houses and other private institutions” (p. 135). The latter included “human rights” groups beginning in the 1950s to the present. One of the most important “private foundations” collaborating with the CIA over a significant span of time in major projects in the cultural Cold War is the Ford Foundation.

This essay will demonstrate that the Ford Foundation-CIA connection was a deliberate, conscious joint effort to strengthen U.S. imperial cultural hegemony and to undermine left-wing political and cultural influence. We will proceed by examining the historical links between the Ford Foundation and the CIA during the Cold War, by examining the Presidents of the Foundation, their joint projects and goals as well as their common efforts in various cultural areas.

Background: Ford Foundation and the CIA

By the late 1950s the Ford Foundation possessed over $3 billion in assets. The leaders of the Foundation were in total agreement with Washington’s post-WWII projection of world power. A noted scholar of the period writes: “At times it seemed as if the Ford Foundation was simply an extension of government in the area of international cultural propaganda. The foundation had a record of close involvement in covert actions in Europe, working closely with Marshall Plan and CIA officials on specific projects” (Ibid, p.139). This is graphically illustrated by the naming of Richard Bissell as President of the Foundation in 1952. In his two years in office Bissell met often with the head of the CIA, Allen Dulles, and other CIA officials in a “mutual search” for new ideas. In 1954 Bissell left Ford to become a special assistant to Allen Dulles in January 1954 (Ibid, p. 139). Under Bissell, the Ford Foundation (FF) was the “vanguard of Cold War thinking”.

One of the FF first Cold War projects was the establishment of a publishing house, Inter-cultural Publications, and the publication of a magazine Perspectives in Europe in four languages. The FF purpose according to Bissell was not “so much to defeat the leftist intellectuals in dialectical combat (sic) as to lure them away from their positions” (Ibid, p. 140). The board of directors of the publishing house was completely dominated by cultural Cold Warriors. Given the strong leftist culture in Europe in the post-war period, Perspectives failed to attract readers and went bankrupt.

Another journal Der Monat funded by the Confidential Fund of the U.S. military and run by Melvin Lasky was taken over by the FF, to provide it with the appearance of independence (Ibid, p. 140).

In 1954 the new president of the FF was John McCloy. He epitomized imperial power. Prior to becoming president of the FF he had been Assistant Secretary of War, president of the World Bank, High Commissioner of occupied Germany, chairman of Rockefeller’s Chase Manhattan Bank, Wall Street attorney for the big seven oil companies and director of numerous corporations. As High Commissioner in Germany, McCloy had provided cover for scores of CIA agents (Ibid, p. 141).

McCloy integrated the FF with CIA operations. He created an administrative unit within the FF specifically to deal with the CIA. McCloy headed a three person consultation committee with the CIA to facilitate the use of the FF for a cover and conduit of funds. With these structural linkages the FF was one of those organizations the CIA was able to mobilize for political warfare against the anti-imperialist and pro-communist left

You scared yet?  Or don’t want a life responsible to think about your role as an ant (or not as an “ant”) in some of this?  OK, then….

However, after tracking and reporting (to the dismay of some fellow-bloggers) the Heritage Foundation & Unification Connection in these Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood grants, I happen to be right in that matter.  Yesterday, I tied one of the founders of the organization that helped support the Heritage Foundation (DeVos) to Blackwater, so I suggest y’all in the court-reform/pleading business, listen up some!  Time willing, I’ll do this again today.

Here’s another one, “Swans Commentary” by Michael Barker.  I’m putting this one out because it mentions Naomi Klein, whose work I’ve seen some of and I think makes sense, i.e., “Shock Doctrine:  the Rise of Disaster Capitalism”  and here are the opening lines of this (2010 Piece) — notice the last paragraph.  Obviously, yes, the writer is thinking progressive/leftist, but do we (who does) know what that means, where it comes from?

(Swans – January 25, 2010)   While most progressive writers have failed to document the power of liberal philanthropy to co-opt the processes of social change, Naomi Klein, in her book The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism (Random House, 2007), provides a rare counter example.

This historical anomaly — for her and other radical writers — revolves around her description of the support that liberal foundations provided for training the intellectual elites that seized the reins of power in both Chile and Indonesia in the 1960s and 1970s. In Chile, she observes how this elitist co-optive project was the brainchild of Albion Patterson, who was director of the local US International Cooperation Administration (which became the U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID) and Theodore Schultz, the chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Chicago.

The University — Government Agency connection, which I found (tracking it backwards & upwards) in these fatherhood grants, obviously….

With tuition and expenses paid for by US taxpayers and US foundations, Klein notes how between 1957 and 1970 some one hundred Chilean students pursued advanced degrees at the University of Chicago in an environment “where the professors [like Milton Friedman] agitated for the near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus.” In 1965 this neoliberal project “was expanded to include students from across Latin America,” courtesy of a grant from the Ford Foundation, which “led to the creation of the Center for Latin American Economic Studies at the University of Chicago.” Yet despite the best efforts of the Chicago school’s “intellectual imperialism,” there “was, however, a problem: it wasn’t working.” (1)

By Chile’s historic 1970 elections, the country had moved so far left that all three major political parties were in favour of nationalizing the country’s largest source of revenue: the copper mines then controlled by U.S. mining giants. The Chile Project, in other words, was an expensive bust. As ideological warriors waging a peaceful battle of ideas with their left-wing foes, the Chicago Boys had failed in their mission. (p.73)

OK, so we have the Ford Foundation helping US corporate (here, mining) interests simply control another country — and undermine that country’s insistence on NOT being controlled by the US (Corporate interests) by sabotaging nationalization.  Notice:   “near-complete dismantling of government with single-minded focus.”

Now I love America, I was born here, and one and two (respectively) generations of my family were not.  I love the Bill of Rights and the fact that we have a First Amendment which EXPRESSLY forbids the Congress from establishing a national religion (but it will take basic, universal alertness to prevent one from being established administratively & economically, and I know its name, too).  I love the positive IDEAS in the Declaration of Independence, and how our Presidents must swear a public oath to uphold and defend it (not that the last several have. . .  ).   I also, as shoddy as local K-12 US School history tends to be (and I’m a public school grad), I do know (from later reading, and interests) something about the differences between Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, John Locke and — say, Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, Rev. Sun Myung Moon, Bishop Stallings, Bishop Eddie Long (recently a keynote speaker at an African American Healthy Marriage Institute event, or was it the National Parenting Center kickoff at Hampton U, I DNR), and former Presidents George Bush (plural), and Wade Horn & Friends.

Yes the founders were slave-owners and dominated other human beings wrongfully.  See yesterday’s link to a 1997 or so speech by Rev. Jesse Jackson, Jr., saying no, we will NOT go back (as some want us to), @

PROMISE KEEPERS — WATCH AS WELL AS PRAY  By Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr.:

Recently, hundreds of thousands of religious American males were on display at the PromiseKeepers‘ “Stand In The Gap” rally in the nation’s capitol. What could possibly be wrong with men bonding, praying and pledging to be better Christians, with the goal of becoming better and more responsible husbands and fathers, and active in their local church? Nothing that I can see.

There is certainly nothing wrong with men exercising their First Amendment rights to peaceably assemble and to enjoy the freedoms of speech and religion. . . .

The Promise Keepers deny the legitimacy of most, if not all, of these theological and biblical interpretations that have grown out of experiences of oppression, and resent our commitment to not go back –theologically, biblically, socially, politically or culturally. . . .

(7) Finally, we must watch where the Promise Keepers raise the money to pull off their ambitious future plans and activities. What is its source? Promise Keepers is a $117 million operation. Where did this money come from? They said most of it came from the nearly two million people they have attracted to their past stadium rallies where they charged $60 per person to attend. But the future rallies are going to be free? Assuming future free rallies will be bigger than past paid rallies, who will be picking up this $117 million-plus price tag? Now that they have clearly established their preeminence for religiously-based mobilization, and their surveys show the rallies to be attracting overwhelmingly Republican-oriented men, look for the really big Republican supporters and political donors to ante-up.

In light of the personal exposure that many individual and corporate donors have received during the 1997 congressional campaign finance committee hearings, these contributors will have one additional advantage with the Promise Keepers over the political hard money, and some soft money, they usually give to political candidates, campaigns and parties– it will be tax-deductible soft money to a religious organization. This unlimited money — cash, checks or in-kind contributions from private individuals or corporate donors — will be eligible for politically-supported and government-supplied tax write-offs. Finally, since such contributions are in the private sector their names will not even have to be publicly revealed.

Who are the Promise Keepers? A political Trojan Horse? Genuine religious and spiritual leaders who are wise as serpents, but harmless as doves? Or wolves in sheeps clothing? Watch, as well as pray!

Here is a theologically-based warning at this spectacle and if you hover the URL, it shows he protests unity with Catholics, abortion-rights activitist and gay/lesbian elements primarily.  And also says, how can the unredeemed stand in the gap for anyone (and quotes some scripture that talks — and I happen to agree — about unity of the spirit, and not “of design by man” which is the wrong kind, wrongly applied in too many cases.  We go (USA) for LIBERTY– United States, but what we “unite” under is either those ideas of liberty, allowing for individuality — and separation of powers of government — or we are not “united” at all under anything else worthwhile (my opinion).  The entire premise of the constitution and declaration was to PREVENT exactly what is happening now — taxation with out representation, and attempts to establish a monarchy (in idea) and with it, theocracy.  i do not use those words narrowly either; I am no Tea Partier. (I’m female….)  This (doctrinally oriented person) wrote of a few questions he asked attendees, or that they were asked:

6. How important is it to you that there is little doctrinal agreement among the members of Promise Keepers?

Almost every person interviewed quickly answered that it was of no consequence to them that there was no agreement on Bible doctrine among members of the Promise Keepers. Most took great pride in the ability to ignore Bible doctrine for the cause of forging an ecumenically styled unity.** The one surprisingly pleasant answer to this question came from the only woman interviewed. {{it was a rally of MEN specifically}} She was a 27-year-old volunteer handing out some of the one million free Stand in the Gap Contemporary English Version New Testaments. She answered that she was very concerned that there was not much emphasis on doctrine.

7. What do you believe the Bible says about the importance of doctrine?

Many answered with the question, “What do you mean by doctrine?” Others said the Bible teaches that there are only essentials to which all Christians must subscribe and that there is great freedom beyond that. The female PK volunteer was the only one who answered that the Bible treats the subject of doctrine seriously

**also true in the multiple boastings about coalitions and collaborations that I blog on, specifically in TANF and COURT-related areas.

For Bible doctrine – in our case, read Constitution, Law, Bill of Rights etc. That’s OUR doctrine, or should be (Some believe otherwise, and the issue has to be decided….)  To clarify (in case you think I agree with the above writer), it goes on:  “Will God not judge those who follow a man who denied the deity of Christ, who spent his last night on earth in the same adulterous pattern he had lived through the last years of his life, and who preached not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, but rather the gospel of social reform?”

I don’t believe in the deity of Christ (but I do in his resurrection– which is my privilege.  I also know that in the late 1600s in the Colonies, not to believe in the deity Christ and say this openly, was dangerous — although not so dangerous as having the wrong color skin).  No, Jesus Christ (as I read the record) upended the social order — with his LIFE — in part by failing to conform to it.  And I know by personal experience that any country whose residents are ONLY concerned with and wrapped up in their spiritual status do not make good neighbors, and to not stop their brethren (usually) from some heinous crimes against their wives, children, or others.  Why?  Their heads are somewhere else….  that’s why.

(OK, I just dumped off another diving board into various reactions to this 1997 Promise Keeper’s event.  Well, the water’s warm).  My disclaimer:  I don’t know all where this site is coming from.  I’m just pointing out that there shouldn’t be silence on groups like Promise Keepers, so let’s learn from some earlier alerts!

Confronting Christian Crusaders

What does Promise Keepers’ popularity mean for Jews?

By Mik Moore & Udi Ofer


The Promise Keepers, a new evangelical Christian men’s movement, follows an agenda that many Jews feel is antithetical to Jewish values and corrosive to constitutional safeguards of religious liberty. Yet the Jewish community has been relatively unresponsive to the exponential growth and mainstream embrace of this volatile young organization. During the Promise Keepers’ “Stand In The Gap” rally in Washington, DC, on October 4, 1997, Jewish organizations‹including politically active groups like the Reform Movement’s Religious Action Center‹were noticeably absent from the assorted liberal groups who showed up to protest. Other Jewish watchdog organizations, including the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee, have kept their usually humming faxes at bay. And while the Jewish press did cover the rally in Washington, they have largely ignored the Promise Keepers and their founder, Bill McCartney. After demonstrating a fearless approach to activism in recent decades, has the American Jewish community reverted back to 1950s era timidity? Or is an organization that many believe is mounting a ferocious attack on the wall separating church and state really just an innocuous religious movement?

(it seems that the URL it’s posted under probably doesn’t share the same views.  No matter, here’s more):

Just as Patricia Ireland {{NOW}} has been the most forceful voice speaking out against Promise Keepers, the strongest response from Jews has come from the Jewish feminist community. Susan Weidman Schneider, editor of the Jewish feminist magazine Lilith, is taking Promise Keepers seriously. “Promise Keepers represents a danger to Jews in their frequent assertion that this is a Christian nation.” Schneider also believes that the Jewish community should be aware the Promise Keepers’ “dangerous stand towards women.” Traditionally attacks on feminism become attacks of “Jewish feminists”, or on the “un-Christian” nature of feminism. Lilith is planning to run a substantial article on the Promise Keepers in an upcoming issue.

Michael S. Kimmel, a scholar of men’s studies at State University of New York at Stony Brook, agrees with Schneider’s assessment. In a recent article in Tikkun magazine, Kimmel criticized the Promise Keepers attitude toward women. Kimmel writes that, “the resurrection of responsible manhood is really the Second Coming of Patriarchy.” According to the Promise Keepers, men have abdicated their responsibility as the head of the household. At home, husbands are “not giving their wives the support they need,” and are absent from the lives of their children and friends. The Promise Keepers ‘remind’ men of the ‘power’ they are born with, and make it clear that the husband should be the head of the household.

I am going to translate that last bolded phrase (from my point of view) for the liberal, progressive, atheist, or agnostic among us.  Or, for whomever.   I know this mindset, I am a Christian who was raised “unbelieving,” by parents who have voiced their disbelief in God, Jesus, resurrection, and distrust of people who do believe in that . . . . . and I had PK BS in my marriage, not that I’d married someone with pre-existing connections to the movement, or any other like it. . ….

What this means it that the TAKE CHARGE theology — and those attracted to it for whatever reasons*  to it — is that, to have an EQUALITY-BASED (REALLY equality -based, as they actually have processed and intend to act on their own Bible verse, Galatians 3:28 (where the apostle Paul — latest convert of all the apostles — takes the legalists to task, and earlier in the chapter confronted apostle Peter’s shape-shifting according to who he was with at the time) — is to be (in their company) emasculated, and have betrayed this God.”

(*morally or intellectually, emotionally, weak — or from personal grudges or previous experiences, receptive)

But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, 26for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. 27For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slaveg nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

And just for a chaser, the chapter begins “O foolish Galatians, WHO hath bewitched you” i.e., from their birthright, which is to stand up before God and not have to earn access to Him through fear of man (ok I won’t elaborate).  The TIKKUN person points out — correctly — that the Promise Keepers type of guys . . .

WHICH IS who THE FATHERHOOD PROMOTERS TYPE OF GUYS COUNT ON APPEALING TO, IN GOOD PART (whether or not the leadership, as leadership goes, actually believe what it preaches. We are talking mass rallies, for PK, and major social change agents including some fairly large and frequent “rallies” also, in the latter).  The theme TAKE BACK YOUR MANHOOD is a great means to also justify “take over this emasculating US government, with its institutions, and have our way with it.”  And that is how due process, transparency, separation of powers, separation of church and state, and the undermining of BALANCE in government is happened.  It virtually got raped by a domination theology.

People that do not think through even their own scriptures will not think through their own Bill of Rights, and are not even interested in doing so.  I do believe this is the mainstream “Christianity” now prevalent, and historically (like over a millennium ago) it became standard through force – -not reasoned debate.  I would love to know the entire story sometime of the years 300 – 400 but from what I can tell, the essence of any gospel Jesus was involved in (assuming the assembled canon of the NT gospels, coming out of the OT, bears a nominal relationship to him) — if it survived, survived in pockets and in the diversity of beliefs that happened until they became State Doctrine which is to say, Emperor Doctrine.  (If you have the time, A.D. 381, “Heretics, Pagans and the Dawn of the Monotheistic State.” )

TRANSLATION: – the same sentiments that shut down discussion and freedom of worship (varieties of Christianity, paganism, Judaism? too), THEN (A.D. 381) when within the same century there had been an Edict of Toleration — will continue to shut down debate, discussion and start declaring dissidents “insane heretics” in our time.  And have been.  The short review I linked to says it well.

Reviewed by Israel Drazin - March 16, 2010

Charles Freeman presents an excellent, readable, and surprising history of Christianity, filled with many unknown facts, that focus around the events of the year 381 when the Roman Emperor Theodosius issued a decree mandating that all Christians believe in the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, an idea not contained in the New Testament and rejected by most Christians at that time. Theodosius called those who refused to accept his view “demented and insane heretics.” . . .Freeman shows how many early Christians enjoyed a diverse spiritual life.. . .It is one of the tragedies of western thought that this approach was, in effect, suppressed as a result of Theodosius’ decrees against ‘heretics’ and pagans in” 381. As a result, countless thinking men and women lived under the continual threat of excommunication and the promise of eternal punishment in fiery hell, a concept and threat that had not existed previously. It was not until the seventeenth century that religious toleration was reinstated, and then only partially.

It closed down and lowered (and, presumably drove underground) the level of debate, for a long time…

Freeman shows how emperors and clergy with non-religious motivations brought about many Christian innovations (??). Besides the court decrees of Constantine and Theodosius and other government officials for civic reasons, to assure peace, priests pushed ideas to help their advancements and the money and freedom from taxes that accompanied it. **”The high level of religious violence (to secure higher level priestly posts) has been largely ignored by historians…almost every vacant bishopric gave rise to murder and intimidation as rival candidates fought for the position.”

I haven’t completed this book yet, but one thing seems evident — that Theodosius needed to consolidate his rule and that dealing with fighting factions wasn’t helping.  This was the stage at which there still remained some who proclaimed that Jesus was not a deity, and the argument (which seems silly to my mind, which grew up about 1700 years later) was in the finer points (let alone ramifications) of just how separate was Jesus from the Father, and did all start at the same time, or one come first.  Different names were given for the different beliefs (and none of which could probably be definitively decided anyhow), but one point I picked up on.  Those who did NOT believe Jesus was co-equal with God, and in fact divine (and incapable of feeling suffering, being humiliated, etc.) — would be naturally favorable to an interpretation of this man’s life as a social and authority-defying revolutionary who was humiliated and died on the cross.

I didn’t say that too well.  In short, it’s more politically expedient to focus the public mind on the unity of earthly authority with divine dominance in one human representative.  The more logical (at least from scriptures) concept does not include the thought, “the Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,”  (the word “Trinity” isn’t in there) an idea not contained in the New Testament and rejected by most Christians at that time.”  Rather than connecting on a human level with a man like (us) — but whose sacrifice made possible access to God (and no more sacrifices!), it instead became expedient politically to instead make the object of worship more distant and demand allegiance  submission NOW (right now) to an earthly representative.

“Freeman’s book has many other insights and whether one agrees with his history or not, it is worth reading since it offers many facts and is thought provoking.”

** Sound familiar yet?  Think about churches, today, as the nonprofit corporations with religious exemptions (from publishing their 990s for the rest of us to read)!

We have to process United States history, OUR REALITY, figure out a place to stand, at least for now, anchor it somehow, and not have our dialogues turn into a moderated-from-on-high dogma with political motivations. But I wish to say — that those who will submit to authority as their chief indicator (and I have to say that — with all due respect for lives, creations, handiwork in other fields) in religious spheres — are not — not really — fit to stand up for their neighbors and fight to preserve this republic, and the ideas that go with it.  A MIND IS  A TERRIBLE THING TO WASTE!  

