Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E. Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022].

with 2 comments

About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E. Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022]. (short-link ends “-2Se” About 7,500 words)

UPDATE 2022 comments: About more 1,000 words which I may move later except the first paragraph:  All relate to UNR.edu and its recent Carnegie Classifications and some background (and news) on both.

(In the update, I changed the title from “UNevada-Reno” to match what the university calls itself:  “University of Nevada, Reno.” Since I was using it as an adjective, I kept the hyphen:  “University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ“).  (And I corrected the spelling of “Tucson”!)

For more on the university, see its “About/History page, but remember you’re looking at a 2022 not a 2016 page. Changes since include its becoming a Carnegie Level R1 institution** — but only in 2019, repeated in 2021…and more partnerships in 2022).  This post is about NCFJCJ AT the university, not the university.  Anything extra in this “updates” section is for the wider context (always relevant, but more incidental to this post).

**In 2019, the University learned that it achieved one of the most prestigious honors an institution of higher learning can ever receive: It was chosen as one of just 130 universities by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education as an “R1” institution — “very high research activity” — which is reserved for doctoral-granting universities with exceptional levels of research activity. In 2020, it was announced that the University had reached the prestigious Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, becoming one of only 119 institutions in the country so honored.


Looking for brief reference to exactly what the Carnegie Classifications represent, because I do not know how many readers of this blog might know, I see a recent consolidation with the American Council on Education, points of reference in time (1970s) and (see the “IU” in the url here), at the bottom in fine print that Indiana University is licensed to use this, and who (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) holds the various trademarks lists (again, in fine print at the bottom / footer banner, to this page).

CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION and THE CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION are registered trademarks of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, used here under license agreement by the Indiana University Center on Postsecondary Research.

Check out (AFTER you read my 2016 post please!), A Feb. 2022 news release: https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/news-releases/carnegie-foundation-and-american-council-on-education-announce-partnership-on-the-carnegie-classifications/, and don’t forget to read what the Foundation says about itself (including its 1906 Charter by Congress, and its new, improved goals, at: https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about-us/ It shows a street address in Stanford, California (probably at Stanford University)

I thought this might be a mistake (I’d always assumed Stanford University was in Palo Alto, and I lived near-enough for many years (i.e. I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the County of Santa Clara) by to know better!) until Wikipedia enlightened me:  Stanford University sits on Stanford, which is not a city, but an UNINCORPORATED part of Santa Clara County. Palo Alto is adjacent:

…Most of the Stanford University campus and other core University owned land is situated within the census-designated place of Stanford though the Stanford University Medical Center, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Research Park are officially part of the city of Palo Alto. Its resident population consists of the inhabitants of on-campus housing, including graduate student residences and single-family homes and condominiums owned by their faculty inhabitants but located on leased Stanford land.  // The population was 21,150 at the 2020 census.[3]

While CFAT is in California, it’s just recently decided to move its Classifications over to ACE (American Council on Education), a membership organization, which is in Washington, D.C., and claims to educate two out of every three individuals educated by certified colleges (Public or private).  ACE in “convenes” institutions through the Washington Higher Education Secretariat (see very fine print, bottom right of web page.  I didn’t even click on all the pretty and engaging photos; I’m looking for self-definitions, place, and who does, as opposed to who does not, post their financial statements and (if applicable, which it may not be) Forms 990) of “Washington Higher Education:

ACE is a membership organization that mobilizes the higher education community to shape effective public policy and foster innovative, high-quality practice. As the major coordinating body for the nation’s colleges and universities, our strength lies in our diverse membership of more than 1,700 colleges and universities, related associations, and other organizations in America and abroad. ACE is the only major higher education association to represent all types of U.S. accredited, degree-granting institutions: two-year and four-year, public and private. For more information, please visit www.acenet.edu or follow ACE on Twitter @ACEducation.

CFAT Foundation History tells more, you can’t help but learn from reading such timelines to understand coordination of setting government policies in (here), the 20th century.  And, I can’t help but notice neither one posts its financials….  Nevertheless, the Carniege Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching timline (that link) explains that for THIS century, the 21st century, it’ll be focused on:

The work of the Foundation in the 21st century joins the discipline of improvement science with the capabilities of networks to foster innovation and accelerate social learning. Specifically, the purposeful collective action needed to solve complex educational problems can be found in networked improvement communities. These NICs are distinguished by four essential functions. (etc.).

This post was drafted January 20, 2016. It  holds a significant “find” that I don’t know who else has found, or would ever have found. Probably, only people who drill down on organization tax returns and notice what might be missing when any organization describes itself, boasting about the public service it’s done over the decades, would have run across this information. There are indicators that the organization involved did not want this information to be found.

I am under considerable personal pressure this year (more than last year), and because of possible consequences depending in how I may find a way to stand up to it, I am concerned that this information might not get out.  So, although it may not be in perfect sequence with other posts, or even various sections within this post in the best sequence, I am publishing it now.

The “find” on this post speaks loudly as to whether or not the private and government-funded organizations collectively driving national family court and juvenile justice policy (including responses to child abuse and domestic violence, i.e., criminal matters) can be trusted AT ALL, and as to whether they should be permitted to continue setting standards and driving policy, let alone receive cooperation and government financing (grants and contracts).

Subtitle “The “FIND” and Questions it Raises:below names the find, and better defines “NCJFCJ” and “NCJJ” from organization/corporation perspective.  This introduction discusses the impact it had on my understanding and my understanding of its significance to the larger picture, but does not go into detail on the “find.” 

I split this topic in half almost where I began the draft on January 20, 2016. Together, both posts are about 14,000 words.  This post sets the context, the second (to be published shortly after this one) states what I’d drafted January 20, 2016, and what inspired the expose. I am talking, the set up and follow through of a connection between an NCJFCJ employee (E. Hunter Hurst III) and formation with some of his associates of a public-traded company which specializes in the exact same types of services and institutions which NCJFCJ policy (backed by others as this post shows) encourages judges to divert juveniles into, including private youth prisons and residential treatment centers.

Surely NCFCJ board members were aware of this, but chose not to mention it in honoring their recently-deceased employee’s accomplishments.

Further complicating this (though not discussed in these posts) is what, exactly, are NCJFCJ’s relationships as both grantee and technical assistance provider (it seems) to other grantee or grants solicitors, with major federal agencies — both HHS and USDOJ — and within what I call the “DV cartel” — moving its funds (primarily government receipts, per tax returns) to other members of the same cartel, specifically, I’d noticed, to Family Violence Prevention Fund in San Francisco (now called “Futures without Violence.”).  This is only seen by looking at FVPF’s charitable return (in California, it’s called an “RRF”) at the state level and is where I saw it.

Normally sources of government funding are shown on these forms.  NCJFCJ is NOT “government” but one year FVPF classified it as such and reported it as donor on an RRF.  I suppose also if NCJFCJ was granting funds to FVPF (or Futures without Violence) it would also show on NCJFCJ’s Form 990s, which anyone can also look up.  If they remember that this is actually a 501©3 and think to do so!!

My find, 2016, is twenty years after the factwhat I’m describing began (was organized) it seems, in 1997, in a conflict-of-interest relationship between one employee (now deceased) running what NCJFCJ calls its own “subdivision” and the organizational/policy focus of NCJFCJ in general, and this “subdivision” in specific.

Why, in the past twenty years, didn’t someone else notice this, and bring it up for public discourse, especially during the timeframe of Kids for Cash (Luzerne County, PA) scandal? At that time I was specifically blogging on and interacting with people in Pennsylvania, and I DID bring up a related organization’s (Juvenile Law Center’s) possible set-up of the possibility of RICO in Pennyslvania through juvenile courts. But this other organization is on an entirely different level.

NCJFCJ, the organization in question, is primarily government funded (per its tax returns), but one of its subsidiaries (so-called) is a project adopted and apparently funded in part by grants from primarily by a major, billion-dollar, private foundation.