There may be many flaws and imperfections on other ways of doing things than to let the Ford Foundation, and those in HHS, DOJ, DOE, and DOD decide how processed our information is, and which thoughts and behaviors are — or are not — acceptable (LIKE, divorce, birth control and refusal to sit through inane psychoeducational classes run by dogmatic training-oriented cultists (I refer to therapists of many kinds and particularly a certain sort) for profit.  I personally have looked at some of these — and one set is run by an outfit who literally defended the “high priestess of Satanism” in a palimony suit against the originator of the group (Anton LaVey) — or a SIMILAR SET OF PROGRAMS could be run by some mainstream Christians who really, really believe that people who divorce may be going to hell; or another set who don’t confess to any deity but are very adept at behavioral science and transformative changes through group psychology. I’ve seen just about all of them when looking up AFCC personnel (or outfits) and the TAGGS grantees.  I mean, come on, look at this one!

(that’s only 3 out of 52 grant awards with the word “DADS” in them, and a smaller one.  But even so– is this information so necessary?)

Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name City State Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
2011 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 0
2010 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 25,000
2009 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY LOGAN UT DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start LORI ROGGMAN $ 25,000
Results 1 to 3 of 3 matches.

Do we really need this type of Child Support Research and Demonstration Project (CFDA 93601) award?

Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 1 08/09/2005 93601 NEW HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 2 08/17/2006 93601 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000
Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis SAINT LOUIS MO 90FI0070 HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 3 08/06/2007 93601 NON-COMPETING CONTINUATION HALBERT SULLIVAN $ 100,000


Halbert Sullivan is the CEO of this group, and (it says on the site) an MSW.

Agency Profile

The Fathers Support Center St. Louis (FSC) was incorporated as a federal 501(c)3 organization on December 10, 1997.

Which is as much to say as, it knew about TANF 1996 welfare reform, access visitation grants, and that a new day was dawning . . . . .

When FSC opened its doors in May 1998, we were the first organization of our kind in the State of Missouri and remains the primary organization within St. Louis to provide a comprehensive array of services for men.  FSC is recognized nationally as an authority on father involvement and has received a number of awards including the:

{{“The National Practitioners Network for Fathers and Families, Inc., (NPNFF), is the national individual membership organization whose mission is to build the profession of practitionersworking to increase the responsible involvement of fathers in the lives of their children}}  “Through publications, conferences, training events, technical assistance, advocacy, collaboration with other fathers and families organizations, and networking opportunities, NPNFF seeks to strengthen practitioners in their day-to-day work with fathers and fragile families.”

the “Fragile Families” wording comes from the OCSE & Ford Foundation Grant-funded project….. THe “Fathers Support Center St. Louis” got their TAGGS help, too.  I remember posting this set of misspellings — for the 2011, triple-sized grant.  (previous ones were small).  They must have been real good boys to get that reward.  Notice the apostrophe in “CENTERS’” is also misplaced — it’s a singular center and should read “CENTER’s” besides which the grantee is Fathers’ Support Center already — so why put the name in the award, and then somehow manage to misspell “Fahtergood”??

howing: 1 – 5 of 5 Award Actions

FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2011 90FK0052  FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD 1 00 ACF 09-26-2011 023296192 $ 1,530,190 
Fiscal Year 2011 Total: $ 1,530,190


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2007 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 3 0 ACF 08-06-2007 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2007 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2006 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 2 0 ACF 08-17-2006 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2006 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2005 90FI0070  HEALTHY RELATIONSHIP SKILLS FOR FRAGILE FAMILIES 1 0 ACF 08-09-2005 23296192 $ 100,000 
Fiscal Year 2005 Total: $ 100,000


FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support Award Code Agency Action Issue Date DUNS Number Amount This Action
2004 90XP0057  UNSOLICITED – SOCIAL SERVICES AND INCOME MAINTENANCE RESEARCH 1 0 ACF 04-26-2004 23296192 $ 99,410 
Fiscal Year 2004 Total: $ 99,410


Total of all award actions: $ 1,929,600

  

This group is EIN# 431804267.  In 2003, their one executive director — and only director listed —  (Halbert Sullivan) was paid a very reasonable $50K and it is  membership organization teaching:  “Fatherhood, Parenting, Mentoring, socialization, employment skills” (Cost $268K).

On the 2009 tax form (990), it states (page 1) the program purpose is “TO PROVIDE NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS [with] A PROGRAM THAT PREPARES THEM TO TAKE FINANCIAL AND EMOTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PARENTING THEIR CHILDREN.”    Contributions & revenue include $1.18 million gifts and contributions — and $200K program service revenue.  There are 23 voting members in the governing body, 29 employees, and 54 volunteers.  The tax form (for some reason) has no “slot” to show which portion of income was government grants or contracts).

Under Part II (Program Service Accomplishments) line 4a, it reads:

FATHERHOOD TRAINING, TEACH PARENTING, OFFER MENTORING, ESTABLISH FAMILY DEVELOPMENT AND SOCIALIZATION (=?), JOB DEVELOPMENT AND LEGAL SERVICES TO NONCUSTODIAL FATHERS. 

(LIKE HOW TO BECOME CUSTODIAL, OR GET CHILD SUPPORT ABATED???)     Program service EXPENSES:   $992,674; this particular program’s REVENUE:  $1,250,178.  In other words, a slight profit of about $258K (give me a break on the math, OK?).    Most of which was written off — Professional Fees, Training Consultants, Grants to individuals etc. $54K (???), Miscellaneous.

Anyone who from St. Louis area who wants to check out the Board of Directors (and if any is employed by the courts or was on your case), tax form is here.  I wonder how many noncustodial MOTHERS there are in the area these days, and where they go for any access & visitation help, if they are not having fathers cooperation with court orders, or if they wish THEIR child support arrears reduced and to tweak custody back towards some contact with Mom..  (FYI, these programs were not designed with that “outcome” in mind.  Remember, it’s fatherlessness, not motherlessness, that is the national social curse and plague that must be corrected).

More, from the Fathers Support Center site admits it gets support at the “LOCAL STATE & FEDERAL” levels.

Since its inception, FSC has served more than 8,800 fathers and their families (including 22,000 children), transitioning the nonparticipating father to a position of involvement and equity in the life of his child (over 2,300 of those served have child support orders and 65% were either ex-offenders or had long histories of incarceration – the cost per client to complete FSC program is $4,500 per year compared to $16,000 per year for incarceration).

Define “equity” and also please define “his” child — who else’s child is it?

 FSC provides a comprehensive, holistic fatherhood development project.  Adult clients participate in four programs: The Employment Development and Placement Program, Family Formation Program, the Legal Clinic and Fathers’ Rap Program.

Activities include: parenting education, child abuse prevention training, conflict resolution skills training, job placement, job retention skills training, support groups, counseling, father/child bonding activities, visitation advocacy, placement with mentors and male healthcare education and legal services.

ANYHOW — speaking of (far above) the Urban Institute & HHS/ASPE report done by a certain project from HHS which I’m going to look up (since they gave me the contract number so nicely), it goes on to explain the FRAGILE FAMILIES thing:

the Partners for Fragile Families (PFF) demonstration program intended to effect systems change, deliver appropriate and effective services, and improve outcomes for both parents and children in low-income families. By making lasting changes in the way public agencies and community organizations work with unmarried families, the initiative aimed to increase the capacity of young, economically disadvantaged fathers and mothers to become financial, emotional, and nurturing resources to their children and to reduce poverty and welfare dependence. The PFF demonstration, which built upon lessons from programs and demonstrations that operated over the past two decades, was implemented over a three-year period beginning in 2000 at 13 project sites in nine states.

Someone must have had a lot of clout to start so many projects — at this time (by which time all child support agencies were suppose to have centralized their distribution units at the state level, remember?) — and nationwide.
Looking up “Halbert Sullivan” there are two press release type articles (year, July 26, 2000, both came out on the same day) in “Riverfront times.”  This one is revealing:

Support Structure

Financial woes can separate fathers from their children. One innovative program helps get the situation under control.

A A AComments ()By Wm. Stage Wednesday, Jul 26 2000

Over in a corner of the Fathers’ Support Center (FSC) classroom, at a desk behind a partition,Eleanie Campbell sits with a sheaf of forms and a legal pad, talking in low tones with Leo Taylor-Bey. Campbell is a case manager with the Missouri Department of Social Services‘ Division of Child Support Enforcement (CSE).

Part of being in the FSC program is attempting to get caught up on child-support payments, a goal that CSE hopes to facilitate with its Parents Fair Share, a program that workswith noncustodial parents having trouble making their payments. “We encourage our guys to sign up,” says the center’s Halbert Sullivan, “to sit down and negotiate a compromise between what you’re supposed to pay and what you can reasonably afford to pay.”

> > > >The MOTHERS ARE NOT INVITED INTO THIS PROCESS< PARTICULARLY IF THEY WERE ON WELFARE…. < < < <

And that is exactly what Campbell and Taylor-Bey are doing. “Our program with their program works very well,” says Campbell. “Fathers’ Support Center gives them self-esteem and parenting skills and places them in the job market, while Parents’ Fair Share gives help in shoring up the financial obligations.” * * *(SEE BELOW, MDRC site describes the scope of this project)

> > > ADMINISTRATIVELY ABATES THE ARREARS, AGAIN — ARE THEIR COURT HEARINGS TO INFORM THE CUSTODIAL PARENTS ABOUT THIS “DEAL” THEY CUT?

Donnell Whitfield, director of Prince Hall Family Services, was instrumental in getting the Family Support Act enacted, from which Parents Fair Share grew.

And the other article (which is anecdotal and long) mentions yes, these are felons trying to turn it around:

The Hard Knock That Won’t Stop

Determined to make a better life for themselves and their children, students at the Fathers’ Support Center make a go of parenthood in the ‘hood

A A AComments ()By Wm. Stage Wednesday, Jul 26 2000

Craig Ransom raps on a pretend door. Come in, says Charles Barnes Jr., a large man partial to print shirts. Ransom shuffles in. He leads with a handshake. Brief, but firm. Very good. Don’t make that mistake of the unprofessional soul-brother handshake, Barnes will later caution. Barnes sits, but Ransom still stands. He hasn’t been asked to take a seat. He addresses this point of etiquette: “May I sit, or do you prefer I stand?”

"I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter," Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. "Problem was, I didn't really know how to be a father."Prince Hall Family Support Center (Separately on web:  “Prince Hall Family Support Center”) mentioned in the story…  appears to be a “one-stop-shop” model….
Jennifer Silverbergphoto by Jennifer Silverbergpho
“I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter,” Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. “Problem was, I didn’t really know how to bea father.”

"I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter," Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. "Problem was, I didn't really know how to be a father."

Jennifer Silverberg
“I knew what kind of father I wanted to be to my daughter,” Craig Ransom (with daughter Taronda) says. “Problem was, I didn’t really know how to be a father.”

Propriety doesn’t necessarily come easy for Ransom, who has spent the last 10 of his 29 years with felons who were far more familiar with Miss January than Miss Manners. But here he is, aspiring applicant for a pretend position in the shipping department, trying to impress a pretend human-resources specialist with politeness and humility.

@@ (One of the men profiled had done 10 of 19 years for murder, but his little girl was being cared for and brought to visit by his side of the family.  It was noted, is girlfriend (the mother) didn’t come visit him.  Possibly this relates to his being a murderer, but the topic wasn’t handled in the article.  Ronald, below, is his brother …..

Additional income would help Ronald achieve a goal that at present is out of reach. Unlike the others in the program who seem content with or resigned to the role of noncustodial parent, Ronald hopes to gain full custody of his children — Tamara, 6, and Ron Jr., 8 — with whom, along with their mother, he lived for three years. For that, he’ll have to get an attorney and go to court. “I’m getting around to that,” he says, “but it’s kind of expensive.” Meanwhile, the arrangement he has with his common-law ex is out-of-court and unofficial: He gets visitation “most weekends” and contributes financially when he is able. He picks the kids up at her house in a sort of hit-and-miss fashion because, says Ronald, “her phone is off right now.”

The men are paid $75 a week to attend, and approximately 6 to 8 fathers graduate per session, it said. The other person involved is / was a police officer and operates ? Prince Hall Family Support Center.  This program also deals with “PARENTS FAIR SHARE” which is a program name I’m familiar with.

(MDRC site):

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE

An early and particularly ambitious attempt to help such men become better fathers was Parents’ Fair Share (PFS), a national demonstration project authorized by the Family Support Act of 1988. A key goal of that law was to enforce more vigorously the child support obligations of noncustodial parents, most of them fathers. Recognizing that tougher enforcement would not work for fathers who could not pay, the law allowed some states to assign such men to programs designed to help them find jobs and play a more active role in their children’s lives.

{{Translation: bargaining — with the men, not the Moms — more time with kids for lowered child support obligations.  }}

The PFS demonstration tested the effectiveness of this pathbreaking approach.

Agenda, Scope, and Goals

Targeted at underemployed or unemployed noncustodial fathers who owed child support and had children receiving welfare, PFS aimed to increase child support payments, employment and earnings, and parental involvement.

The program depended on local partnerships among child support agencies, employment and training providers, and community-based service organizations to implement its diverse set of services and features, which included:

  • Peer support groups
  • Employment and training services
  • Mediation to improve relations with custodial parents
  • Enhanced child support enforcement
  • Reduced child support obligations during the period of program participation

The program’s effects were assessed using unemployment insurance records, child support agency records, and surveys of a subset of fathers in the study and the custodial mothers of their children.

# of hotshot foundations behind this one, and the resulting publication:

Featured Publication

The Challenge of Helping Low-Income Fathers Support Their Children 
Final Lessons from Parents’ Fair Share

FundersU.S. Department of Health and Human ServicesThe Pew Charitable TrustsW. K. Kellogg FoundationCharles Stewart Mott FoundationU.S. Department of Agriculture

The Annie E. Casey Foundation

U.S. Department of Labor

Ford Foundation

The McKnight Foundation

Northwest Area Foundation

Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

How does enhancing child support enforcement go with reducing it during program participation?  Anyhow the results were less than stunning:

Some of the findings (published on this link):

Funded by the organizations listed at the front of this monograph, PFS provided employment and training services, peer support groups, voluntary mediation between parents, and modified child support enforcement.

Besides designing the PFS demonstration, MDRC evaluated it

MDRC does LOTS of business with HHS ….

 PFS increased employment and earnings for the least-employable men but not for the men who were more able to find work on their own. Most participated in job club services, but fewer than expected took part in skill-building activities.

PFS encouraged some fathers, particularly those who were least involved initially, to take a more active parenting role. Many of the fathers visited their children regularly, although few had legal visitation agreements. There were modest increases in parental conflict over child-rearing decisions, and some mothers restricted the fathers’ access to their children.

Men referred to the PFS program paid more child support than men in the control group. The process of assessing eligibility uncovered a fair amount of employment, which disqualified some fathers from participation but which led, nonetheless, to increased child support payments.

 In other words, the profile-based assumption that those low-income fathers weren’t paying because they couldn’t, was wrong. How they planned to improve it next time around:

How to increase parental involvement: Increase fathers’ access to their children by involving custodial mothers in the programs and providing the fathers with legal services to gain visitation rights. Be aware of the potential for increased parental conflict.

How to increase child support payments: Mandate fathers’ participation in employmentrelated activities to increase payments among low-income caseloads. Encourage active partnership of fatherhood programs with the child support system.

Let alone as measured by results, there are several red flags that this 2004 Missouri State Auditor’s report of the PFS program.

REPORT# 2004-90 prepared by Claire McCaskill

Improvements are needed in the management and oversight of the Parents’ Fair Share Program

The program’s goal is to help non-custodial parents (NCPs) obtain jobs and become involved in their children’s lives, including paying child support. In order to meet eligibility requirements, the NCP must have a current child support obligation and be unemployed or under-employed. A NCP’s current child support monthly payment is temporarily lowered to an amount the NCP can pay while participating in the program. Participants may receive financial assistance from the program for three activities: training, transportation-related expenses, and work-related expenses. Training costs will be paid for up to a year.

Impediments exist in referring eligible NCPs to the program

In April 2003, the Department of Social Services (DSS) had caseworkers stop referring NCPs to the program during the transfer of program management from DSS to the Department of Economic Development – Division of Workforce Development (division). DSS restarted the referral process in July 2003; however, program referrals have not rebounded to the levels prior to the transfer for several reasons. DSS staff said high caseloads prevented caseworkers from having time to identify and refer NCPs to the program. Additionally, the DSS program coordinator said caseworkers may not refer NCPs to the program because many of the NCPs referred chose not to participate once they understood the program’s requirements and that the child support order is not eliminated. Also, child support caseworkers are no longer required to refer NCPs to the program before referring them to the Attorney General’s office or prosecuting attorneys for prosecution. (See page 4)

This audit is from Missouri — where this Fathers’ Support Center is.   NOTE:  child support caseworkers HAD to refer NCPs to the program before referring them to the attorney general’s office or prosecuting attorneys — prosecuting for child support nonpayment or arrears!  This is why some of us (moms) call the programs a form of “extortion.”  Dads could either go to the program and play by its rules — OR they could go face the D.A. (at this time anyhow) and possibly go to jail for nonsupport.  (or perhaps these NCP’s had other prosecution matters involved too?) (how did DSS get involved with the young men to start with?)

It gets more interesting:

Key provisions of agreement not met

The [Workforce Development] division has not complied with key provisions of the division’s cooperative agreement with DSS for management of the program. The division did not prepare any of the required reports because the computer software used to manage the program does not maintain the information necessary or the reports were not available in it. DSS staff has been compiling this information from manual records.   (it goes on to say they hope this was corrected by 2005).

In addition, program officials lacked data on job related training by participants because of software limitations. Division program officials said software revisions expected to be operational by spring 2005 will address these problems.

The payments to participants depend on participating in training, right?  WHICH program officials?  Sounds like a case of “blame the software” to me.  why transfer to a department which didn’t have the wherewithal to maintain enough information to report on it?

(VIOLATION OF CONFIDENTIALITY OF USER DATA)

Access to program information in the division’s computer tracking program was not limited to individuals associated with the program as required by the cooperative agreement. As a result, about 1,800 system users had access to confidential data on program participants. Only 24 of these users should have had access to PFS program information, according to division staff. Division officials were unaware of this problem and corrected it once we reported it to them.   {{how long between the time the auditor reported to division officials and the compromise of confidential data?}}

In the detailed section (page 5) of this same topic, it reads:

Data access not restricted

Access to program information in the division’s computer tracking program was not limited to individuals associated with the program. As a result, about 1,800 system users had access to confidential data on program participants. Only 24 of these users should have had access to PFS program information, according to division staff. The computer software storing the program information is also used by other training program staff.8 The cooperative agreement requires information maintained for the program be kept confidential and only accessible by individuals with a legitimate professional “need to know.” Our review determined all users with system access had rights to view and change PFS participant information, including authorizing payments.

Want to see who is in footnote 8?  

Other programs using the same computer software as the Parents’ Fair Share program include the Career Assistance Program, the Missouri Employment and Training Program, the Veteran’s training program, the Workforce Investment Board, the Full Employment Council and various vocational technical training programs throughout the state.

! ! !

The information in the fathers’ files probably also tied to the mothers’ information, including potentially where they lived (supposed a R.O. was on?) and what her income level was, and subjected her / them to potential harassment or even danger, or having — without their knowledge — a mis-use of social security numbers or other potential fraud.  I hate to bring this up, but we have found cases like this, repeatedly, surrounding the child support system.

! ! !

There’s more.  The whole report (not that long) is HERE and I’m not page-citing every quote:

Participants may receive financial assistance from the program for three activities: training, transportation-related expenses, and work-related expenses. Since July 2003, there is no limit to the amount that may be paid for training.3  [Under DSS there was a yearly $2,000 limit for training.]

. . .

Missing validation checks include:

• Identification of payments being authorized for overlapping time periods. This check ensures a participant is not paid for the same day more than once.

A limit to the number of days paid for transportation-related expenses to no more than the number of days in the pay period. This check ensures the pay period may not be from May 1, 2004 to May 5, 2004 when the payment is for 10 days.

Identification of payments being authorized for individuals no longer active in the program.

The payment mailing address does not have to be the address on record for the program participant. Approval or review should be required for any change of the mailing address for payments. Currently, a program workforce specialist can change the mailing address without notifying anyone of the change.

And . . . (on page 8)

Expenditure review process is needed

Division program supervisors performed limited or no review of transportation-related expenses and work-related expenses during fiscal year 2004 because division procedures did not require it. Transportation-related expenses and work-related expenses nearly tripled from $59,000 in fiscal year 2003 to $169,000 in fiscal year 2004.11     Most of the transportation-related expenditures occurred in the last seven months of fiscal year 2004.

No limit to training expenses, which includes transportation.  OK, this was taken advantage of:

OK, roughly speaking — $60K/12 months = $5K per month (for the program).   Versus $170K /7 months = +/- $24K/month in 2004.  It more than tripled, then it almost quintupled.  So much for not monitoring!

Our analysis of transportation-related expenses disclosed one program workforce specialist approved 25 percent of all transportation-related expenditures during fiscal year 2004. Our review of nine case files selected for this employee disclosed he approved transportation-related expenses12 that a program participant reported occurred on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

It’d be nice to get a name…..

This program workforce specialist said when he received work search logs, which documented transportation-related expenses, he did not review them closely and did not check the accuracy by contacting some of the businesses reported. He said he only glanced at the number of days on the log and entered the transportation-related expenses payment information into the computer system. He also said he authorized payments for the majority of his cases for the maximum transportation-related expenses possible and tried to pay as much as possible.

. . .

Division personnel have not attempted to track participant success rates.  

…Then what was the purpose of the program, if not participant success?  to pay participants as much as possible, whether or not expenses were valid?

 

CONTRAST THIS AUDIT WITH THE LANGUAGE OF THE MDRC-moderated review.  Consider how many foundations went into pushing the PFS.  What does “Parents’ Fair Share” MEAN, anyhow?  

Now ask why the public should be doing this.  The purpose of the project was to get some participant success.  Money from it (and the report from MO shows how much) came from TANF.   That money might have been better spent on food for the fathers’ kids than inflated transportation expenses.  What a screwup!

Here is “Prison Talk – Parents’ Fair Share”  Listen to these women talking about how it works with their ex’s or boyfriends on the inside and knowing about PFS and trying (having power of attorney for this) to get the state to stop running up someone’s arrears while he’s incarcerated — or, knocking it down to $1 a month.   Totally different perspective… It’s in Missouri DOC, also:

Not sure what I can do besides call parents fair share and talk with them, but has anyone helped their loved one with this? I know my ex as soon as he got locked up got his child support payments dropped to $1 and he never paid me anything to begin with.My husband on the other hand has been paying child support and has incurred $2500. in back child support since he has been locked up. They havent set him up on the $1 per month like he has requested. Now they just took all the money he had on his books and will continue to do so until it is all paid. Anyone ever heard of them making the $1 per month retroactive? and returning the money. Yeah I thought that would make most of you laugh. I am so frustrated. Everythig was going so smoothly I guess satan had to find his way in and mess something up. So husband is cranky and I have to hear it (which is better than someone annoying him and him taking it out on them!!) Anyways just thought I would see if any of you wonderful ladies had some insight on this before I go calling them tomorrow!Thanks!
http://www.dss.mo.gov/cse/pfs/index.htm866-313-9960 #2 will transfer you to DFS customer service. They will require a power of attorney in order to speak with you. You will have to fax it to them then call them back in 5 business days. They are open 7am to 6pm. You do have to explain to them that his INCOME DECREASED TO $8.50 a month or whatever they have him set up with. They will tell you that prison/jail is not sufficent to reduce payments, but they will tell you that through a letter and it takes forever to go back and forth so it is best to talk about the income decrease. (They will know why without you even telling them). This is as far as I have gotten so far. And will update when something else comes to light!

Here are some more official descriptions of the PFS program over the years (not just MO and not just 2004)

http://www.researchforum.org/project_findings_35.html  I notice that Abt Associates was the subcontractor.

PARENTS’ FAIR SHARE like many other “FATHERHOOD PROGRAMS” — their funding is obviously not dependent upon their effectiveness, as the Missouri Audit of Parents Fair Share shows.

ANYHOW, near the top, I mentioned a Georgia Superior Court Judge on the CJJDP, right?  (Judge Adele Grubbs of Cobb County)

As to (last post) Jeffrey Regier, Wikipedia shows that prior to his time in Oklahoma (spearheading the OMI) adn Florida (Causing Voice of Freedom to protest and speculate why Gov. Jeb Bush didn’t fire the rascal — and in which it develops that the Oklahoma Governor Keating just happened to have sat on the board of a group getting a work contract which Regier had some influence on, and then back to HQ, on the board of the HHS ASPE (where a glowing report on the OMI was written, with Regier as the main HHS official on the document) — he too had a connection with this DJJDP:

He is named by Bill Coffin (then “Special Assistant for Marriage Education,” now apparently getting more help to sell HIS curriculum package, as well as referring business to former grantees, like Dennis Stoica, etc.) — as instrumental in the “Healthy Marriage Initiative”

MARRIAGE.GOV -a PROMISING PUBLIC POLICY

Bill Coffin Special Assistant for Marriage Education, US HHS/ACF (undated; we can guess at least post-2006….)

This paper will summarize the Healthy Marriage Initiative (HMI). The HMI was begun in 2002 to help couples who have chosen marriage for themselves gain greater access to marriage education services, on a voluntary basis, where they can acquire the skills and knowledge necessary to form and sustain a healthy marriage. The initiative/public policy has been run by the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

This 2001 declaration by then-HHS man, Wade Horn, is dishonest:

Often when discussing the HMI, Wade Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of the Administration for Chil- dren and Families, would add that this initiative is not about coercing anyone to marry or remain in unhealthy relationships; withdrawing supports from single parents, or diminishing, either directly or indirectly, the important work of single parents; stigmatizing those who choose divorce; limiting access to divorce; promoting the initiative as a panacea for achieving positive outcomes for child and family well-being; running a federal dating service; or an immediate solution to lifting all families out of poverty.

It is doing most of the above, especially the first two!

Just in case we are unclear, yes, it is taking from TANF– The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act specifically and intentionally exempted marriage & fatherhood promotion from TANF requirements (i.e. the services are actually for needy families)

What are the “allowable activities” in the 2005 legislation that reauthorized the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Program?

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-171), amends Title IV, Section 403(a)(2) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 603(a)(2)) and authorizes competitive funding for demon- stration projects that promote healthy marriages through any of the following programs or allowable activities  (and, see at this link, chart showing which parts of HHS jumped on this exception):

Mr. Coffin cites CHMC (which got its corporate status suspended) as a stellar example of marriage education:  “

In 2006 The California Healthy Marriages Coalition (CHMC) received $11.9 million, the largest grant ever awarded by HHS/ACF in support of Healthy Marriages.

2nd up for congratulations is the OMI:

The Oklahoma Marriage Initiative began approximately eight years ago and serves as a national program model of programmatic design and delivery. The OMI currently offers training in two curricula: the Prevention and Relationship Enhancement Program (PREP), which targets couples in a workshop setting; and Within My Reach (WMR), which targets singles. The OMI designed and completed the first comprehensive statewide survey on marriage, and has been featured in The New Yorker, The Boston Globe, the Houston Chronicle, and The New York Times

and thanks are due to — here’s a nice Who’s Who of the list of (cronies). By now, we should recognize many of these names.

In addition to benefiting from a supportive President, this initiative was possible in 2002 because of an accumulated body of work, writings, conferences and websites contributed by policy makers, researchers and practitioners, including: Wade Horn, Ph.D., Assistant Secretary of ACF; Chris Gersten, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of ACF; Diane Sollee, Founder and Director of The Coalition of Marriage, Family and Couples Education (“CMFCE,” SMARTMARRIAGES.COM in other words); David Blankenhorn, Founder and President of The Institute for American Values; David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead, Co-Directors of The National Marriage Project; Governor Keating, Jerry Regier, Howard Hendrick and Mary Myrick [PSI] in Oklahoma; Robert Rector and Pat Fagan of the Heritage Foundation; Maggie Gallagher and Linda Waite, co-authors of The Case for Marriage**; Ron Haskins, Brookings Institution; Theodora Ooms, CLASP; Bob Lerman, Urban Institute; Scott Stanley and Howard Markman of PREP; Mike McManus, Co-Founder of Marriage Savers; the work of Fragile Family researchers**; the early work of The National Extension Relationship and Marriage Education Network; David and Vera Mace, Founders of The Association for Couples in Marriage Enrichment (ACME); Julie Baumgardner, Executive Director of First Things First (TN) ; Jeff Kemp, President of Families Northwest; Ron Mincy at Columbia University; and others.

**funded by the Ford Foundation, and others….

Good Grief!!  Linda Waite’s group in Colorado is/began as an abstinence promotion group, has a scandalous incorporation record (which I tracked), and was at one time called “WAIT” training (pun on the name, much?), had partial association with a kill-the-gays movement in Uganda, and just happens to be in on the in crowd, evidently.  They got grants in 2011, under “Center for Relationship Education” which name change, I can’t find actually happened legally in Colorado.

If the Marriage Initiative couldn’t happen right without these individuals, then we should be aware of who they are, how they act, and what they are doing, to this day.

. . .I just found out that former Gov. Keating of Oklahoma is Roman Catholic, went to a Tulsa Prep School, Georgetown, was an FBI employee and is a member of a duckhunters group which has many politicians on it (including former Pres. Bush).  The last may be less than relevant, the first three items, in this context, are.

High School: Cascia Hall Preparatory School, Tulsa, OK (1962)
University: BA History, Georgetown University (1966)
Law School: JD, University of Oklahoma College of Law (1969)

Cascia Hall (when he attended) was all-male accepting boarders (til 1986); it is Augustinian and located on a 40-acre campus in the Middle of Tulsa.  It began admitting females in 1986.  Not that most readers aren’t aware of Georgetown, but a few unique facts (from wikipedia, where else):     Founded in 1751, the city of Georgetown substantially predated the establishment of the city of Washington and the District of Columbia. Georgetown retained its separatemunicipal status until 1871, when its city charter was revoked by the United States Congress.

The area reached the height of fashionability when Georgetown resident John F. Kennedy was elected president. Kennedy lived in Georgetown in the 1950s as both a Congressman and a Senator. Parties hosted by his wife, Jackie, and many other Georgetown hostesses drew political elites away from downtown clubs and hotels or the upper 16th Street corridor. Kennedy went to his presidential inauguration from his townhouse at 3307 N Street in January 1961.

Georgetown is now one of the most affluent neighborhoods in Washington and home to many of the city’s politicians and lobbyists. Current inhabitants include Massachusetts Senator John Kerry, past Washington Post Editor Ben Bradlee, Washington Post Watergate reporter and current assistant managing editor Bob Woodward, former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Montana Senator Max Baucus, among others. High-end developments and gentrification have revitalized Georgetown’s formerly blighted industrial waterfront. The District’s old refuse incinerator and smokestack, preserved for years as an abandoned but historic landmark, was redeveloped in 2003 to become the most pronounced feature of a new Ritz-Carlton Hotel.[30] Georgetown is home to a variety of luxury retailers and boutiques.

The Governor had a fine education, no doubt, and a very privileged and male-centric one in a male-centric religion from Prep School (all-male) through the completion of of a B.A.  Georgetown is  Jesuit University right in Washington, D.C., (and an excellent one, obviously):

Aerial Shot of Campus

Georgetown is the oldest Catholic and Jesuit institute of higher learning in the United States. Jesuits have played a significant role in the growth and evolution of Georgetown into a global research university deeply rooted in the Catholic faith. Georgetown’s Jesuit tradition also promotes the university’s commitment to spiritual inquiry, civic engagement, and religious and cultural pluralism. The Jesuits are members of the Society of Jesus, an international religious community which was founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola in the 16th century. Today, Jesuits continue to enrich the university through their work as scholars, researchers, administrators, chaplains and counselors.

This absolutely has to be taken into account when considering a man who became Governor and decided that it was all right to skip the legislature to push for marriage (odd, given the celibacy that Catholic priests still are supposed to maintain, and over which major schisms have happened (see Archbishop Stallings .. .. !)

Given the religious makeup of Oklahoma, it seems interesting to have a Catholic Governor — here’s a breakdown, showing the Southern Baptists have the Catholics about 9 to 1, and Jews can forget it (they’re outnumbered — among people who claim any religion) 10 to 1.  This also is revealing in why OK might just be a GREAT place to force a marriage initiative statewide.  (It also makes me wonder whether the high divorce rate, the predominance of “women submit” Southern Baptists (in fact most Evangelical Protestants qualify  as such), and high poverty rate just might be related.  That’s just speculation:

Evangelical Protestant groups predominate in Oklahoma with adherents representing about 41.4% of the total population in 2000. This group was influential in keeping the state “dry”—that is, banning the sale of all alcoholic beverages—until 1959 and resisting legalization of public drinking until 29 counties voted to permit the sale of liquor by the drink in 1985.

The leading Protestant group in 2000 was the Southern Baptist Convention with 967,223 adherents. Other leading Evangelical Protestant denominations include the Assemblies of God, 88,301 adherents; the Churches of Christ, 83,047; the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), 53,729; . . .

(extremely controlling denominations, I’ve had experience with the second & third listed and known a middle-aged single adult male who felt he had to ask permission to switch churches from the pastors of both old and new.  From my acquaintance with the guy, he probably knew more Bible than either one of them, too.  One thing about “walking by the spirit” groups — there’s hardly a appeal to law or scripture outside of leadership choices….  The Southern Baptists (just a reminder) was the convention that former President Jimmy Carter and his wife felt they had to leave – based on their views towards women.

Which apparently Jeffrey Regier — who’d obtained high (cabinet) authority in the state government — shared…

and the Christian Churches, 42,708. Free Will Baptists, Nazarenes, Missouri Synod Lutherans, and those of various other Pentecostal traditions are also fairly well represented. The largest Mainline Protestant denominations are the United Methodist Church, with 322,794 adherents, and the Presbyterian Church USA, with 35,211 adherents. In 2000, there were 168,625 Roman Catholics, 6,145 Muslims, and about 5,050 Jews throughout the state. About 39.2% of the population did not claim any religious affiliation.

Oral Roberts, a popular minister, has established a college and faith-healing hospital in Tulsa, and his “Tower of Faith” broadcasts by radio and television have made him a well-known preacher throughout the United States.

HERE’s a 2002 blog (posting a news article) on the pivotal influence of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative, referencing many of the above people, and Regier, and acknowledging that Wade Horn was indeed present at the 1999 Governor and First Lady’s Conference launching this statewide initiative.  The article is written pretty well:

The Ross News – February 28, 2002:  The Oklahoman

. . .In the White House budget plan sent to Congress last week, the Bush administration offered no new money to encourage job advancement. However, it proposed more than $100 million for experimental programs aimed at encouraging women on welfare to get married, The Associated Press reported.

Two years ago, Keating became the first governor in the nation to set aside Temporary Assistance for Needy Families funds to strengthen marriages and reduce the divorce rate. Those funds are block grants provided to each state through the 1996 welfare reform act.

Fortifying marriages was a major goal of welfare reform, but few states have acted on it, said Ron Haskins, senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and former staff director of the U.S. House Ways and Means welfare subcommittee.

Nobody has done as much as publicly and conspicuously as Oklahoma has,” Haskins said.

Diane Sollee, founder of the Coalition for Marriage, Family and Couples Education in Washington, said, “All eyes are on Oklahoma, that’s for sure.”

FYI, many healthy marriage grantees incorporate and then going to a conference run by Sollee becomes a deductible expense.  The money and information circulates around as to how to mass-market curricula presented at the conference.  Those profiting the most are those who run the trainings and most of all, probably, any for-profit that gets to — unlike most of us regular people who may be targeted for taking such classes, or our kids may be — utilize pre-existing pubic institutions (such as welfare, child support, and the Department of HHS) + some new institutions they or similarly minded people pushed for or ran (such as Governor’s Offices of Faith-Based Organizations — and there are several — or statewide Fatherhood Commissions, or etc.) to also do, basically similar activities.

Praise for Oklahoma

Now, it appears that President Bush would like other states to follow Oklahoma’s lead.

“I think it’s quite exciting,” administration official Wade Horn said of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative. “I think Governor Keating has shown real leadership and creativity on this issue, and we’re looking forward to seeing the results.”

Some Leadership.  He followed HHS directives and his Cabinet Member and NFI advocates, and (as prompted strongly by them, it seems) “Creatively” stole TANF moneys directed towards children in needy households in one of the lowest-income states in the union and pushed it towards marriage promotion instead.  It already mentioned that one potential reason for the high divorce rate was Oklahomans marrying too early!  So, to solve this, — marry them off MORE?

Testifying last year before a congressional subcommittee (the link in my last post I think), Jerry Regier, Keating’s former health and human services secretary, said Oklahoma spends millions on foster care, child abuse and neglect investigations, adoption, out-of-wedlock births, juvenile delinquency and many other problems. Regier characterized those problems as “primarily… the result of either families not forming through marriage in the first place or because of absent parents due to divorce.”

And not of course of lack of viable options outside welfare for single mothers.  Regier was formerly President of the very, very conservative Family Research Council, too, one of whose board members (as I said) includes the mother of the man behind the notorious Blackwater (militia, Iraq, etc.)

Horn, former president of the National Fatherhood Initiative, spoke at the Oklahoma conference on marriage hosted by the governor and First Lady CathyKeating in March 1999. As assistant secretary for children and families in the U.S. Health and Human Services Department, he’s a key figure in efforts . . . . (etc.)

And pushing for covenant marriages, too….

Since 1997, three states – Arizona, Louisiana and Arkansas – have passed covenant marriage laws.

Under such laws, couples can choose a covenant marriage license or a standard marriage license.

A covenant marriage license requires premarital classes, mandates counseling for marital problems and makes it more difficult for a couple to divorce. On the other hand, a couple with a standard marriage license can skip the counseling and divorce for virtually any reason.

This is starting to remind me of problems in Coptic Ethiopia  . . .  .

MEANWHILE, “The Democratic Underground” gave Jerry Regier (now in Florida) spot #1 in the Top 10:

The Top Ten Conservative Idiots (No. 81)
August 26, 2002
Biblical Spanking Edition

Some top quality shenanigans in the world of conservative idiocy force Dubya from his number one position this week, although the Chump-in-Charge does manage two more entries this week at numbers 4 and 10. But this week’s top slot is reserved for Jerry “Biblical Spanking” Regier, Florida’s new head of the Department of Children and Families. Nice. Nudging up against Jerry Regier’s mudflaps we find Bob Barr (2) to whom we can only say, “You lost! Get over it!” And man, does it feel good to say that. Elsewhere, Judy Woodruff (5) is now having her TelePrompTer fed directly from the White House – no, she really is – and the head of Miami-Dade’s Christian Coalition, Antonio Verdugo (8), is just a big ol’ fraud (allegedly). Enjoy, and as usual, here’s the key.

1Jerry Regier religious nut religious nut
Florida’s Department of Children and Families managed to get on the list last week (see Idiots 80), and now their new boss has made it on – in his first week on the job. Last week Jeb Bush named Jerry Regier to be the new head of the DCF. Hours later it was revealed that Mr. Regier had previously made some, shall we say, “insane” comments. See if you can guess which ones they are!

A) ”biblical spanking [that leads to] temporary and superficial bruises or welts do not constitute child abuse.”

B) Christians should not marry non-Christians.

C) Wives should view working outside the home as ”bondage.”

D) The ”radical feminist movement has damaged the morale of many women and convinced men to relinquish their biblical authority in the home.” The answer? Yep – it’s all of them of course. The man who is to be charged with the welfare of Florida’s children and families thinks that keeping your woman indoors and beating your kids is just the right thing to do.  

 

 

Wikipedia on Jerry Regier (of Oklahoma) a vis a vis the composition of the current Council on Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (see top of this page) can get a little frightening, almost:

 

Gerald P. “Jerry” Regier (born 1945) is an American businessman and politician from Oklahoma who is best known as first President of the Family Research Council.

Regier has previsously served in numerous positions within the Administration of Governor of Oklahoma Frank Keating, including Keating’s Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services (1997–2002). In addition to his service as Secretary, Regier served concurrently as the Executive Director of the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.

Family Research Council

Regier, in cooperation with Dr. James Dobson, founded the Family Research Council, a conservative, Christian right group and lobbying organization, in 1983. Regier served as that organization’s first President from 1984 until 1988. Gary Bauer, a domestic policy advisor under President Ronald Reagan, succeeded Regier as President.

[edit]Federal government career

President Ronald Reagan appointed Regier in 1988 to the National Commission on Children, an advisory body in the United States Department of Health and Human Services on children’s issues. Reagan’s successor,George H.W. Bush, reappointed Regier in 1991. Regier continued to serve on the Commission until 1993.

In 1992, President Bush appointed Regier as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance and as Administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in the United States Department of Justice (DOJ). Regier served in both of those positions until the end of Bush’s term in 1993.