The stated purpose from the grantor foundation of this type of grant is to fund key “lead agencies” (nonprofit organizations) in several states, not just Pennsylvania, to shift the paradigm of the juvenile justice system, nationwide, away from incarceration into diversionary and treatment services.  As this so-called subsidiary doesn’t appear to have a separate business or legal entity, such as perhaps a related organization of the main one, its paper trail (relative sources of income, and expenditures) would not normally be seen on the larger organization’s returns.

The name of the initiative of which part, only, of the paradigm shifting involves the juvenile justice system, is called “Models for Change.” A larger, attached question is, why should private foundations be driving public institutional changes?

So, my finding also interacts with the themes of “Models for Change” and topics such as “Kids for Cash” in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, in which we were told that the bad guys were caught, the “rogue judges” punished, and that the legal (litigating) hero of the day, which filed the class-action lawsuit exposing “Kids for Cash” (at the repeated reporting of parents) was the nonprofit Juvenile Law Center (“JLC”). That should be discussed, for comparison to this scenario– it’s a “very big deal” — but I’ll discuss it separately.

The “NCJJ” referenced in post title was also cited as receiving”Models for Change” funding  from MacArthur Foundation, whose initiative “Models for Change” has been all along, but the grant was to NCJFCJ, because NCJJ, not being a separate entity, couldn’t receive it directly — and this grant description included calling NCJJ a lead agency in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania for this.  I quote this later in the post.

For reference, however here are the Juvenile Law Center’s tax returns, compared to John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation’s (at least the main MacArthur Foundation’s).  Take a look. Which one, do you think, might be calling the policy shots here — the one in Philadelphia with six million dollars in total assets, or the one in Chicago with six billion dollars in total assets?

[[2022 update.  I don’t always do this, but because of the importance of this post (and my other March, 2016 posts, which I intend to re-publish ( in a post linking to all of them), I’ll look for an update on the JLC assets — not the MacArthur Foundation’s.  Once it gets to a few billion, the general description is “LARGE”!  But I’m curious what the JLC has been up to meanwhile, i.e. (see the two dates in post title), in the last six years.  That said, few entities post their latest tax returns on their own websites, nor does “Candid.org (which is a rebrand of The Foundation Center database below; this happened in or around 2017 when it absorbed “Guidestar.org” which was formerly separate.  I.e., two major providers of nonprofit databases merged, and one became a brand of the survivor entity.  Neither candid.or nor the IRS exempt organization website these days seem to have the latest tax returns uploaded; even accounting for COVID-19 pandemic extensions or not…. It’s odd…]]

The “oddness” bugs me. Some of the details:
(Candid.org doesn’t display tax return for FYE2018 in search results.  I don’t know why; I’ve noticed it in other searches recently.  It was found (HERE) within seconds, however, at the IRS website; I have no idea why Candid.org didn’t include 2018 on its search results. Their fiscal year ends in August, so the latest shown at Candid only represent for Fiscal Year BEGINNING 2018.  It’s moved (FYE2019 but is still within Philadelphia.  It’s filed (the two returns I just viewed) results quite late despite being a fairly straightforward operation, and “financials” “available to the public on request.”  Internal discrepancies for FYE 2018 return (the one I found at IRS) include $410K for “professional fundraising expenses” (Page 1.. Pt. I, Summary, Line 16b) that don’t show on the corresponding Schedule G; Part VIII (Revenues). Both places are incomplete (no “net” amount entered: based on Schedule G, a “0” should’ve been entered, as fundraising expenses for (just one event) matched to the dollar “gross income” after contributions).  It seems that $93K was spent to raise $124K, and that fundraising expenses MAY have been inflated by $308K ($401K stated on summary and matched on Part VIII Line 25 (that’s the summary line), Column D less $93 Details).  Meanwhile it has a Schedule D liability in the form of $260,000 being held as an agent for (who, unknown).

and, speaking of NOT showing its financial statements unless requested by the public,  Part XI (differences between Form 990 and Audited Financial Statements) shows net unrealized gains on investments of $408K).

Total results: 3. Search Again.

JUVENILE LAW CENTER PA 2019 990 $6,018,596.00 23-1976386
Juvenile Law Center PA 2017 990 34 $7,397,375.00 23-1976386
Juvenile Law Center PA 2016 990 35 $6,090,612.00 23-1976386

One other thing to check might be whether the JLC’s main source of revenue is private or public contributions, or program service revenues (from the ongoing litigation — FYI, their current staff of about 20 is half lawyers).

Juvenile Law Center PA 2014 990 34 $6,035,305 23-1976386
Juvenile Law Center PA 2013 990 34 $6,067,700 23-1976386
Juvenile Law Center PA 2012 990 35 $4,854,365 23-1976386

Search Again

MacArthur Foundation, John D. and Catherine T., The IL 2011 990PF 179 $5,703,076,554 23-7093598
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation IL 2013 990PF 204 $6,323,307,217 23-7093598
The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation IL 2012 990PF 223 $5,987,438,524 23-7093598

(Sorry, I forgot to sort by tax year.  The database apparently sorted by their two, arbitrarily different ways of handling the “The” in the organization’s title, putting Year 2011 at the top instead.)

Juvenile Law Center Tax Return, “in brief” (briefly…) Actually, a look at the “2013” (Fiscal year is 9/1 – 8/31, so this year ended 8/31/2014.  No Year “2014” return available on this database yet….)

  • Prior year (2012) Contributions received $2.7M, this year, $1.5M.  Overall revenues were down by about $2 million.  More was spent on salaries and similar on “other expenses” leaving Revenues – Expenses this year NEGATIVE $830,511; they ran a deficit.  The prior year, the same figure (Revenues – Expenses) was a positive $936K.
  • There were no government contributions; sponsorship was mostly private, plus some fund-raising. We are looking at a sponsored organization with uneven funding and, parallel to this, uneven budgeting to stay afloat.  I also noticed (balance sheet) that they are holding around $5+M in public-traded investments, staying somewhat stable.
  • Only three “Part VIIA” (Trustees, Directors, Officers, Key Employees)  members were paid, and for lawyers — not much:  Robert Schwartz, Esq., Marsha Levick, Esq., and Lourdes M. Rosado.

The JLC is not the least ashamed to talk about the foundations sponsoring them, starting with Annie E. Casey Foundation, and MacArthur Foundation, although there are others.  Basically they exist as a conduit for various foundations with similar purposes towards the juvenile justice and foster care (etc.) systems.  Here’s from a letter at the back of the 2013 return.  I put one paragraph out of order, but basically quoted the whole letter.  The letterhead notes that JLC was awarded the 2008 MacArthur award for “Creative and Effective Institutions.”

Because you also have the link to the same letter, I’m not re-formatting (individually adding spaces between words where the copy & paste process just took them out)…

MacArthurFoundation funded JuvenileLaw Center to deepen successful juvenile justice reform efforts in Pennsylvania, and to diffuse successes elsewhere in the country. Areas of success include diversion of youth from the juvenile justice system; improved re-entry for youth returning home from placement; enhancing education-including career and technical education-of youth in placement; promoting balanced information sharing while protecting youths’ privacy and confidentiality; and other areas necessary in a fair, effective, rational and developmentally appropriate juvenile justice system.

(Letter starts here):

The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation and Annie E. Casey Foundation have supported Juvenile Law Center’s efforts to give delinquent youth second chances. A majorvehicle forthisworkhasbeenthe draftingandpublication ofreports on juvenile records. We havesought to dispel the myth that juvenile records disappear when youth turn18. We have reported how most states fail to protect confidentiality of records;and most retain records far beyond their needt o promote public safety. At the same time, these records are obstacles to youth making successful transitions to adulthood. They are high barriers to education, employment, housing and the military.

Annie E. Casey Foundation also funded a Juvenile Law Center effort to embed principles of juvenile detention reform in state laws, regulations and court rules. Casey’s Juvenile Detention Alternatives Initiative has core values that Juvenile Law Center promoted in a policy guide for states. We will help states turn those core values into enduring policy.