[edit]Keating Administration

[edit]Office of Juvenile Affairs

When RepublicanFrank Keating, a former Reagan Administration official, was elected Governor of Oklahoma in 1995, Keating appointed Regier to serve as the Deputy Director of the newly created Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs (OJA) under Executive Director Ken Lackey. Regier served as Lackey’s principal juvenile justice advisor to Lackey in his position as Keating’s Oklahoma Secretary of Health and Human Services. When Lackey resigned as Executive Director of OJA, Keating appointed Regier as his successor.

[edit]Health Secretary

Lackey served as Health and Human Services Secretary until 1997, when Keating appointed him as his Chief of Staff. Keating appointed Regier to succeed Lackey as Secretary. As Health and Human Services Secretary, Lackey served as Keating’s top health policy advisor and provided oversight to theOklahoma State Department of Health, the Oklahoma Department of Human Services, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services, the Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services, and the Oklahoma Office of Juvenile Affairs.[1]

Regier resigned as Secretary in 2002 to pursue a campaign to succeed the term-limited Keating as Governor of Oklahoma. Keating appointed the head of the Oklahoma Department of Human ServicesHoward Hendrick, to succeed Regier as Secretary.[2][3]

Jeb Bush Administration

When Regier dropped out of the Governor’s race, Keating recommended that Governor of FloridaJeb Bush appoint him the head of the Florida Department of Children and Families. Bush acted on Keating’s recommendation and made Regier his Secretary of Children and Families. He remained in that position until the end of Bush’s term in 2007.[5]

 

 

Don’t mock Wikipedia.  For example, through it I learned of this OJJDP, that:  

The office is headed by an administratorJ. Robert Flores, since April 2002.

As of May 2008, Flores and the OJJDP were under congressional investigation for how $8.6 million was awarded to programs combating juvenile delinquency. The controversy involves money granted to programs with ties to George W. Bush. 10 grants were awarded. The organization, Best Friends Foundation, run by founder and president, Elayne Bennett, wife of William Bennett, ranked 51st out of 104 applications, was awarded $1.1 million over a three year period. The organization promotes self-respect, abstinence and rejection of illegal drug and alcohol use.

Similarly, The World Golf Association, with George H. W. Bush speaking at one of hat group’s functions, was awarded grant money because it was the highest ranked applicant with sports as their primary function. Of the 104 applicants, only one other applicant had a sports bid. A one-year grant of $500,000 was awarded for the organization’s “First Tee” program. The World Golf Association was ranked 47th among all the bids.

Henry Waxman (D-CA) sitting on the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform leads the congressional investigation into wrongdoing.

From the Site of this Committee:

HERE is a copy of his March 2008 letter to the then-Attorney General soliciting information on the Grantmaking processes and stating why:

Responding to concerns raised by Rep. Timothy Walz about questionable practices by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention in awarding grants, Chairman Waxman wrote to Attorney General Mukasey to request documents detailing the grantmaking process at OJJDP:

According to a recent article in the trade publication, Youth Today, recent OJJDP grants have been awarded in a noncompetitive m¿rrner, in some cases with highly ranked applicants rejected in favor of lower ranked competitors.’ In one example described by Youth Today, the OJJDP awarded $500,000 to the World Golf Association, even while its grant proposal was scored lower than that of 38 other applicants in the technical review.

In order to examine these allegations, I request that you provide the Committee the following information :  (etc.)

 

A Congressional Hearing was held (the next June, 2008) on this, and I’ve linked to some documents.  The opening letter by Sen. Waxman is eloquent and speaks clearly to Mr. Flores’ behavior in ignoring recommendations (scoring of applicants) by his own staff to grant certain organizations, and detaling of their connections to the (Bush) administration and personal contacts between applicants and Administration prior to getting them.

he Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing titled, “Examining Grantmaking Practices at the Department of Justice” on Thursday, June 19, 2008, in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

The hearing examined how the Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) awarded grants in fiscal year 2007. A preliminary transcript of this hearing is now available.

The following witness testified:

    • Mr. J. Robert Flores, Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention


 (excerpts and better viewed on-line):

  • This Committee has held many hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse in federal contracting. We’ve also held hearings on waste, fraud, and abuse in other types ofprograms, such as crop insurance and workers’ compensation insurance.But we have held few hearings on abuses in federal grants. In 2006, the federal government spent $419 billion on federal contracts. It spent even more – $488 billion – on federal grants. So examination of waste, fraud, and abuse in grant programs is a high priority.
  • Instead, Mr. Flores chose to give the majority ofthe grant funding to five programs that his staffhad not recommended for funding. One was an abstinence-only program. Two were faith-basedprograms. Anotherwasagolfprogram. What’smore,theyappearedtohavespecial access to Mr. Flores that other applicants were denied.
  • Mr. Flores awarded a $1.1 million grant to the Best Friends Foundation, an abstinence- onlyorganization,thatranked53outof104applications. Thecareerstaffwhoreviewedthis application said it was “poorly written,” “had no focus,” “was illogical,” and “made no sense.” Documents provided to the Committee show that while the grant was being developed and competed, Mr. Flores had multiple contacts with Elayne Bennett, the founder and chairman of Best Friends and the wife of Bill Bennett, who worked in the Reagan and Bush Administrations.
  • And Mr. Flores awarded a $1.2 million grant to Urban Strategies LLC, a consulting firm, and Victory Outreach, a “church-oriented Christian ministry called to the task of evangelizing.” This grant application also received a low ranking: 44 out of 104 applications. But the head of Urban Strategies was Lisa Cummins, who formerly worked in the White House Office of Faith Based Initiatives. Documents provided to the Committee show that Ms. Cummins had several high-level meetings with Mr. Flores and other Justice Department officials before and after receiving the grant.
  • On the other hand, the Justice Research and Statistics Association was the top scoring group out of the 104 applicants. It scored a 98 and was universally praised by career employees for its effectiveness and good work. It provides training and technical assistance to state juvenile corrections workers. But it was not selected or funded.
  • There is no question that Mr. Flores had discretion to award grants. He is entitled to use hisexperienceandjudgmentindeterminingwhichgrantapplicationstofund. Buthehasan obligation to make these decisions based on merit, facts, and fairness. And the reasoning for his decision must be transparent and available to the public.
  • Nearly every official the Committee spoke with, including the Justice Department peer reviewers, the civilservice program managers, and the career official in charge ofthe solicitation, told us that Mr. Flores’s approach was neither fair nor transparent. Mr. Flores’s superior, the Assistant Attorney General, told the Committee: “I am for candor and clarity, especially when dealing with the people’s money. And that did not happen. And I am upset that it did not happen
This blog article JUVIENATION  (3/31/2008), commenting on the investigative article that finally got some Congressmen’s attention — and eventually Waxman’s is a good read.
While I mostly research HHS cronyism, this shows that at the top of the heap appointing grants (Flores, in position 2002-2006), was a Bush lackey.
That has not been done, and has no appearance of so being done.

Special Report: OJJDP Grant Making Scandal

July 03, 2008 by Patrick Boyle(Includes related documents) Youth Today’s ongoing coverage of questionable grant making by the U.S. Office of Juvenile Detention and Delinquency Prevention.

Flores’ Chief of Staff pleaded the Fifth Amendment during the Oversight Hearing!
NOW — if someone will do a similar series for the HHS as well
We may just have another shot a real justice in this country!

“TAGG” you’re It: CFDA 93.086 Grantees– Let Me Count The Ways (to distribute $121,077,648 on the same old theme, re-shrinkwrapped)…

with one comment

Reader Warning:

Format of these posts — I am simply researching (looking up) as I go, and posting what I find, with commentary.  There is a narrative.  If you want the list of the grants in question, scroll down to the bottom.

Topics in this post include:

  • Criticism of TAGGS database & data entry of these grants.  (misspelling of project names, in particular)
  • Simple instructions, however, on how to run basic reports from it.
  • Proof that USASpending.gov & TAGGS do not match, USASPending either omits real grants, or HHS fabricates (over-reports).   Any thorough look would require using both of them, checking the nonprofit registrations (on a nationwide databse if possible), checking state corporate & nonprofit registration, and comparing with what their websites say, particularly about the history of the company.  Lastly, who is on the board of directors (and what else have those people been up to / associations), and if you actually look at the 990, this tells where they are reporting the money flow.  In a very real sense, unless we have looked at a nonprofit’s 990 form, we really don’t know them.
  • I looked up one particular “Fatherpood” grant, and the umbrella D.C. organization that goes with it.
  • Extensive section discussing some leading personalities in the socialization of America:  Organizations  Children’s Defense Fund (Marian Wright Edelman), “Stand For Children Leadership Center” (DC nonprofit) including its leader Jonah Edelson, background of one corporation (Bright Horizons) and one or tow individuals (Jill Iscol) on the board, and Geoffrey Canada/Ron Mincy (who have worked on similar projects).
  • The background organization, really, behind HEAD START (Bank Street College of Education, basically).   This came up when looking at Jill Iscol’s background.
  • I point out, as the history shows, that if one is going to promote theories about how children learn and “early childhood education,” one needs children to test them on — this is one reason it’s so common to find a child care center near a “family studies institute” or (Cornell) “Family Development Center” — at the university level.
  • Historic figures behind this include Patty Smith Hall (unmarried, not a parent, and apparently not heterosexual); Lucy Sprague Mitchell, Harriet Johnston (I may be misspelling names  – they are below), and others characterized as a “bunch of intellectuals” out of Greenwich Village.
  • What I saw — and have been seeing for months/years in this process – is that the desire to control the training of young children, is indeed the desire to control and reform the world, and should be dealt with accordingly by people with enough humility and perspective to understand, this is not appropriate for anyone.  Particularly in the U.S..
  • What I would call some very unique, if very questionable, studies being done (now, through HHS system) on children in attempts to stop child abuse — and/or predict their “socio/emotional outcomes.”  Quite frankly, I’ve had enough of this; it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
  •  

    And finally, at the bottom, is another printout of a Grant Series.  The post is raggedy and scraggledy (with long incomplete expressive sentences, sometimes missing a predicate) — but I am going to post it anyhow.  I believe the information is interesting enough for someone of similar interests to grab part of it, and do his/her own lookups.

    Personally, I believe that untold numbers of the HHS grantees are simply front operations, that enable money laundering.  I say this because they cannot maintain a corporate name very long, have multiple people, for example, on a central (umbrella or founding) organization board — and then these people form splitoff nonprofits (sometimes also getting HHS grants) — under their names, and the various groups refer to each other (as if independence existed) to further boost their image.  That, FYI, is an AFCC pattern through and through.  One of the chief groups that led me to come right out and say this was the “California Healthy Marriage Coalition” (CHMC) — which hails to San Diego County, Southern California  + Sacramento Healthy Marriage Project?” – -hailing to Sacramento, Northern California.   These guys are absolutely unbelievable.  Check the street addresses and personnel.  San Diego & Sacramento (State Capitol).  Watch out!

    Over time, the chronological development of the groups — and their ever-changing rhetoric (exhibiting planning, as one phrase gets discredited, another is in the wings and in the works.  Right now, it’s “relationship skills” near the forefront, but Parenting Coordination appears to have been legislated in many states, which is bad news for good Moms, for sure.

     

    OK, HERE WE GO:

    The structure & contents of site “TAGGS” is a real window into what US policymakers think of the commoners, i.e., those who work for hourly wages with taxes deducted upfront to fund social science research — much of it “discretionary” “demonstration” and allegedly “new” grants.   Another commentary on what someone thinks of the “commoners” is how careless, incomplete, and inaccurate — that’s not including the intentionally obscure and deceptive facets also.   It is an appearance only of “transparency.”

    The 2011 Total of CFDA 93.086 (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood) grants, per this site (run just now) is:

    CFDA Prog. No. OPDIV Popular Title Number of Award theses Number of Award Actions CAN Award Amount
    93.086 ACF Healthy marriage Promotion and Responsible Fatherhood Grants 164 178 $121,087,642

    I have been running searches (of all types) on this website for most of the time I’ve blogged here.  It should be telling details of how public money, allocated to the Health and Human Services Department, is being spent, and on whom.  So many of the marriage, fatherhood, AND “domestic violence prevention” organizations, when closely examined, are not even legitimate — their incorporation status is lost in one state, and they simply head off to another, networking through the usual court-related associations set up years ago.

    I believe a general overview of specific grant series  paint  a picture, even if one doesn’t study all the details (although groups local to you, I’d want to!).   For example, look at the project name of this first sample (the rest, below):

    (would display with the navy-blue header row, except I pasted, rather than “dragged” the info onto the blog.  Same source as above).

    Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0050 FATHERS COURT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 543,906 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 543,906

    WTHell is a “Fathers Court”?   Is there a Corresponding Mothers’ Court?   Should we then eliminate the concept of “Children’s Court”?   (that won’t happen — the word “children” in almost any combo is a huge grants draw….).   Can we separate  childless couples into a “Marriage Court”?   And, if so, why should all the unmarried and childless, (or they raised kids without going through family court hell, and are continuing to contribute to society, while this system allows, almost indiscriminately, group after religious or simply elitist group, to skim the profits, collected via the IRS and supplemented by large corporations or foundations (Ford, Annie E. Casey, etc.)?

    FK sounds like a new series.  For the record, here’s the nationwide total of the “FK” series a quick TAGGS run for 2011 only:  to run this (takes seconds, only) is easy:

    • Go to http:///TAGGS.hhs.gov
    • Click on the DropDown menu tab, “Search by AWARD keyword or  number.”   It should look about like this, or at least have these 3 fields:
    Fiscal Year:

    Select one or all from Fiscal Year. The current calendar year will be searched by default.

                       ALL               2012           2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006           2005           2004           2003           2002           2001           2000           1999           1998           1997           1996           1995

    Award Keyword:

    Enter a keyword in the Award Title. If left blank, all award titles will be searched. Special characters are not permitted.

    Award Number:

    Enter an Award Number. If left blank, all award numbers will be searched. Special characters and spaces are not permitted.

    • Select year – -and FYI, you can also type in a partial “Award#” — I do this all the time to get a feel what that grant series is.  In this case, I chose Award # “90FK” and year 2011, then hit “search.”  Searching by Award “keyword,” even if you typed in simply “Fatherhood” would miss  a number of $1 million+ grants, simply because (this seems an ingrained TAGGS data entry “tic” it’s so commonplace…..) the word “fatherhood” is often misspelled on this database!
    SEE?
    Recipient: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63158
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0052 FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD  1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,530,190 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,530,190
    Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330
    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0054 DC FATHERHPOOD EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,533,518 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,533,518

    Notice, both of those are $1.5 million grants, and from groups that have been around for a while.  Whoever, the 2nd one above (DC zip code) is, this is their total grants since 2006:

    Total of all award actions: $ 4,033,518


    Showing: 1 – 6 of 6 Award Actions

    They got $500K per year (2006,7,8,9,10) on a “90FR” grant, and this year, switched to receiving a “90FK,” with triple the amount and a fancier project name — misspelled.   Let’s hope that whoever is entering these names isn’t also entering information that involves a decimal point on accounts receivable or payable for our government.  More likely, someone is being pressured (too much) to help cover up the abuse & mis-use of these funds, by making them harder to track by names.  (recall that the last series of 90FM names had ALL the Principal Investigator last names omitted (the “FN” field was doubled).   Either this or there is NO proofreading or fact-checking in the Taggs submission process whatsoever — not too encouraging, considering the amount of money they are reporting on.

    I’ve done data entry (and AR/AP before) and had I messed up that many words (and obviously failed to spellcheck, or had spellcheck function consistently set to “off”), I’d lose my job.  As you can see, I haven’t been working in government.   (Disclaimer:  this blog is volunteer, and I do not spellcheck, or copyedit and have a post explaining this, and why).

    Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou  Washington DC 20001-4330 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 012901240 $ 1,533,518

    If I took this number over to USASPENDING.gov, no doubt we’d get a different total, even if selecting grants only & HHS only.  I do not know what result would com if (this would be another step) I went to Washington DC and checked their incorporation, or NCCSDataweb.org and looked for a nonprofit filing.  (not today…)

    Oh well — since you insisted — here’s the data:

    http://dccollaboratives.org/

    Read the description:  This is a 501(c)3 of 501(c)3′s. . .

    Our Mission

    The Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council (HFTCCC) brings together community leaders to create and sustain a District-wide network that empowers families and communities to improve their quality of life.

    Perhaps it would be wiser to figure out what “disempowered” families, including mothers, — confront it, and stop it.  As Washington, D.C. is one of the most powerful places on the planet (not including the centers of Finance…), in one of the formerly? most powerful countries in the world, one wonders how, when, and why it became filled with such disempowered families.  Apparently there was a power grab somewhere along the way.  Address that — and families will be more empowered.

    {{Judging by the HHS funding, the word “families” means “fathers” which is common usage among grantees.]]

    We are a 501(c) (3), organization that provides leadership, advocacy, resource development, technical assistance, and training to the six Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaboratives. The six Collaboratives are independent nonprofit organizations that operate across the District of Columbia in communities facing intergenerational economic, social and safety challenges. Since the mid 1990s, the Collaboratives supported by the Collaborative Council, have joined with community members – residents and institutions alike – to re-weave the social fabric. Each community solution is tailored to the needs of the community with Collaboratives and their partners offering a range of unique services and supports to children and families.

    If they are being trained — and the purpose of most HM/FR grantees can be summarized in one word:  TRAINING — then they are not independent, but just have the appearance of it, any more than your local county child support agency is independent of the others, rather than connected also at the HHS/ACF/OCSE level and by welfare law….

    [[After describing a forum to report results, based on surveys...]]

    Attending the forum to respond to the data presented were Beatriz “BB” Otero, deputy mayor for Health and Human services; Deborah-Portia Usher, interim director,Child and Family Services Agency; HyeSook Chung, executive director, DC Action for Children; and Elizabeth Black, senior associate, Center for the Study of Social Policy.

    Deputy Mayor Otero said that city agencies and community-based organizations must do more to support at-risk families.

    The street address exactly matches the “DC Children’s Trust,” and, for example, a Parent Training center for adoptive & foster parents.  

    1112 11th Street, NW
    Suite B
    Washington, DC 20001

    The DC Children’s Trust’s mission is (per its Facebook summary).

    he mission of the D.C. Children’s Trust Fund is to foster the well-being of the District’s children and their families by leading the way toward the prevention of child abuse and neglect. The Trust serves as a catalyst for prevention efforts by leveraging private and governmental resources, providing resources and technical assistance to community-based organizations, schools, and churches to strengthen families and thereby reduce the risk of child abuse. A major objective of the Trust is to define and develop standards for primary prevention for the D.C. community at-large.

    Clearly, the standards emphasize getting promoting responsible fatherhood grants in order to teach groups how to prevent child abuse (cf.  Footloose in Tuscaloosa post).  This, FYI, is national policy, OCSE /Welfare policy and at some level, could be called HHS policy.  In order to prevent abuse of children by fathers & mothers, train fathers and get them back in the homes.  Period.  Children’s Trusts help direct funding, they are often public/private partnerships.  Under “products” ( a long list) I see “Parents Anonymous Grant,” which I recently blogged, right?  (cf.  “Circle of Parents” is basically a NFI mouthpiece; the work together).

    At the same address is:

    NOTICE — 1996 = established right after welfare reform made father-promotion grants available, block grants to the states (and presumably DC) to enable diversionary programs as a long-term solution to end poverty and child abuse.  

    History

    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, Inc. (ERFSC) was established in 1996 and is one of seven neighborhood based collaboratives in the District of Columbia participating in the Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council. This program, spearheaded by the DC Child and Family Services Agency, received its planning grant in April 1996 and its implementation grant in August 1997.

    ERFSC is also an expansion of the Child Welfare Working Group of the Rebuilding Communities Initiative (RCI) spearheaded by Marshall Heights Community Development Organization. RCI embodies a system reform agenda for which the central goal is the improved and sustained well being of children and families.

    . . . as defined by the same groups….

    ERFSC has operated as an independent stand-alone organization since October 2000. This organization evolved out of a seven (7) year old Child Welfare Initiative funded by the District of Columbia’s Child and Family Services Agency and the Annie E. Casey Foundation in 1996. For the first five (5) years of its inception, the Marshall Heights Community Development Organization, Inc. (MHCDO) provided fiscal agency responsibilities. In October 2000, ERFSC received its 501©3 to serve as an independent non-profit agency.

    Where are the tax returns for the years 2002, 2003-4-5-6 & 7?