Casey Family Programs and Annie E. Casey Foundation supported Juvenile Law Center’s efforts to improve outcomes for youth aging out of foster care, with special attentiontofosteryouths’accesstoeducation. Withthissupport,JuvenileLawCenter was active in the National Working Group on Foster Care and Education; and partnered with the American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law, and Education Law Center,toformtheLegalCenterforFosterCareandEducation. JuvenileLawCenter’s work also included improving foster youths’ access to health care, and improving public officials’ attention toissuesofconfidentiality and consent to treatment. Through Juvenile Law Center’s efforts, courts, public officials, advocates and service providers increased their efforts to smooth the transition of foster youths as they leave foster care to become productivemembers ofsociety.

With support from Open Society Foundations, Tow Family Foundation, and Public Welfare Foundation, Juvenile Law Center has continued to author lead amicus briefs in important children’s rights cases involving juvenile justice. These include recent cases in the United States Supreme Court: Roper v. Simmons (2005) (abolishing the juvenile death penalty),Graham v.Florida(2010)(abolishing life without parole sentences for juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses), J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011) (establishing the relevance of youth status to the Miranda custody analysis), and Miller v. Alabama (2012) (abolishing mandatory life without parole sentences forjuveniles convicted of homicide crimes). JuvenileLaw Centerhasalsoparticipatedinappealsas co-counsel or amici on issues related to transfer to adult court and adult sentencing of youth in appeals before the Louisiana Supreme Court, Colorado Supreme Court, Nevada Supreme Court, California Supreme Court and the Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals.

(Next paragraphs concludes the letter) With support from the Stone and Stoneleigh Foundations, Juvenile Law Center managed twoyouthengagementprograms. These programs–JuvenilesforJustice,andYouth Fostering Change– have successfully recruited and trained youth from the juvenile justice and foster care systems. Theseyouth,many of whom have been trained as public speakers– launch advocacy campaigns to reform the juvenile justice and child welfare systems.

As I pointed out on sidebar and at least one post, the Juvenile Law Center founded? by Robert G. Schwartz seems to be operating in communication/”tandem” or association with a group of about eight law centers focused on children around the nation.  Don’t quote me, but they are not a lone operator and as we see, the backers cited in 2013 include:

MacArthur Foundation, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Open Society Foundations (George Soros, right?), Tow Family Foundation. Public Welfare Foundation, Stone and Stoneleigh Foundations.

While they are working to transform juvenile justice, no question, the interests they are representing are their primary sponsors and funders.  They are not fiscally independent, and they are not, that I can see, taking government grants.  They are taking private grants, functioning as a key organization within the state that several of these foundations do not inhabit, and forcing public institutional change.

This part gets interesting….SEE the Table above for

(MacArthur Foundation returns)

I looked through the Year 2013 of the this MacArthur Foundation (“MacArthur” for short) returns, for a general sense of its reported size (Revenues, Expenses, and operations, etc. ) and looking for grants to the Juvenile Law Center and the NCJFC, as to the Models for Change projects.

That year, MacArthur Foundation (“Consolidated” IRS return, it says) pulled in (see page 1)  over $430M.  It earned $20+M from Dividends and Interests on Securities; $223M on “Net proceeds from Sale of assets” and $183M from “Other Income / See Schedule.” (which, I didn’t).  Of this, it  granted out $218M, it’s a long list, alpha by grantee name. Like many private foundations, its distributions represent a small proportion over time of its “non-charitable use assets” which (obviously) ARE producing significant income.  From what I could tell, this one averaged between 4% and maximum 6% in its philanthropy.  The distributions significantly reduce taxes paid, and spread influence around the nation.

So, essentially, it’s holding onto the income-producing assets (not including the ones it sold), and distributing — this year — just over 50% of its income.  The size is impressive, so are the salaries of its officers, and the size of subcontracting agencies (one of which is even in England) as well.