    Your query: ( Organization Name: east river family strengthening collaborative , State:“DC” , Zip: None Chosen , EIN: None Chosen , Fiscal Year: None Chosen ) 
    4 matching documents retrieved (4 displayed) 

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2010 $572,817 990 22 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2009 $354,508 990 31 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative DC 2008 $435,198 990 25 52-2277915
    East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Inc. DC 2001 $208,439 990 14 52-2277915

    {There are many directors, and about 3 of them (per 2009 Tax Return) are working 40 hours a week — for nothing.  Only Mae H. Best is paid ($115K), so here is her bio — notice the Youngstown, OH connection:

    Contact ERFSC’s LEAD STAFF:

    Mae H. Best, LICSW (Executive Director) 

    Mae H. Best has served as the Executive Director of ERFSC since June 2001. 

    (Website says they became a separate 501(c)3 in 2000.  Looks like one of the first things that happened thereafter (or the Foundation 990 Finder is wrong) was to not file tax returns for several years.  I will check another source, and retract statement if they show such returns).

    Under her leadership the organization has grown from a budget of a little
    over $700,000 to $4,000,000 which includes contracts with city government agencies 
    as well as foundations. Mae’s previous work has included stints with Child and Family 
    Services Agency as Director of Resource Development and Director of Adoptions; 
    Director of Homes for Black Children at Family and Child Services Agency and Project 
    Coordinator with the National Council on Adoptable Children. Prior to relocating to Washington DC,
    she worked for the Mahoning County Children Services Board in Youngstown, Ohio.
    Mae received her Master’s in Social Work from the University of Illinois and her Bachelor’s
    in Social Services from North Carolina A&T State University. Mae has one son who is
    a Special Education Teacher in the District of Columbia and an R&B artist.

    This article (scroll down) has a paragraph identifying this neighborhood nonprofit as having grabbed some of the “Promise Neighborhoods” funding, which is described, and modeled ? after Geoffrey Canada’s “The Harlem Zone.”

    January 9, 2011 (published in ‘Circle of Philanthropy,’ by By Suzanne Perry)

    Against Tough Odds, a ‘Promise Neighborhood’ in D.C. Gears Up

    The Parkside-Kenilworth neighborhood is just a few miles from Capitol Hill, though it’s unlikely that many members of Congress have ever visited there.

    The neighborhood, tucked away in a far eastern corner of Washington, bears all of the hallmarks of poverty: high rates of crime, teenage pregnancy,single mothers, and unemployment—and low-performing schools.

    To be consistent, this should have been labeled “father absence” which is a cause of poverty, right.  SIngle mothers in different context might not be so poor; however when stuck in a poor enclave right next to Congressional Districts, than something ain’t right, obviously.   The only gender mentioned in association with this list of bad things is female, but I’m sure residents are both female and male….

    But community leaders have embarked on an ambitious project to turn the area around—with help from money that members of Congress approved last year.  Led by Irasema Salcido, an educator who was dismayed at the obstacles that hindered her students from learning, the project snatched one of 21 grants offered by a new federal program called Promise Neighborhoods.

    . . .

    The grants, totaling $10-million, went to communities that outlined plans for providing an array of academic, medical, and social services for children in troubled neighborhoods from “cradle to college”­—a model that was pioneered by Geoffrey Canada, founder of Harlem Children’s Zone, in New York.

    Mr. Canada’s approach has won widespread acclaim, most recently in the documentary film “Waiting for Superman,” and strong support from President Obama, who proposed the Promise Neighborhoods program while still on the campaign trail.

    This should be a separate post.  Mr. Canada – clearly an astounding person

    Geoffrey Canada (born January 13, 1952) is an African American social activist and educator. Since 1990, Canada has been president and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone inHarlem, New York, an organization which states its goal is to increase high school and college graduation rates among students in Harlem.[1] He is a member of the Board of Directors of The After-School Corporation, a nonprofit organization which describes its aim as to expand educational opportunities for all students.

    His parents divorced when he was about 4, with 2 older and 1 younger sibling, and apparently didn’t support the family.  Nevertheless, being sent away to live with his Long Island grandparents in his teens, he went on to be recruited by (win an award from) the Fraternal Order of Masons, and get degrees in Psychology, Sociology, and finally Education, the last from Harvard.  Thank you Mom — I guess you did well! should be a comment, but this is not heard in the publications, is it?

    Born and raised by a divorced mother in the South Bronx, he is the third of four sons of McAlister and Mary Canada. His parents’ marriage ended in 1956, after which his father played little part in the children’s life and did not contribute financial support.[2] Canada was raised among the “abandoned houses, crime, violence and an all-encompassing sense of chaos and disorder,” and understood his life’s calling at an early age. His mother sent him to live with her parents in Freeport, Long Island, when Canada was in his mid-teens.[2] He attended Wyandanch Memorial High School, and won a scholarship from the Fraternal Order of Masons during his senior year of high school.[2] He holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and sociology from Bowdoin College, where he graduated in 1974, and a Master’s degree in education  from the Harvard Graduate School of Education. Canada has an honorary degree from Princeton University.[3]

    Role with the Harlem Children’s Zone

    Starting as president in 1990, Canada started working with the Rheedlen Centers for Children and Families which evolved into the Harlem Children’s Zone. Unsatisfied with the scope of Rheedlen, Canada transformed the organization’s makeup in the late 1990s into a center that would actively follow the academic careers of youths {{both genders??..}} in a 24-block area of Harlem. Due to the success of the new model, the area has grown to 97 blocks.

    (There’s a reason I took time to mention Geoffrey Canada, The Harlem Zone, which relates to another major nonprofit run by the son of Marian Wright Edelman of the Children’s Defense Fund, and which (one can see the trend here) is promoting charter schools hard, and has begun to take some serious flack in a few states by program personnel ramrodding their agenda through, over the voices of local, state-based parents and volunteer workers. ).   Like Ronald D. Mincy (also of Harvard, but in Economics) here is another prominent African-American male leader whose mother MIGHT have done something right (judging by the degrees, and their current position) — and yet their work — which is helping change society — shows an emotional obsession with the absent father, and an inability to properly credit a mother, or recognize that THEIR OWN SUCCESS comes through struggles but with a single mother.  In effect, their work — supported by major foundations which I’ll hazard a guess are not run by any minority whatsoever — (like the Ford Foundation) — has now scapegoated single mothers across the country, and made it not only almost impossible, but also socially unacceptable — and politicially incorrect — to succeed.  Children are being REMOVED from such mothers apparently by the thousands, even when after removal, disaster (death in foster care, or in a court-ordered exchange with the noncustodial parent) often happens.

    Mixing truths, but framing them according to their personal childhood experience, and buoyed up by federal funding and corporate funding — society is indeed being transformed — and what i see is the continued buoying up of the public education which has failed students according to their color, caste, and neighborhoods (which the unequal system will continue to do, although it also fails those in prosperous suburban enclaves in different ways).  We have become (not are becoming) a federally centralized country with a parallel set of government-by-administrative-agency.  This is essentially socialism and foreign to the purpose of the country and the Constitution, to which Presidents must swear an oath to uphold and defend, but don’t.   Any “Cradle to grave” solution focusing on TRAINING — is indeed socialism, and contrary to LIFE (which has more variety, and also a greater variety of personal goals), LIBERTY (consider the economic angle) and PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.   People fork this over when they fail to protest, or even investigate where their own money is being spent.  I did this also — while working FT, raising children, and seeking to keep all of us alive from the imminent danger of, their father.   It took YEARS to get out (after deciding to get out) and then only to face systems putting us back in — and come to find they are based on childhood longing for the father, positioned in Harvard, MIT (see next) and other high places.

    Geoffrey Canada, father-absent resounding success & Harvard (Education) grad, created and expanded The Harlem Zone, and Ronald D. Mincy, father-absent, father-obsessed, Ph.D.’d Harvard (economics) Grad, and director of — well, Logo Below —  of whom this naturally reminded me– apparently conducted a vertical study of the Harlem Zone:

    Dr. Mincy is an advisory board member for the National Poverty Center; the African American Healthy Marriage Initiative; Transition to Fatherhood; the National Fatherhood Leadership Group; the Longitudinal Evaluation of the Harlem Children’s Zone; The Economic Mobility Project, Pew Charitable Trusts; the Mac Arthur Network on Family and the Economy, and Governor Paterson’s Task Force on Juvenile Justice

    Dr. Mincy’s undergraduate and graduate training in economics were at Harvard and M.I.T. He and his wife, Flona Mincy, have been married for more than thirty years and live in Harlem, New York. They have two sons.  (Thank God.  Can you imagine daughters growing up around all that fatherhood policymaking?)

    “The Center for Research on Fathers, Children and Family Well-Being’s mission is to expand the knowledge base on the role of fathers (and father figures) in the lives of disadvantaged children and the processes by which nonresident fathers (and father figures) affect child development and family well-being.”

    Many people ask us about our logo. They wonder why we don’t portray a happy family. We would rather showcase the problem we are trying to solve.

    We wanted to show a strong mother, who believes she is capable of taking care of herself and her family. Whatever her beliefs, she often has no other option. Despite her best efforts, the literature shows that children who grow up in two-parent families are less likely than children in mother-only families to do poorly in school, engage in risky behavior, and exhibit anxiety, depression, and aggressive and withdrawn behavior problems. 

    We wanted to portray a father who is interested in his family but who is ill-prepared to help, unsure if his help is welcome, and unsure about he can be involved.** Although conventional wisdom holds that non-resident fathers are not involved in their children’s lives, the literature shows that at least half of non-resident fathers are involved with their children up to five years of age.

    Are there ways of helping these parents work together to meet their children’s needs?

    That is our question. That is our mission.”

    ** (portion in red) — was this Dr. Mincy’s father?  Is this is hope — that his Dad really wanted to be involved, but there were just too many obstacles to father-involvement?  Is all this really about certain men who ascended to (or were selected & placed, not that they didn’t earn every single degree, but are we allowed to mention the Fraternal Order of Masons (for Mr Canada), are we allowed to mention just how many foundations supported Dr. Mincy?) in VERY influential positions, as the figurehead of the successful black man, who is now — rather than confronting the system-concept which separated families to start with (FYI, it’s called slavery) — and is instead, working for the same TYPE of masters (if not some corporations that went back nearly as far) and doing the same thing to other famlies who share none of their Ph.D. characteristics, and may not even know this has been done to them, and by transforming the welfare system further and further to minimize and curtail “mother-involvement,” ensure that the child support system can be utilized by even mutli-millionaire fathers to separate children from their biological mothers, as well as diverting cash aid to single-mother households by defining success by the number of adult biologically related males in the home?

    Why are we allowing groups like Columbia School of Social Policy, or corporations & foundations — to change the forms of government to figure out HOW to produce desired social results?  This is nothing other than “Wealth-Makes-Right” and those on the top of society got their because God wanted them to, from which the position of “God” can be fulfilled through social design and planning how others will — or will not– live, bypassing the legal systems, for example, in particular, the criminal code.

    Fraternal Order of Masons – interesting…

    Freemasonry refers to the principles, institutions, and practices of the fraternal order of the Free and Accepted Masons. The largest worldwide society, Freemasonry is an organization of men based on the “fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man,” using builders’ tools as symbols to teach basic moral truths generally accepted by persons of good will. Their motto is “morality in which all men agree, that is, to be good men and true.” It is religious in that a belief in a Supreme Being and in the immortality of the soul are the two prime requirements for membership, but it is nonsectarian in that no religious test is used.1 The purpose of Freemasonry is to enable men to meet in harmony, to promote friendship, and to be charitable. Its basic ideals are that all persons are the children of one God, that all persons are related to each other, and that the best way to worship God is to be of service to people.  Masons have no national headquarters as such, but the largest regional is the Scottish Rite Southern Jurisdiction (35 Southern states), which is headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia.

    Although only men (of at least 21 years of age) can be Masons, related organizations are available for their relatives — there is the Order of the Eastern Star for Master Masons and their wives; the Order of De Molay for boys; and the Order of Job’s Daughters and the Order of Rainbow for young girls. The Masonic Lodge has more than a hundred such fraternal organizations, including Daughters of the Nile, The Tall Cedars of Lebanon, The Mystic Order of Veiled Prophets Of The Enchanted Realm, The Knights Of The Red Cross Of Constantine, and The Blue Lodge.

    There’s more . . . .

    Many allegories and symbols are used in Masonry. The old English Constitution refers to an ancient definition of the ancient craft: “Freemasonry is a system of morality, veiled in allegory, and illustrated by symbol,” [Freemason' symbols can be made to mean almost anything a person chooses to make them; Master Masons take an oath, "Ever to conceal, never to reveal."2] It seeks to make good men better through the form of belief in “the fatherhood of God, the brotherhood of man, and the    immortality of the soul.”

    Masonry was originally a means by which people in the occult could practice their “craft” and still remain respectable citizens. The official publication of “The Supreme Council 33″ of Scottish Rite Freemasonry is titled New Age. Some church denominations are also led by avowed Masons. For example, a 1991 survey by the Southern Baptist Convention Sunday School Board found that 14% of SBC pastors and 18% of SBC deacon board chairs were Masons; it is also estimated that SBC members comprise 37% of total U.S. lodge membership. (A 2000 updated SBC report found that over 1,000 SBC pastors are Masons.)

    Hardly surprising — we do remember, right, that former U.S. President severed ties with the Southern Baptist Convention over their treatment — and view– of women.  While I may not agree with what he’s doing instead (joined a worldwide “Council of Elders” — give me a break!), this part is true:

    Jimmy Carter Severs Ties With Southern Baptist Convention: “Many Male Religious Leaders Help Subjugate Women

    Carter: Sexism exhibited by male leaders conflicts “with my belief — confirmed in the holy scriptures — that we are all equal in the eyes of God.”  Please read — because this is happening in the U.S. today.  (article concludes):

    The same discriminatory thinking lies behind the continuing gender gap in pay and why there are still so few women in office in Britain and the United States. The root of this prejudice lies deep in our histories, but its impact is felt every day. It is not women and girls alone who suffer. It damages all of us. The evidence shows that investing in women and girls delivers major benefits for everyone in society. An educated woman has healthier children. She is more likely to send them to school. She earns more and invests what she earns in her family.

    It is simply self-defeating for any community to discriminate against half its population. We need to challenge these self-serving and out-dated attitudes and practices — as we are seeing in Iran where women are at the forefront of the battle for democracy and freedom.

    Other commentary on the authoritarian (or you going to hell) manner of the SBC’s in re: the Carter’s decision.
    More on “The Elders,” first ref. from the article I quoted>

    • Jimmy Carter was US president from 1977-81. The Elders are an independent group of eminent global leaders, brought together by Nelson Mandela, who offer their influence and experience to support peace building, help address major causes of human suffering and promote the shared interests of humanity.

    Meet the Elders’: Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu, Jimmy Carter, Muhammad Yunus and Many More  (Kate Snow, Johannesburg, July 18, 2007)

     Guess they’ll have to contend sooner or later with Sun Myung Moon, the True Parent, who I don’t think was on the list — probably he’s not reall good at sharing leadership .   This one was conceived by “British billionaire Richard Branson and Rock Star Peter Gabriel”  and talks about how, without such piddling matters as “political (i.e., laws), economic (i.e., costs) and geographic (national sovereignty, etc.) constraints” surely this assembly of starpower can fix the world:

    The structures we have to deal with these problems are often tied down by political, economic and geographic constraints,” Mandela said. The Elders, he argued, will face no such constraints. . . .Using their collective experience, their moral courage and their ability to rise above the parochial concerns of nations ? they can help make our planet a more peaceful, healthy and equitable place to live, ” Branson said. ” Let us call them ‘global elders,’ not because of their age but because of individual and collective wisdom.” Calling it “the most extraordinary day” of his life, Gabriel said, “The dream was there might still be a body of people in whom the world could place their trust.”

    Well, the world is fully of nutcase Messiahs, they are found amongst the homeless, and among the ultrarich.  Guess which group probably has done more harm, and been responsible for more human misery, wars, poverty, and genocides, in the long-term?

    A little more detail on Mr. Canda’s life, from “blackpast.org” an on-line encyclopedia.  His mother was a counselor.   He had no sisters…..

    Canada was born on January 13, 1952 to McAlister and Mary Canada in the South Bronx, New York City.  His mother was a substance abuse counselor and his father suffered from chronic alcoholism.  His mother raised him and his three brothers in the South Bronx after she divorced his father in 1956.

    Canada grew up in poverty yet his mother strongly instilled the value of education in him at an early age.  In his teens, Canada was sent to live with his grandparents, both ordained Baptist ministers, in Long Island, New York.  While living with his grandparents, Canada attended Wyandanch Memorial High School where he received the Fraternal Order of Masons scholarship his senior year.   {{SEE above}}

    Canada then enrolled in Bowdoin College in 1970, graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in psychology and sociology in 1974.  A year later he graduated with an M.A. in Education from Harvard Graduate School of Education.  His mother eventually earned her own Master’s degree from Harvard some years later.    

    In addition, Canada has published two books: Fist, Stick, Knife, Gun: A Personal History of Violence in America(1995) and Reaching Up for Manhood: Transforming the Lives of Boys in America (1998).In 1972, Canada married Joyce Henderson and had two children, Melina and Jerry.  They divorced and Canada married Yvonne Grant.  They also have two children, Bruce and Geoffrey, Jr.    [Contributor(s): Jackson, Joelle
    University of Washington, Seattle]
    Are the children from the first wife now fatherless and at risk?

    (VERY) BRIEFLY:  The EDELMANS & CHILDREn’s DEFENSE FUND (1992 interview with Marian Wright Edelman) speaks about her parent’s Baptist past
    ….”her childhood home in Bennettsville, S.C. That was the starting point for the self-assured black girl who would emerge from the segregated South to go to Yale University Law School, create the Children’s Defense Fund and propel herself onto the national scene as an impassioned and relentless champion of needy children and families…. It was in that spirit, to promote continuity, that Mrs. Edelman wrote a little book, a “spiritual and family dowry,” for her sons, Joshua, Jonah and Ezra. She has been married for 24 years to Peter Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University.

    The family values talk is just talk,” Mrs. Edelman said, her voice rising, her words accelerating. “People understand what is real and what is hypocritical. Family and moral values are so central to everything that I am.”

    The daughter of a Baptist minister, Mrs. Edelman writes in her book that “many of the seeds I am still struggling mightily to harvest for children and the poor were planted during my childhood.” Her father gave sermons, she said, “decrying the breakdown of family and community” and “insisting that poverty of things is no excuse for poverty of will and spirit.”

    Being a Baptist still plays an important role in her life. “If I don’t go Sunday morning, I’m not grounded for the week,” she said.

    I don’t know how much readership understands the role of the Children’s Defense Fund in policies around today, or how one of her 3 sons’ work intersects with Mr. Canada’s, at the nonprofit, charterschoolpromotion level.  I am wondering whether she would be OK with the impact of these social programs on real mothers, today:

    Mrs. Edelman met her husband in Mississippi, where she was the first black woman admitted to the bar. She was working as a civil rights lawyer, and Mr. Edelman was researching poverty and hunger for Senator Robert F. Kennedy. Mrs. Edelman and her husband, who is Jewish, raised their sons in the religious traditions of both sides of the family.

    In his introduction to his mother’s book, Jonah, who graduated from Yale last spring (1992) and is now a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford, refers to himself as “a cultural mulatto . . . the sheltered bar mitzvah boy who has struggled with his blackness.” … The Edelmans’ eldest son, 23-year-old Joshua, is a Harvard University graduate who teaches history at the Milton Academy in Milton, Mass. Ezra, 18, is a freshman a Yale.

    . . .

    here have been rumors that Mrs. Edelman, who has worked for years with Hillary Clinton, the past chairwoman of the Children’s Defense Fund, might join the Cabinet if Gov. Bill Clinton becomes President. “I would not,” Mrs. Edelman said, adding that her black friends were urging her to go into Government to increase her power and influence.

    “That is not who I am,” she said. “I need to work outside Government, on my own. I love what I do, and I think I am making a difference.”

    The nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund, which will celebrate its 20th anniversary next year, is widely respected for its lobbying efforts. Its aim is to bring the needs of children to public attention and to encourage preventive efforts in areas like health care and teen-age pregnancy. The fund played an important role in the formulation of the child-care legislation that Congress passed in 1990

    OK — now I will link Jonah Edelman to Geoffrey Canada (finally), through Mr. Edelman’s Wikipedia — and hopefully you will see the connection with these inexorable training grants from HHS — there is an HHS connection in the family line:

    Jonah Martin Edelman (born 9 October 1970) is an Americanadvocate for public education.[1] He is the co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Stand for Children, a national American education advocacy organization based in Portland, Oregon andWaltham, Massachusetts, with affiliates in nine states. He is the first Oregon resident to be awarded an Ashoka: Innovators for the Public fellowship.[2]

    STAND FOR CHILDREN is no ordinary nonprofit — it was set up to be nationwide from the very beginning and to force social transformation.  It is also very well endowed.  Currently, this group is facing off with teachers’ unions, (see “Illinois”) and Mr. Edelman was caught boasting about how he got these unions to give away their rights — although the cause is, “improving public schools” – — right? . . .

    Jonah Edelman is the second son of Marian Wright Edelman, former civil rights leader and aide to Martin Luther King, jr. and founder and president of the Children’s Defense Fund, and Peter Edelman, former aide to Senator Robert F. Kennedy, former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and professor at Georgetown University Law Center.

    Edelman was born and raised in Washington, D.C, and received his B.A. in History with a concentration on African-American studies from Yale University in 1992. Edelman attended Oxford University on a Rhodes Scholarship, earning his Master of Philosophy and Doctor of Philosophy degrees in Politics in 1994 and 1995, respectively.

    He is, essentially, a blueblood acting like a blueblood, i.e., arrogant — taking charge — and rescuing poor people  by redesigning government policy– and insisting it be done “his way” or the highway.  When I say blueblood, we know Marian Wright Edelson’s personal background and commitment, discipline, and values.  Her husband/Jonah’s father qualifies as blueblood (See “Georgetown” and working for RFK), and former assistant Secretary to the DHHS — –    where the fatherhood programs now life — and it appears these were instrumental in some of their beginnings.  And may give a better clue to their actual purposes.

    Edelman cites tutoring a six-year-old bilingual child named Daniel Zayas in reading while volunteering at Dwight Elementary School during his first year at Yale as a turning point.[3] While still an undergraduate, he ran a teen pregnancy prevention speakers’ bureau, co-founded a mentorship program for African American middle school students, and served as an administrator of an enrichment program for children living in public housing-Leadership Education and Athletics in Partnership (LEAP).

    Stand for Children

    Edelman was a key organizer of Stand for Children Day, a June 1, 1996 rally at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C. attended by 300,000 people.[4]   {{KEEP THE LINK…}} Among the speakers at this rally, the largest for children in U.S. history, were Geoffrey Canada, who later became Stand for Children’s first Board of Directors Chair, the editor of Parade Magazine, Walter Anderson, who came up with the name “Stand for Children Day,” and Marian Wright Edelman.

    On June 2, 1996, Edelman and Eliza Leighton founded Stand for Children as an ongoing advocacy organization to support rally participants when they returned home. Hundreds of follow up Stand for Children events and rallies took place across the country on June 1, 1997 and then June 1, 1998.

    Yes, about that rally:

    Education plus politics (about “stand for children’s” role in Denver School Board race) 

    Edelman, the son of Children’s Defense Fund founder Marian Wright Edelman, began Stand in an effort to marry child advocacy and grassroots organizing. “Stand didn’t start off working on public education at all,” he said, noting the 1996 Stand for Children rally from which it grew encompassed many issues.

    The rally, which Edelman worked on at his mother’s request, drew 300,000 people to D.C. for what was the largest rally for children in U.S. history. Stand’s first chapter was founded in Oregon in 1999.

    “It’s really evolved organizationally toward public education based on the fact public education is the most salient and fundamentally important issue of so many issues facing kids,” he said.  Stand’s grassroots approach is similar to those of two other parent groups in Denver, Padres Unidos and Metropolitan Organizations for People or MOP.  But Stand differs in that its members get directly involved in politics – something Padres and MOP, which are non-profit 501(c)3 organizations, can’t do – and it works at the local and statewide levels.

    “We don’t choose cities,” Edelman said when asked about coming to Denver, “we choose states.”

    WE’RE TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE FOUNDERS OF THE MOVEMENTS NOW GOING ON  IN HHS, where “CHILDREN & FAMILIES” precludes speech of individuals, and where leadership is to be followed, not questioned, when it comes to policy.   The intent is to transform the public schools, and if necessary, take on teacher’s unions.  I see an article boasting about how their legislators all one, and several “status quo” legislators lost.  Grassroots advocacy, organization, and funding, right?   Next, there is this one showing alliance / alignment with Mr. Canada.  As I have explained, that also = alignment with the fatherhood prominence, and getting more children into state care than Mom’s care, by combining early childhood education + public school (regular or charter) education, both federal projects, while endorsing — apparently — welfare-diversions (like the HTTC above) to transform certain communities:

    1.  Post-Election Message from Stand’s CEO, Jonah Edelman  (nov. 8, 2010)

    Friends and Colleagues:

    Tuesday’s election saw the emergence of Stand for Children as a multi-state electoral force for students.

    By reaching more than 55,000 targeted voters through grassroots volunteer outreach (five times more than in 2008) and strategically investing more than $1 million (15 times more than in 2008) in Colorado, Washington, Illinois, and Oregon, Stand helped protect an overwhelming majority of the legislators, both Republicans and Democrats, who stood tall for students earlier this year.

    And here’s something else that’s striking: while none of the legislators we backed lost because of their vote to improve educator effectiveness, Stand helped unseat several legislators who voted for the status quo.

    2.  Note from CEO, Jonah Edelman – Inpired by Geoffrey Canada

    November 24, 2010

    Last Thursday, some of you [Stand staff, Board members, Advisory Board members]  were able to join in a conference call where we received a mega-dose of inspiration from Geoffrey Canada, Stand’s first Board chair, founder and CEO of the Harlem Children’s Zone, and one of America’s most prominent education advocates.

    On the call, Geoff generously affirmed Stand’s incredible recent progress and he challenged us to seize this unique moment in time and work with even greater resolve, perspective, and discipline to save all of those “perfectly normal children,” as he described them, who are falling hopelessly behind in school.

    This is grassroots organizing from the top-down, not the bottom-up, and if anything, this organization is ORGANized and visionary; that also apparently runs in the family line, plus (see educations). . . . .   (did they attend local public schools, K-12?) . . . . .  Checking my Nonprofit status — and actually reading a tax return (great way to learn about a group — read their tax returns if possible) — there is a:

    • Stand for Children (oregon nonprofit)
    • Stand for Children Leadership Center, Inc. (Washington, D.C. nonprofit),

    and apparently (per that tax return) a 

    • Stand for Children, Inc. — for profit.

    The (2002) board of SFCLC (DC group) was:

    Stand for Children Leadership Center Board of Directors (from tax return)

    • Who We Are

      Founded in 1986, Bright Horizons Family Solutions is the world’s leading provider of employer-sponsored child care, early education, and work/life solutions. Conducting business in the United States, Europe, and Canada, we have created employer-sponsored child care and early education programs for more than 700 clients, including more than 90 of the Fortune 500.

       

    • CNN description (Money.cnn.com, 2008):  Average pay:  Directors, $54K, teachers, $25K…
    • Headquarters: Watertown, MA
      2006 revenue ($ millions): 698
      Website: www.brighthorizons.com

      Employees
      U.S. employees 14,660
      Employees outside U.S. 1,972

      This corporation (investing in its stock) helped make Tennessee Senator, Lamar Alexander, one of the Top 10 (richest) in 2007.  Below this list, I’ll show (I recognized this name.  Lamar Alexander also known because of Corrections Corporation of America (CCA, private prison corporation)’s lobbying, and a move to privatize the entire state’s prisons, connected with this legislator.

    • Geoffrey Canada President, Harlem Children’s Zone
    • Sam Daley-Harris’ President, Results Educational Fund
    • Gun Denhart “s Founder & Chair, Hanna Andersson Corporation
    • MarianWright Edelman` Founder & President, Children’s Defense Fund
    • Daniel Grossman’ Founder & CEO, Wild Planet Toys
    • Jill Iscol” President , Jill Iscol & Associates  
    • Reverend/Dr. Eileen Lindner, Deputy General Secretary for Research & Planning, National Council of Churches, {{Excu UUse me???}}
    • Fred Senn Partner/GroupDirector, Fallon
    • Dorothy Stoneman Founder & President, YouthBuildUSA

    Every one of those corporations / organizations the board of directors sit on has a story, and most likely an interest in education reform.  Who are these people, and why have they taken on (with private, not public funding — on this tax return at least) organization to restructure the US Educational system according to their particular vision?   For example, because it’s simplest to illustrate, “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTIONS” is top dog in employer-provided daycare.

    From the site:   INSIDERTRADING.PROCON.ORG

    Mr. Alexander was 10th richest, right after the 9th richest US Senator in 2007, namely, “9.  Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY)  Avg. Net worth of household in 2006:   $30,691,003 — and I just love the description of her “Spouse Name and Title:”  Bill Clinton, 42nd US President.
    #10 – Lamar Alexander, Jr. Avg. Net Worth of Household in 2006:  $27,800,155.  Spouse name and title:   “Leslee “Honey” Alexander, Bord of Trustees, WETA; Member and Vice Chairman, Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors,” 
    5 TOP STOCKS OWNED @ 12/31/2007– TOP STOCK:  “BRIGHT HORIZONS FAMILY SOLUTION” — $500,001 – $1,000,000.
    Senator Lamar Alexander Co-founded “Corporate Child Care Management, Inc.” (now “Bright Horizons Family Solutions).   His wife owns more than $1,000,000 stock in it. …  Committees he sits on that may present conflict of interest:  Health, Education, Labor, Pensions.
    For our leaders:  Investment income from holdings.  For those they set policy for:  Jobs, hopefully, child support – -possibly, welfare — likely at this pace — and parenting classes, and public schools.  Some design, others support (like, the workers at these various corporations) and if there is not too much civil discontent, all is well in the world. ….  While I am here, from the same site, on The (then-Senator) Obama’s household, notes a very lean portfolio, but investment in two speculative stocks he probably wouldn’t have known of except as a legislator — one dealing with mobile communications (and a satellite), i.e., SkyTerra (see also Wikipedia)– and the other AVI BioPharma.(“Advanced RNA-Based Therapeutic Platform)”    The commentary, here:   The second company has “strategic alliances” with the DoD, and includes biodefense in its projects; the first, apparently Boeing just helped put a satellite in space .
    We are in a Post-9/11 society, and throughout these TAGGS (marriage/Fatherhood) corporations, major grants involving telecommunications companies with roots in the Defense Industry keep showing up (Example:  ICF International Incorporated, LLC got a 2011 grant; it went public & international in 2006).   Here’s the “wiki” on AVI Biopharma — note they were going under til got a defense contract (during Obama presidency):

    History  (Wiki article)

    AVI BioPharma opened their own production laboratory in Corvallis, Oregon, in February 2002.[2] The company made headlines in 2003 when it announced work on treatments for SARS and the West Nile Virus.[2][3] In July 2009, the company announced they would move their headquarters from Portland, Oregon, north to Bothell, Washington, near Seattle.[4] At that time the company led by president and CEO Leslie Hudson had 83 employees and quarterly revenues of $3.2 million.[4] AVI had yet to turn a profit nor developed any commercial products as of July 2009.[4] The company lost $19.7 million in the second quarter of 2009,[5] and then won a $11.5 million contract with the U.S. Department of Defense‘s Defense Threat Reduction Agency in October 2009.[6] The company had completed its move to Bothell by this time, but retained their Corvallis facility.[4][6]

    SkyTerra is now “LightSquared” –
    SkyTerra - SkyTerra Communications

    “A new nationwide 4G wireless broadband network provider that will use a unique combination of satellite and terrestrial technology to revolutionize wireless communications in the United States.”  “

    SkyTerra is North America’s leading developer and supplier of mobile satellite communications services (MSS). Since 1996 SkyTerra has been providing reliable wireless voice, two-way radio and data services for a wide range of customers across North America, northern South America, Central America, the Caribbean and Hawaii via its two existing MSAT satellites.   Satellite service is the perfect communications solution for remote locations lacking terrestrial coverage and when man made or natural disasters strike. Current customers cover a broad spectrum including public safety, security, broadcasting, natural resources, fleet management and asset tracking.   {{AND/Or SPYING….}}

    LIGHTSQUARED:  The idea behind this is providing (4G at least) “Wholesale broadband access” to the entire country.  In Nov. 2010, they launched a satellite from Kazakhstan, and the site mentions:

     ““The U.S. stimulus plan announced by President Obama has acknowledged the need for the federal government to step in to ensure that the digital divide is filled, thereby ending the denial of broadband access due to where people live… 2010 will be the year that many governments will recognize that broadband connectivity is essential for economic competitiveness, the delivery of public services, and an inclusive society, and they will step up to the plate to close the digital divide.”

    It is waiting? for FCC approval of its service; there’s claims it would jam GPS.  Fascinating reading — and here’s an article on the debate between FCC (Congressional favorite) this new one — only slightly technical.   Recommended read– it plays into the job market, digital divide.

    SkyTerra Wikipedia

    The new company has operations in both America and Canada, providing service to both countries and the Caribbean. MSV changed its name to SkyTerra in December 2008. The company was traded Over-the-Counter and was listed on the OTCBB: SKYT. SkyTerra (formerly ‘Mobile Satellite Ventures’) [4] was the first company to receive a Federal Communications Commission license to deploy Ancillary Terrestrial Component (ATC) technology.[5]

    In 2005, SkyTerra purchased 50% of Hughes Network Solutions, a subsidiary of the News Corp.-owned DirecTV Group, for $157.4 million, which SkyTerra held under its subsidiary Hughes Communications.[6][7] In January 2006, DirecTV sold its remaining 50% share in Hughes Network Solutions to SkyTerra for $100 million.[8] Hughes Communications was spun off as a separate company in February 2006, with SkyTerra divesting its entire stake in the company to its shareholders.[9]

    TerreStar Corporation, formerly Motient Corporation, was the controlling shareholder of TerreStar Networks Inc. and TerreStar Global Ltd., and a shareholder of SkyTerra Communications.[10]

    SkyTerra was acquired by Harbinger Capital Partners in March 2010 and became part of LightSquared in July 2010.[11  

    MSV satellite telephony

    Most of current products and services are aimed at emergency services, law enforcement, and companies that specialize in transportation. However, MSV and Boeing are developing a satellite telephony network for consumers.

    The use of Boeing's GeoMobile platform will allow for coverage of the entire United States with a single satellite. This new approach to satellite telephony has already been validated with the Thuraya network. MSV's satellite will use an even bigger antenna than the Thuraya spacecraft (at 22 meters in diameter, it will be the largest commercial reflector dish ever used in space)[12], allowing it to communicate with phones no larger than modern cell phones thanks to the fact that the large antenna gain allows the handset to operate at a power output comparable to regular cell phones. This is now possible since the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) allowed satellite operators to create terrestrial cellular networks using spectrum previously restricted to satellite use.[13][14][15]

    The Satellite road aboard a Russian Satellite, launched last November, per the Nasa article:   !!!

    LIVE: ILS Proton-M launches with SkyTerra 1 satellite

    November 14th, 2010 by Chris BerginInternational Launch Services (ILS) have launched the SkyTerra 1 telecommunications satellite via their veteran Proton-M launch vehicle and Breeze-M upper stage on Sunday. Lift-off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan was on schedule at 17:29 GMT, ahead of over nine hours of flight until the spacecraft was placed into orbit.

     . . .The 5,400 kg Boeing Space and Intelligence Systems built 702HP satellite is designed for geomobile services, which will be a “major step in LightSquared’s creation of its next-generation, nationwide network that will be among the world’s first to combine satellite and terrestrial technologies,” according to the customer.“The Light-Squared network will enable the company to offer 4G speed, value, and reliability which enables universal wireless connectivity throughout the United States.

    “The company’s next-generation satellite system allows users within the United States to use standard handsets or other devices, equipped with the LightSquared chipset, to access the satellite system with high link availability and long battery lifetimes, with devices that have the same form-factor and functionality as conventional handsets and devices.

    “Further, the combination of the LightSquared satellite system and the LightSquared 4G terrestrial network provides an unprecedented level of coverage throughout the United States.”

    Proton Launch:

    (Somehow this isn’t as comforting as it is probably supposed to be….)

    The Iscol Family (apparently husband made his money in mobile communications…)

    <>STAND FOR CHILDREN LEADERSHIP, JILL ISCOL

    It’s hard to know where, on the web, to start.  Cornell, Yale, New York City?  The portion of Cornell University this husband/wife pair is currently funding / running?    Their connections with Hillary Rodham Clinton?  Well, while we’re on the topic, how about article from “CENTER FOR A NEW AMERICAN SECURITY.”

    Jill Iscol

    In this summary (it’s the entire web page) you can see the policy-making influence with Gores, Family Strengthening projects, and the ability to somehow raise incredible finances for whatever project her heart desires.  This is what Yale Graduates do, and the Columbia background also includes a penchant the teaching.  Does this look like someone who would be taking input from the lower ranks of society, or dishing it out, according to the personal vision determined with the social & political set she runs in, and they do?    Or taking feedback on the impact of these programs on the working class, (or, welfare recipients) which might be at odds from program purposes?

    President, IF Hummingbird Foundation

    Jill W Iscol, Ed.D, is a social activist, an educator, and a philanthropist.

    She serves on the Board of Advisors of City Year New York of which she was a Founding Co-Chair (2002-2009).  She is a Trustee of Vital Voices Global Partnership and is currently chairing its newly launched New York Leadership Council. She is on the Board of the Acumen Fund, a global philanthropic organization. She was recently appointed to the New York State Commission on National and Community Service, is a Trustee of Horizons National, and on the Advisory Board of the Center for New American Security in Washington, DC.

    She serves on the President’s Council of Teachers College (from 1974-1977, she was Co-Director of its Preservice Program in Childhood Education), and on the Advisory Boards of the Iscol Family Program for Leadership Development  {{that’s Cornell, and link tells more about Jill & Ken, after profusely thanking them for generous funding…}} and the Herbert F. Johnson Museum of Art at Cornell University. Until 2009 she served on the Boards of Facing History and Ourselves, and Bank Street College of Education (where she was a faculty member from 1973-1974).

    Sorry — I have to point this out  Bank Street College of Education began with a single person’s idea in 1916, and a humanist (as oppose to, say, Deist) idea to study children and figure out what produces the best results, according to humanist definitions and in the process of creating a better world.  This intense obsession — and it IS an obsession — with getting children away from their natural parents (while preaching marriage and family throughout) — didn’t start yesterday.   Particularly one sees the institutes throughout the country wishing to “study” children in order to do a better job than previous generations.  This is reflected to date in Obama Administration’s expansion of Head Start, Early Head Start, and push to get mothers out of the home and back to work, and kids into daycare centers where HHS will pay for “Child Development Scholars” to take notes, etc. etc.     Consider — this was before women got the vote!

    • Bank Street: A Brief History

    In 1916, educator Lucy Sprague Mitchell and her colleagues, influenced by revolutionary educator John Dewey and other humanists, concluded that building a new kind of educational system was essential to building a better, more rational, humane world.

    Beginnings: The Bureau Years

    1916: The Bureau of Educational Experiments (BEE) is founded in New York City by Lucy Sprague Mitchell, together with her husband Wesley Mitchell and colleague Harriet Johnson. Their purpose is to combine expanding psychological awareness with democratic conceptions of education. With a staff of researchers and teachers, the Bureau sets out to study children–to find out what kind of environment is best suited to their learning and growth, to create that environment, and to train adults to maintain it.

    1919: The Bureau of Educational Experiments establishes a Nursery School.

    (The next three bullets, quotes from a “Harvard Educational Review” very laborious review of a book on the development of Preschool in America)

    • Patty Smith Hill, progressive kindergartner of Louisville, Kentucky, studied the works of John Dewey and Francis W. Parker and then challenged the strict kindergarten pedagogy based on Froebel’s theories.  {{German, childless??, Pedagogue, 1782-1852!}} Hill taught at Columbia Teachers College and co-founded the Institute of Child Welfare Research there in 1924.5 Caroline Pratt, who founded the innovative Play School in Greenwich Village, and her life partner, Helen Marot, were a part of a Greenwich Village group of intellectuals.6 Pratt collaborated with Lucy Sprague Mitchell and Harriet Johnson in New York City in the 1910s, “where they developed a radical preschool pedagogy designed to counteract what they saw as the psychologically and politically oppressive environment of the private family” (p. 135). “
    •  A stark contrast to kindergartners’ encouragement of parental involvement is the practice of early-twentieth-century progressive educator Caroline Pratt, who “saw parents as obstacles to their children’s education, not as partners (p. 139). Though Pratt may have been an anomaly among early childhood educators, her stance represents one of the many ways parents were treated and perceived by educators who often were not parents themselves.
    • Her history is a chronicle of preschool-aged children’s access to education in the United States since the early nineteenth century, starting with the advent of infant schools, schools designed for lower-class children whose parents were considered unfit to teach them at home.

    Your basic “Children as lab rats” concept, but of course for a noble purpose.  A Tulane University “Child Development Center” history page describes the Patty Smith Hill Influence, in fact, mentioning the 1969 Chicago University “Lab School.”:

    Newcomb Children’s Center originally started as a nursery school for Tulane faculty and staff when Edith Rosenwald Stern, a young parent and community activist, spearheaded a group of six mothers in the endeavor to establish the preschool in 1926, a time when these were not commonplace in the United States. She was the daughter of Julius Rosenwald, founder of Sears Roebuck and Company, and had attended the University of Chicago Lab School, where a preschool had been initiated in 1916.  (daughter of successful businessman….)

    Stern became acquainted with Patty Smith Hill, a leader of the American Kindergarten and Nursery School Movement, during a visit to Columbia University’s Institute for Child Welfare in New York.  This relationship led to a broad scope of beneficial effects on Stern in terms of its philosophy and methods of teaching.  From its inception, the School has encouraged hands-on learning by the children with guidance from a caring staff of teachers and active parents.

    newcombstrip

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell (from a 2006 “Education Update” site), in short, another blueblood (Radcliffe, UCBerkeley Dean of Women) gets together with others to change the world, starting with studying how to produce a better child:

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell came of age at a time of great changes in the United States. The country was becoming increasingly industrialized and urbanized; waves of immigrants were arriving, and poverty—especially urban poverty—was on the rise. These changing conditions inspired an intense period of social and educational reform between 1890 and 1920, led by pioneers, many of them women, who believed that the world could be changed. An age of often appalling social conditions was also an age of great optimism for people who wanted to remake the society America had built.

    A graduate of Radcliffe, and the first Dean of Women at the University of California at Berkeley, Lucy Sprague Mitchell knew that she wanted to be a force for change, and shared the optimism of the reformers that change was possible. She herself saw in education the best possibility for a more just and humane world.

    With several like-minded women, she established the Bureau of Educational Experiments to determine how children grow and learn by carefully studying and recording their behavior, their language, and their interactions with each other and with their environment.

    (I continued looking — got that “childlike curiosity” still, I guess) — this person who never had a formal education til she was 16, was into early education for the purposes of studying how children learn . . .  she had a domineering father . . . . this Bureau of Educational Systems was subsidized by a cousin’s inheritance . . . and the methods included:

    Lucy Sprague Mitchell’s impact on the educational system in America is all the more surprising considering that she herself did not receive a formal education at school until she was sixteen years old. Lucy’s progressive-some might even say radical-approach to reforming education might be less surprising. Although she grew up with a domineering father in a repressive atmosphere, she also benefited greatly from her father’s own interest in education reform. As a result, young Lucy was not only exposed to the reformist ideas of such philosophical heavyweights as John Dewey and Jane Addams, she actually met them! . . .

    . . .what was radical then is now thought “essential to knowing how to teach” children. The interdisciplinary approach to classroom management, the study of student behavior, psychological profiles recorded and updated, family background and environment checks: all of these were incorporated by Sprague Mitchell into how educating children was conducted at the Bureau.

    Wikipedia on Bank Street College of Education directly ties this group to Head Start.  (Bank Street was simply the Greenwich Village location of the Bureau of Educational Experiments when it started):

    Bank Street was founded in 1916 by Lucy Sprague Mitchell as the “Bureau of Educational Experiments”. (Mitchell was the first Dean of Women at the University of California, Berkeley). Its original focus was the study of child development and education, but, after two years, it was clear that actual living subjects, i.e. children, were needed, so in 1918 a nursery school was opened. This nursery school is the direct predecessor of today’s School for Children. It wasn’t until the 1930s that Bank Street began to formally train teachers, the start of today’s Bank Street College of Education.

    The little kids are brought in to test theory on, but the place started with theory.  Of course, little kids in nursery schools is something of a controlled situation, and in fact, studying a young child in isolation from its parents makes next to no sense to me.  See my post “monkeying with mothers.”  Same mentality!

    In 1965, Bank Street developed the “Bank Street Readers” line of books, which were unique due to their featuring of racial diversity and urban people of contemporary culture. Also in the 1960s, the Bank Street faculty played an important role in the creation of the federal Head Start program.

    Some things never change.  I found a grant (from another organization currently, I think, associated with a group attempting to eradicate no-fault divorce in Ohio, National Council of Family Relations, in cooperation with Utah State University.  Or, at least in the same grant series.  Some ideas just refuse to die, including that the best people to change society are those at the top — although typically it’s those who are starting wars, and sending the masses of lower class youth to go die in them, not to mention locking them up the disproportionately to the white-collar criminals…. and then (Lamar Alexander) getting rich by buying stock in the private prisons that oppress them — which they do, resulting in lawsuits for sexual assault and more. (CCA).

     

    Fiscal Year Program Office Grantee Name State Award Number Award Title CFDA Number CFDA Program Name Award Class Award Activity Type Award Action Type Principal Investigator Sum of Actions
    2011 OPRE UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY UT 90YR0035 DADS’ PARENTING INTERACTIONS WITH CHILDREN-CHECKLIST OF OBSERVATIONS LINKED TO OUTCOMES (PICCOLO-D): DEVELOPING A MEASUR 93600 Head Start DISCRETIONARY SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH (INCLUDES SURVEYS) EXTENSION WITH OR WITHOUT FUNDS LORI ROGGMAN $ 0

     

    Notice the nature of this grant, that it’s at a University, and that it’s funded under “Head Start.”   This year, 2011, there were 26 “90YR” projects — ALL at Universities, across the country — and $4.78 million worth — testing, measuring, responding, and attempting to predict human behavior according to certain variables.  I really should post them.   For example, UCLA Board of Regents wants to get better at predicting children’s behavior (good luck with that one!):

    Recipient: UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-LOS ANGELES, BOARD OF REGENTS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90095

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90YR0062 PREDICTING INFANT/TODDLER SOCIAL-EMOTIONAL OUTCOMES FROM INTRAPERSONAL CAREGIVER CHARACTERISTICS AND CHILD CARE PROCESS 1 93.600 ACF 09-13-2011   $ 25,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 25,000

     

    And Utah State has its

    Early Intervention Research Institute

    And Ms. Roggman’s Background:

    Lori Roggman

    Picture of Lori RoggmanLori Roggman
    Staff Biography  Education

    Ph.D., 1988, University of Texas (Developmental Psychology)
    M.S., 1981, Utah State University (Family & Human Development)
    B.S., 1972, Utah State University (Psychology) 
    Teaching
    Undergraduate: Parenting/ChildGuidance, Infancy/Early Childhood
    Graduate: Human Development Theories (6060), Frontiers of Human Development (7060), Topical Seminars on Language Development, Attachment, Play, Fathers.

    - – - – Ah Well  . . . . .

    Since its creation in 1989, Ms. Iscol has been President of IF Hummingbird Foundation, a family foundation which supports efforts to strengthen democracy and to reduce the social injustice, economic and educational inequities that would threaten it.

    From 1997-2001, Jill served as the Chairperson of the Annual Family Re-Union Conference, moderated by then-Vice President Gore and Mrs. Gore, for which she planned and coordinated three annual conferences and raised significant funding for ongoing policy development process aimed at formulating better ways to strengthen family life.

    Jill planned and participated in the White House Conference on Partnerships and Philanthropy in 2000. She was Co-Chair for Hillary Rodham Clinton for Senate’s New York Finance Committee, which raised a record 29 million dollars.  She was Vice-Chair of Senator Clinton’s New York and National Finance Committees in 2006 and a National Vice-Chair of Hillary Rodham Clinton for President’s 2008 Finance Committee.

    Ms. Iscol received a Bachelor of Arts, magna cum laude, from University of Pittsburgh (1967), a doctorate from Teachers College, Columbia University (1976), and a Master of Philosophy in Sociology from Yale (1990).

    This is part of the “FAMILY LIFE DEVELOPMENT CENTER” at Cornell….  (NOTE:  the “HTTC” far above — the DC-based Collaborative I found on the TAGGS list — has a curious link to “Family Development Institute” and is taking personal information for anyone wanting to get credentialed as one:   Guess you can learn how to raise (“develop”) a family, if you get credentialed for it here; wonder who pays how much for the training.   SAME CONCEPT AT CORNELL — in fact overall, this is the concept.  I call it “Designer Families,” although what often seems to result is family breakup, for a better, state-approved “design,” from my experience (and I’m well networked with similar cases….)  (I also did a search on ‘Fatherhood” then “motherhood” at the School of Human Ecology with the usual results: fatherhood 15 to motherhood 8.  Several of the faculty appear to have come from Fragile Families studies, and some prior HHS connection.  The last reference to “fatherhood” was an article by (AFCC professional?) Robert E. Emery, and discussing Custody Evaluations.  Others of course discussed child support….)

    Welcome

    Since 2001, the College of Human Ecology {{at Cornell…}} has been very pleased to be the home of the Iscol Family Program for Leadership Development in Public Service. Established with the generosity and foresight of Jill and Ken Iscol, this program is intended to give undergraduate students inspiration and direction in translating their knowledge, idealism, and optimism into concrete action to build better communities for families and children.

    . . .The Iscol Family Program serves the entire university and for the last 3 years has collaborated with the Entrepreneurship at Cornell program.

    THIS is now, East River Family Strengthening Collaborative Executive Director, as quoted in the “promising neighborhoods” article at “Circle of Philanthropy”

    When we get the little ones in pre-kindergarten, they come to us not even knowing how to hold a pencil or pen.”

    And even when the children are getting the proper instruction in school, the neighborhood’s poverty affects their ability to learn, says Mae H. Best, executive director of the East River Family Strengthening Collaborative, a social-services group in the neighborhood that is participating in the Promise Neighborhood project. Poverty steals children’s attention from the classroom, she says. They may not be eating at home, they may be worried that they are going to be evicted, they may hear their parents complaining about lack of work. * * *

    **omitted — they may hear or witness their parents fighting, or one being assaulted….

    “Everything is generally related to financial resources­—the lack thereof,” she says.

    {Annie E. Casey Foundation is one of the major funders of fatherhood studies; I have been studying this for over 2 eyars.  They show up EVERYwhere, including in groups allegedly preventing family violence, and providing “resource centers,” (Websites, and the paid-for studies that can be downloaded there, and training opportunities), such as “Family Violence Prevention Fund.”  Excuse me, I forgot their recent federally-assisted web facelift, physical move (to the SF Praesidio) AND name change.  How, instead of the grandiose promise of preventing Family VIolence (which I see no evidence they are), they are expanding the scope:  “Futures Without Violence.”  AS I recall (you can check), Annie E. Casey funds this, and probably the “fragile families” study as well.

    I like that they state their timeline and incorporation history.  That’s good.  Notice the “letter to the community” starts with “father absence.”

    Letter to The Community

    Help Us Make Ward 7 Stronger.

    Dear Friend of ERFSC:Imagine a family situation where the father is absent, the mother is unemployed and the children are barely making it in school due to lack of attention and necessary resources. Now consider the stress and embarrassment of not having the “right clothes” to wear to school, a healthy lunch to edify the children’s minds, and a single parent who is so busy trying to make ends meet, that she involuntarily neglects her children. Surely you can see how a family situation like this can negatively affect the mother’s mental health and the children’s self esteem and impact their ability to learn. Surely you can envision how this situation can get worse and result in children who fall into the juvenile system or worse!

    I imagine there is not a single person on this board, or among the families served, who is completely and totally unaware that:

    • Some fathers are absent because of domestic violence, and might have done some jail time for this.
    • African-Americans are over-represented in the jail populations across the U.S., and probably here, too.  

    To rephrase Daddy’s in jail as putting him back with his family (without addressing the “why” of incarceration, which could range from violent criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to drug-related criminal activity not a good role model for kids, to racism, to the fact that there’s a huge corporate lobbying industry behind expanding the prison system (search CCA on my site, “Corrections Corporation of America” – -to possibly even child support arrearages, if combined with other things . . .at what point is it NOT good to reunite that family, and instead allow the female-headed household to be strengthened without letting an abuser back in?

    “With your generous donation, we can open up many windows of opportunity and give our residents a life beyond their limited boundaries along with the tools, the hope and the desire to strive for empowerment. By making a donation, you will not only be contributing directly to the success of these families, but will also be playing an active role in the overall sustainability of ERFSC.

    You may donate right here on our Web site or send your donation check to our office”

    Look who is funding the individual agency, and the umbrella agency here — and below, it’s clear the money (a) comes from welfare that might otherwise actually REACH the household in question, instead of being DIVERTED to fund non-taxpaying entities which set up  slick and donations-collecting websites so they can take credit for any social services provided. . . .   Moreover, between TAGGS & HHS — it’s clear one is under-reporting or the other is OVER-reporting.  Think about that before you donate, because this is common practice in the field:

    USASPENDING has reported (per this DUNS# — which is not always specific only to one organization, i understand — but at least an identifier) only 3 of the 6 grants, or about half of their total.  No data pre-dating 2009 exists.   We can also see that this money is most DEFINITELy coming out of TANF, or “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families”

    I.e., someone’s food and cash aid.   It is more important to have healthy, stable marriages — or try to — than for children to eat and be clothed if not living with their biological Daddies. . . ..

    • Total Dollars:$2,533,518
    • Transactions:1 – 3 of 3


    Transaction Number # 1

    Federal Award ID: 90FK0054: 00 (Grants)
    Date Signed:
    September 28 , 2011 

    Obligation Amount: 
    $1,533,518

    to search D.C. corporations, apparently you have to create a user account.  I don’t want to do this, so let’s check out just the umbrella nonprofit, and this one:

    HTTC:  Unlike most households, their assets are steadily increasing.  View a tax return, and subtract $500K per year (minimum) from the “government grants” and see if it is a well-run organization that could stand on its own, and note the ration of grants to program service income, and the executive pay, etc.  That’s what I do when viewing tax returns.   Notice — they got $500K in 2006.  Where is the 2006 tax return?

    ORGANIZATION NAME

    STATE

    YEAR

    TOTAL ASSETS

    FORM

    PAGES

    EIN

    Healthy Families Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2007 $972,730 990 23 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2010 $634,384 990 23 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2009 $830,758 990 21 52-2250839
    Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Council DC 2008 $1,209,182 990 23 52-2250839

    TOTAL of “90FK” awards for 2011:

    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 51,125,462
    Total of 55 Award Actions for 55 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 54,151,962

      

    TOTAL of “90FM” awards for 2011:

     

    Why Think when you can Hyperlink?

    The heart of the “Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood” grantee system is an attempt to get the entire nation (at its expense) in front of trainers and facilitators to — for the sake of our country — submit to indoctrination in what, and how, to speak (i.e., think) about themselves, their children, their neighbors, poverty, work, and their place in this world.

    The “CIRCLE OF IDEAS” circulating through this system is getting smaller and smaller, while the ripples from having thrown this stone into the pond of plurality are still spreading. Ig pushed in t is intentional domination and restriction of a nation’s vocabulary — for profit — to subdue and restrict its thinking about cause & effect, particularly so as NOT to connect this type of corruption with incidents of murder/suicide, kidnapping, child molestation, threats, stalking, or ongoing, chronic stress and work attrition — even when the connection is open, upfront, and obviously in the custody context.

    In Liberia, women of different faiths united (risking their lives) to “Pray the Devil Back to Hell” and changed the course of the country’s history.  They did not want any more excuses for terrorism and attempted genocide.  I do believe that in the USA we are going to have to do this too, ladies and men of conscience.  Not through Occupying Wall Street — but through sitting one’s behind down on some paperwork (or accounting) of this travesty — and THEN boycott something that is profiting from this enterprise at our children’s futures’ expense.

    Recent events in California include:  a little girl not returned on visitation;  Daddy kills herself and himself.  This mother had her child at age approximately 44?  (Samaan/Fay).   8 people killed in Seal Beach, California hair salon, one man in the salon, and one outside it, who was sitting in a car — the rest were women.  And recently in Richmond, California, a brawl broke out in City Hall, surrounding the “Office of Neighborhood Safety.”  Gang members were being paid to attend classes.

    I have not blogged this yet, but as I am networked with “Parents” (mothers and grandmothers) across the country who are tired of THIS war, I became aware of an incident in Trumbull County Ohio which totally baffles the mind — until one explores the funding stream, and the organizaing element of “Fatherhood” at the state level.  Yes, you danged well bet there is a connection!   And I am tired of this propaganda, and excuse-making.  I am tired of, when the closer I look, the more questions come up — WHERE is this entity incorporated?  Why, when the web page is so fancy, and obviously well-funded — can one so many times not find the nonprofit’s EIN# and tax return — and why when those ARE found, they tend to fall into two categories:

    1.   The organization would not exist without HHS (and/or DOJ) funding, and is being propped up by them.

    2.   The organization disappeared (took the money and ran) and no one has caught up with it after an initial, small grant.

    3.   The organization is itself a FOR-PROFIT and HHS has chosen its (fatherhood promoting, family-strengthening) curriculum as one of about a dozen favored solutions to produce world peace (stop abuse, elmiinate poverty, or make irresponsible men responsible through bribes, or a system of bribes/extortion, etc. — i.e., “training” — and the HHS has helped this organization get all set up, create its private market niche or brand, and then certify or license “train the trainer” seminars (tax deductible) to spread it all over the place. . . . .  And is doing this through the already present systems of social welfare, such as TANF, Child Support, Child Abuse Prevention, you name it.  For example “Boot Camp for New Dads” is pushed to hospitals where children are being born.  And the PR firm “Public Strategies, Inc.” in Oklahoma – which as basically “made” by the Healthy Marriage Initiative (it seems to have almost no other clients) actually got another GRANT?

    This, friends, is not what government is for — this is a “Metastasized” government which is eating away the substance of the people that are sustaining it in money, in time, and in labor — and by consuming products it declares we need, when we don’t.  Has anyone ever calculated the huge profits made simply to detox people from chronic stress, and the illnesses that that state produces in a human body?

    Those who buy into this program will likely have income, including potential retirement income; those who do not will be subjected to it, with the exception of those who designed the curricula, who are probably laughing their way between an offshore bank to the next product idea, or (like ICF International Inc., LLC) buying out lesser companies and figuring out how to expand from their Billion-$$ Business with the US Government, one of the largest spenders (and debtors) in the world.

    HERE IS THE SYSTEM:

    Middle class pays for it, and if entangled in it, pays (for example, in the courts).  Many of the middle class have jobs working in the institutions that market these trainings and are used to SELL curricula to fix poverty (etc — create utopia, basically).

    People who have slipped out of or were never out of the lower economic sector — who cannot directly pay for classes — will be forced to take them anyhow, and the implicit “bargain” with the middle classes (from policymakers) is that by forcing the poor rabble into them (through extortion) they will be therefore off the streets and not on YOUR doorstep, so continue to produce wages and taxes that will be distributed to the fatherhood and marriage promoters nationwide, i.e., those who step to our tune.

    The HHS GRANTS PROVIDES THE HYPERLINK ADVANTAGE, AND PRE-FAB ASSOCIATIONS:

    Most resource centers, examined, are primarily on-line database storage.

    The Hyperlink advantage — Federal Help to set up Resources, Visually Engaging Websites, with Official-sounding LInks to the “upline,” and cute new Acronyms for the latest way to market the same material, for example, “FRIENDS” (see last post or so) with the radical concept that Parents might actually know something about their own families.  This fact sheet from a Florida group cites Fatherhood grantees “Circle of Parents”(tr) and “Parents Anonymous(tr)” and declares that we are all in this together, and those who have taken control of our families, and are paid to do so, now wish to “collaborate” and “Share leadership” with the actual parents.  This being a totally foreign concept to social workers and social scientists in general, SOMEONE had to copyright the concept and run trainings on how to let parents back into the decisionmaking process about their kids and their lives.  Get this, from “Factsheet #13″ (address to whom?)

    Principles of Shared Leadership

    ␣ Parents and staff members are equal partners

    ␣ No one person has all of the solutions; it depends on how people act together to make sense of the situations that face them

    ␣ Mutual respect, trust and open-mindedness ␣ Collectiveactionbaseduponsharedvision,ownership

    and accountability ␣ Consensus building instead of a democratic process

    Or, here is a “PARENT LEADERSHIP AMBASSADOR FACILITATOR GUIDE” by Circle of Parents & “Friends” — actually by YOU (i.e, USA working citizens), as it cites an HHS grant.  Or names a month after its copyrighted concept self:   Did you know that

    February was designated as National Parent Leadership Month® by Parents Anonymous®, Inc.”

    (which I found out on a site from an organization that my colleagues, family, and friends’ taxes paid to set up and propagate, also trademarked:  “Circle of Parents(tr)”  Get the picture yet?  Here’s the portion of what was taken away from Parents which this proclamation (modeled after the Declaration of Independence, but entirely foreign to it in purpose and process):

    Preamble:

    National Parent Leadership Month® – 2011

    Parents across the nation are working in partnership with practitioners and policymakers to create positive changes in their lives, the lives of their children and the lives of other families. They are doing this quietly and effectively and it is important to honor these parents.

    How sweet — PPP — Parents, Practitioners and Policymakers.  Maybe you can register the trademark “P3″ (get a triangle, to imply that we are somehow equal participants, and this is not, instead a basic pyramid scheme run with IRS help….).   No thank you — give me back the wasted HHS funds, and keep your gold stars; we are not in gradeschool any more.    

    I notice, despite all the “fatherhood” words flying around (although not in this PR piece), there’s still no mention of “mother” on it.  And as I believe I HAVE established, “Circle of Parents” has been bought out by HHS/NFI-elements, and is walking, talking, and publicizing like them:

    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.

    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.

    PACT I believe stands for PARENTS (meaning Dads) & CHILDREN TOGETHER — PACT.  I could be wrong, but check this out:

    (this link leads right to the Hawai’i DHS)
    Hawai‘i State Commission on Fatherhood
    (etc., etc.)

    The last several posts, I attempted to correlate the ACF announcement with actual grantees, and find out WTF (the “W” standing for ‘WHO’) they were. As it turned out, most of the grants were the “90FM” series.  I found that most of the top half of the ACF Press Release correlated to the 90FM grant series.  That “find” was the result of familiarity with the TAGGS database combined with hunch.  Then I compared my printout with the ACF press release.  The printout was alpha by grantee institution and the ACF Press Release alpha by state.  Complicating it was the name changes of the grantee institutions, but I did check them off, one by one.

    There are, however, in 2011 (as of today) $121,077,648 of distributions on the TAGGS database, under a single “CFDA” — 93.086.

    There’s been major talk between HHS and, say, the Fathers and Families Coalition of America, or even in the recent 2010 law, about making things more fair to fathers (i.e., pleasing the FR movement leadership) by altering the “FATHER”-related portion of money stolen from TANF & OCSE from one-third to one-half.  Accordingly, the HHS/ACF Press announcement of october 3 makes it look well balanced between two themes:  Top half, MARRIAGE ($59-odd million) and bottom half, FATHERHOOD ($59-odd million).

    In practice, the top half having gone primarily to “FM” which sure looks like faith-based groups, is in effect giving it to fatherhood-propagation anyhow; that’s pretty much what faith-based groups do.  IF they weren’t so inclined, they would be just secular social service groups, and as such deal with their difficulties with feminism, women having the vote, women controlling reproduction or contraception, married women having a say in household finances, married women actually reporting what their (likewise married, obviously) spouses were doing to them, or their children in the home, and in general opting out of marriage because of that.  They also would line up with the rest of the United States that is NOT “faith-based” or practicing a private cult that disagrees with basic laws (such as cultlike beliefs as, you cannot–really- divorce, or beating up someone to dominate the relationship is normal behavior if it’s done to preserve the “father-leader/mother-breeder” status quo).

    Yet this next printout shows an increasing variety of grant streams:  FM, FR, FK, FN, & FO are among the new ones. FE (Fatherhood Education) is getting “old,” obviously. From what I can tell, FN is for Native American; FK seems to deal with incarcerated populations, and I haven’t figured out FO yet. Notice not a single of these begins with the word “M” for “Marriage.”  Perhaps that letter might be mistakenly associated with “MOTHERS” about which this movement has little to do, except in making sure they are not going to be sole physical custodians, and certainly not sole physical and legal ones, for long, if HHS has anything to do with it.

    In this listing, you will also see a number of organizations with grants listed as $0, which I gather means either they’re not getting one this year, or they haven’t yet.  CIRCLE OF PARENTS, that I landed pretty hard on last post (today’s revision) is among the $0 ones.

    THESE CHARTS ARE FOR SCROLLING, BUT THE LINKS ARE ACTIVE — CLICK TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ANY GROUP OR GRANT.  TAKE A LOOK AT THE TITLES — of the PROJECTS and of the GRANTEES.  Compare with the $$.  Ask:  WTF are they doing? and perhaps look locally, and demand some explanation, or trace the funding in your area.

    AGAIN — for comparison — here’s the official announcement:

    Administration for Children and Families

    Healthy Marriage / Responsible Fatherhood 2011 Grantees = $59,997,077 + $59,396,652 = $119,393,729.

    As of October 22, 2011 evening, I searched the code “93.086″ which represents this category of grants — and got $121,077,648.

    A difference of $1,643,919 in just a few weeks (could be legit) — but take a look.

    At the bottom I talk some about a Community Action Group in Ohio (WSOS).  Research is incomplete on this, and I may not have all the facts straight, but readers can fact-check themselves as well.  I am trying to answer the larger question about the relationship between “Community Action Programs” in this state and their fundings.

    In general, perhaps without my narrative of any guidance, readers might get a general idea of what titles programs are getting how much money, and where.  This listing is not by state, but alpha by Grantee — which gets interesting as we already know Grantees have creative name-changing habits already, plus TAGGS has opted some creative spellings of existing names.  I figure this is just part of the game.  Here we go:

    This report ran “AWARD SEARCH” “YEAR 2011″ CFDA 93086″ from dropdown list and comes out in 4 segments:   50 entries per page, plus the last few:

    Showing: 1 – 50 of 178 Award Actions

    Page: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »



    Recipient: *FAMILY SERVICE OF WESTCHESTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10606-3003

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0050 FATHERS COURT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 543,906 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 543,906

    Recipient: ADVOCAP, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54936-1108

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0056 FATHER AND FAMILY STABILITY PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 776,994 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 776,994

    Recipient: AL ST OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
    Recipient ZIP Code: 36104

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0042 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD ALABAMA 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: ASSOCIATION OF VILLAGE COUNCIL PRESIDENTS (ONAP)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99559-0219

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0011 TANF HEALTHY FAMILIES PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    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: Archuleta County Department of Human Services
    Recipient ZIP Code: 81147

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0046 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD IN ARCHULETA COUNTY, COLORADO 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 442,291 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 442,291

    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: Brighter Beginnings
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94601

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0099 PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM 3 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0099 PROMOTING ADVANCES IN PATERNAL ACCOUNTABILITY AND SUCCESS (PAPAS) PROGRAM 4 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

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

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0074 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    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 INC ARCHDIOCESE OF HARTFORD
    Recipient ZIP Code: 06105-1901

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0044 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 800,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 800,000

    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: CENTERFORCE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 94901-5516

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0004 HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CHAUTAUQUA OPPORTUNITIES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 14048-2754

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0024 CHAUTAUQUA RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 618,031 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 618,031

    Recipient: CHICAGO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60604

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 175,000 
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 2 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 68,402 
    2011 90FR0009 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 01-09-2011   $- 117,496 
    Award Actions Count: 3 Award Actions Subtotal: $- 360,898

    Recipient: CHILDREN’S FRIEND AND SERVICE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 02903-4011

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0008 DADS MAKING A DIFFERENCE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 735,527 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 735,527

    Recipient: CHILDRENS HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES-SCH OF PHYSICAL THER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90027

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0034 RESPONSIBLE YOUNG FATHERS PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 784,521 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 784,521

    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 90FE0118 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 5 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 8 
    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: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 354,722

    Recipient: CHILDREN`S INSTITUTE , INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90005

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0028 PROJECT FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    2011 90FR0076 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 4 93.086 ACF 12-01-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    Recipient: CHIPPEWA CREE TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 59521

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0013 CHIPPEWA CREE TANF AND CHILD WELFARE COORDINATION INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: CIRCLE OF PARENTS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60611-3777

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0098 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM 5 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: CO DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 80203

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0085 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD COMMUNITY ACCESS PROGRAM 4 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: COEUR DALENE TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 83851-0408

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0014 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR COORDINATION OF TRIBAL TANF AND CHILD WELFARE SERVICES TO TRIBAL FAMILIES AT RISK OF CHILD ABU 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    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: CONFEDERATED SALISH & KOOTENAI TRIBES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 59855-0278

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0003 PASSAGES FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 2,440,131 
    2011 90FN0015 CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES FAMILIES FIRST PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    2011 90FR0006 PASSAGES 5 93.086 ACF 06-21-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 3 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,590,131

    Recipient: CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF SILETZ
    Recipient ZIP Code: 97380

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0016 SILETZ ADVOCATES FOR HEALING PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: COOK INLET TRIBAL COUNCIL, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 99503

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0006 FATHER’S JOURNEY 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 800,000 
    2011 90FN0017 LUQU KENU – EVERYONE IS FAMILY 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 175,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 975,000

    Recipient: COUNCIL ON PREVENTION & EDUCATION SUBSTANCES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40204-1743

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0009 JEFFERSON COUNTY REENTRY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 549,673 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 06-23-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0015 JEFFERSON COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE PRIORITY 4 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 4 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 549,673

    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 90FE0104 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 1 4 93.086 ACF 11-22-2010   $ 0 
    2011 90FM0019 CALIFORNIA COMMUNITY-CENTERED HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND RELATIONSHIP PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,500,000

    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: Child family Services of Eastern Virginia
    Recipient ZIP Code: 23517

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0039 RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 471,156 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 471,156

    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
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 30,667,231
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    NEXT!  - PAGE 2 of 4

    Recipient: Connections To Success
    Recipient ZIP Code: 633012634

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0015 PROVIDE RESPONSIBLE PARENTING, HEALTHY MARRIAGE AND ECONOMIC STABILITY TO LOW-INCOME ADULTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 702,553 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 702,553

    Recipient: County of Montrose
    Recipient ZIP Code: 81401

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0030 MONTROSE COUNTY HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES–RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 574,524 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 574,524

    Recipient: DC DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN SERVICES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20032

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0087 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 09-20-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: DOUGLAS CHEROKEE ECONOMIC AUTHORITY, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37816-1218

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0004 JOBS FOR DADS: PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD FOR LOW-INCOME FATHERS IN RURAL SOUTHEASTERN APPALACHIA 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 416,063 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 416,063

    Recipient: EAST LOS ANGELES COMMUNITY UNION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 90022-5147

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0056 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION GRANT PRIORITY AREA 2 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 222 
    2011 90FK0019 FUTURO NOW FAMILY STRENGTHENING INITIATIVE: FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 800,221

    Recipient: EDUCATION ASSISTANCE CENTER OF LONG ISLAND, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 11550

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0031 PARENTS FIRST IS A PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM DESIGNED TO PROMOTE ECONOMIC STABILITY, HEALTHY MARRIAGES AND RESPONSIBLE PARENTING ON LONG ISLAND, NY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 533,040 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 533,040

    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

    Recipient: Employment Opportunity & Training Center of Northeaster
    Recipient ZIP Code: 18503

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0018 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD, MARKETED IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY, PA AS “EOTC’S HEALTHY FATHERS AND FAMILIES INITIATIVE.” 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 379,755 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 379,755

    Recipient: FAMILY & CHILDREN’S SERVICE, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 74120-4429

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0007 F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0007 F&CS PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: FIRST A M E CHILD DEVELOPMENT CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98122

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0032 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0032 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    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: FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54520-0396

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0018 THE FOREST COUNTY POTAWATOMI COMMUNITY’S COORDINATION OF FAMILY RESOURCE CENTER WITH TRIBAL TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    Recipient: FORTUNE SOCIETY, INC (THE)
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10031-7116

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0021 FORTUNE SOCIETY PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 725,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 725,000

    Recipient: FRESNO COUNTY ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 93721

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0027 PROVING OUR PARENTING SKILLS PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 782,002 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 782,002

    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: Fathers` Support Center, St. Louis
    Recipient ZIP Code: 63158

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0052 FATHERS’ SUPPORT CENTERS’ PATHWAY TO RESPONSIBLE FAHTERGOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,530,190 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,530,190

    Recipient: Friends Outside in Los Angeles County, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 91101-1632

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0053 “DADS BACK!” IS A COMPREHENSIVE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM WHICH WILL SERVICE THE REENTRY POPULATION AND THEIR FAMILIES THROUGH CO-LOCATED SERVICES AT 3 FAMIL 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 518,067 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 518,067

    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: GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION
    Recipient ZIP Code: 41472

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0014 GATEWAY COMMUNITY SERVICE ORGANIZATION PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 55104-1708

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0016 G/ESM FATHER PROJECT’S PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 1,772,546 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,772,546

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF AUSTIN
    Recipient ZIP Code: 78703

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0005 THE FATHERHOOD WORKS PROGRAM OFFERS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 623,965 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 623,965

    Recipient: GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF PITTSBURGH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 15203-2102

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0011 THE AFFECT PROJECT (ADVANCING FATHERS AND FAMILY ENRICHMENT COLLABORATIVE) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,952 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,952

    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: HAYMARKET CENTER
    Recipient ZIP Code: 60607

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0041 MCDERMOTT CENTER DBA HAYMARKET CENTER RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROGRAM FOR LOW INCOME FATHERS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 796,393 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 796,393

    Recipient: HOOPA VALLEY BUSINESS COUNCIL, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 95546

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0019 PARTNERSHIPS FOR CHILDREN AND FAMILY SUCCESS 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    Recipient: Healthy Families/Thriving Communities Collaborative Cou
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20001-4330

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0054 DC FATHERHPOOD EDUCATION, EMPOWERMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,533,518 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,533,518

    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: Horizon Outreach
    Recipient ZIP Code: 77386

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0045 THE HORIZON EAGLE PROGRAM PROVIDES MALE COMBAT VETERAN FATHERS SUFFERING FROM PTSD WITH STRATEGIES TO REDUCE THE EFFECTS OF PTSD ON THEIR RELATIONSHIPS, PARENTING ABILITIES AND EMPLOYABILITY. 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 480,732 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 480,732

    Recipient: I C F, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 22031-6050

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FH0002 NATIONAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR STRATEGIES TO PROMOTE HEALTHY MARRIAGE 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,500,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,500,000

    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 90FK0001 PROJECT PADRES 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 798,928 
    2011 90FM0061 PROJECT JUNTOS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,000 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,597,928

    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 90FK0057 HEALTHY FATHERS/HEALTHY FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,984 
    2011 90FM0060 HEALTHY FAMILIES/HEALTHY CHILDREN 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,993 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,599,977

    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: Kanawha Institute for Social Research & Action, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 25064-1433

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0029 WEST VIRGINIA PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 2,351,675 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 2,351,675

    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: LIGHTHOUSE YOUTH SERVICES, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 45206-1780

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0005 LIGHTHOUSE SKILLS FOR YOUNG FATHERS PROGRAM 5 93.086 ACF 11-16-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: LUTHERAN SOCIAL SERVICES OF SOUTH DAKOTA
    Recipient ZIP Code: 57105-6048

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0002 FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,229,141 
    2011 90FR0097 FATHERHOOD AND FAMILIES: INSIDE & OUT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,229,141

    Recipient: Lexington Leadership Foundation
    Recipient ZIP Code: 40504-3154

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0017 FAYETTE COUNTY FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 449,113 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 449,113
    Page Award Actions Count: 50 Award Actions Amount for this Page: $ 37,025,735
    Total of 178 Award Actions for 164 Awards Total Amount for all Award Actions: $ 121,087,642

    NEXT! — PAGE 3 of 4

    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: MD ST DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCES
    Recipient ZIP Code: 21201

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0091 STRONG FATHERS STRONG FAMILIES PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0092 WINNING FATHERS PROJECT 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: MEMPHIS & SHELBY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
    Recipient ZIP Code: 38105-5041

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0037 PROJECT MOTIVATED OFFENDERS SUCCEEDING TOMORROW (MOST) 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 797,809 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 797,809

    Recipient: MID-IOWA COMMUNITY ACTION, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 50158

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0022 MICA’S STRONG PARENTS – STRONG CHILDREN PROJECT WILL SERVE LOW-INCOME FAMILIES, PRIMARILY NON-CUSTODIAL FATHERS IN THE COUNTIES OF MARSHALL, POWESHIEK, AND TAMA IN CENTRAL IOWA. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 765,433 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 765,433

    Recipient: MILWAUKEE COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT
    Recipient ZIP Code: 53226

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0049 MILWAUKEE COUNTY PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,806,892 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,806,892

    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: Metro United Methodist Urban Ministry
    Recipient ZIP Code: 92116-4557

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0016 SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0016 SAN DIEGO’S RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD INITIATIVE 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: Minnesota Council on Crime and Justice
    Recipient ZIP Code: 55415-1200

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0028 FAMILY STRENGTHENING PROJECT 4 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    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: NASHVILLE METROPOLITIAN BORDEAUX HOSPITAL
    Recipient ZIP Code: 37218

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0035 THE NEW LIFE PROJECT IS A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO IMPROVE THE LIFE OF HIGH RISK CHILDREN BY PROVIDING THE SKILLS, EDUCATION AND RESOURCES MEN NEED TO EFFECTIVELY PARENT THEIR CHILDREN. 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 1,589,107 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,589,107

    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: NATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF CONCERNED BLACK MEN, INC
    Recipient ZIP Code: 20009-4422

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0043 CONCERNED BLACK MEN FATHERHOOD PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 799,999 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 799,999

    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: NJ ST DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 08625

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0004 ENGAGING THE FAMILY IN THE RECOVERY PROCESS FOR THE MAX-OUT OFFENDER: A COMMUNITY-CENTERED APPROACH 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,039,049 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,039,049

    Recipient: NOOKSACK INDIAN TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98244-0157

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0020 NOOKSACK HEALTHY FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 125,000 
    2011 90FN0020 NOOKSACK HEALTHY FAMILIES PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 125,000

    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: NW Marriage Institute
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98682-2328

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0051 PATHWAYS TO RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD GRANTS 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 747,281 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 747,281

    Recipient: New York Youth At Risk, Inc.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 10038

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FR0093 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 02-02-2011   $ 0 
    2011 90FR0093 PROMOTING RESPONSIBLE FATHERHOOD 5 93.086 ACF 05-25-2011   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    Recipient: OAKLAND/LIVINGSTON HUMAN SERVICES AGENCY
    Recipient ZIP Code: 48056

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0036 THE FATHER FACTOR PROJECT 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 432,251 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 432,251

    Recipient: OH St Governor`s Office of Faith Based & Comm Initiativ
    Recipient ZIP Code: 43215

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0109 HEALTHY MARRIAGE DEMONSTRATION, PRIORITY AREA 8 (TURNING THE TIDE FOR OHIO’S BLACK MARRIAGES) 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 0

    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: PARENTS PLUS
    Recipient ZIP Code: 54952-0452

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FE0113 WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTHY MARRIAGE 5 93.086 ACF 10-18-2010   $ 89 
    2011 90FE0113 WISCONSIN ALLIANCE FOR HEALTHY MARRIAGE 5 93.086 ACF 11-16-2010   $ 0 
    Award Actions Count: 2 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 89

    Recipient: PEANUT BUTTER & JELLY PRESCHOOL
    Recipient ZIP Code: 87105

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FO0003 IMPACT! NEW MEXICO’S PARENT REENTRY PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-28-2011   $ 1,476,500 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 1,476,500

    Recipient: PEOPLE FOR PEOPLE, INC.
    Recipient ZIP Code: 19130-2202

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FK0025 PROJECT DEVELOPING ACTIVE DADS (DAD) 1 93.086 ACF 09-26-2011   $ 648,273 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 648,273

    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: QUILEUTE INDIAN TRIBE
    Recipient ZIP Code: 98350

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action
    2011 90FN0022 YOUTH AND FAMILY INTERVENTION PROGRAM 1 93.086 ACF 09-27-2011   $ 150,000 
    Award Actions Count: 1 Award Actions Subtotal: $ 150,000

    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: RIDGE Project, Inc
    Recipient ZIP Code: 43512-2575

    FY Award Number Award Title Budget Year of Support CFDA Number Agency Action Issue Date Amount This Action