I found a direct grant to Government in Illinois under Models for Change.  The grant was $240,000:

To:  Department of Juvenile justice State of Illinois 707 North 15th Street Springfield,IL 62702

To secure and sustain progress made in improving programs and services under Illinois Models for Change (over two years), US Programs, juvenile Justice, Models for Change, Illinois

Under the “J” page of MacArthur Foundation grantees (listed alphabetically about 10/page) on the same (2013) return, grants went to several other organizations with “Models for Change” language in the descriptions, and in different states.  Presumably (but being a 990PF, no EIN#s were provided) each and every one of those not labeled “government” was another 501©3.

  • Justice at Stake 717 D Street NW Suite 203 Washington, DC 20004;
  • Justice Management Institute 1400 14th Street North Floor 12 Arlington,VA 22209 (two grants); Justice Policy Institute 1012 14th, Street NW Suite400, Washington, D.C.  [manages the “Models for Change” website, got $355,000; I saw its returns and have more to say, separately if/when I post on “Models for Change” in this context];
  • the Juvenile Law Center in Philadelphia ($200K), and
  • Juvenile justice Initiative 518 Davis Suite 211, Evanston, IL 60201

For the ones just listed above, respectively:

  • In support of the Models for Change Resource Center Partnership and to promote judicial leadership in juvenile justice reform nationally (over two years), US Programs, Juvenile justice, Models for Change ($270K)
  • To support judicial leadership in juvenile justice reform as part of Models for Change (over two years), US Programs, Juvenile justice, Models for Change, National Resource Bank ($125K)
  • To support strategic communications and policy advocacy for the Models for Change Initiative, US Programs,* Juvenile Justice, Models for Change ($355K)
  • To sustain Illinois Models for Change and to advance juvenile justice policy reform in Illinois (over two years), US Programs, Juvenile justice, Models for Change, Illinois ($175K)
  • To support the documentation, communication, and diffusion of Models for Change policy and practice innovations, US Programs, Juvenile Justice, Models for Change. $200K (Juvenile Law Center)

While looking through the MacArthur grants list for this year’s “Models for Change” grant to the NCJFCJ (which, when found, I saw was over $1 million) I also found many others. Having found the NCJFCJ one officially connects it with E Hunter Hurst III and that “NCJJ” of the title, putting it on the same page (so to speak) with other, similar nonprofits which also took Models for Change grants.

Take a look to get the general idea of how much “clout” is being poured into just this one initiative, and just for tax year 2013; copied and pasted (or typed verbatim) from the tax return, occasionally with a comment I added.  Notice that some were not to nonprofits, but centers, universities or schools — for example, the Northwestern University School of Law.

Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center 433 Bolivar Street 8th Floor
New Orleans,LA 70112 (two grants totaling $605,000).

  • This is MacArthur’s designated “Lead Entity” for the state of Louisiana.  (Note to self:  Compare to organizations connected with the Miami Child Well-Being Court(™) model; it seems there was a New Orleans connection in the involved parties)

NCJFCJ — two grants, BOTH related to Models for Change:   $1,241,094 (first) and $133,906 (second) — in 2013 alone:

  • To document policy and practice innovations and track systems reform progress and outcomes as part of Models for Change (over two years), US Programs, juvenile justice, Models for Change
  • In support of general operations (over two years), US Programs, juvenile justice, Models for Change

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY SCHOOL of LAW (Chicago, Illinois, area) — $195,00 for, you guessed it:

  • “To sustain Illinois Models for Change and to improve Illinois juvenile defender policy, practices and services statewide (over two years), US Programs, juvenile justice, Models for Change, Illinois”

I continued scrolling to see any more “Models for Change” grantees in this 2013 list of grantees:

POLICY RESEARCH, Inc. 345 Delaware Avenue, Delaware, NY 12054:  $600,000

  • To secure, expand, and disseminate reform innovations developed by Models for Change Action Networks (over two years), US Programs, Juvenile Justice, Models for Change

PUBLIC INSTITUTE PROJECTS, INC.  45 W 36th Street, 6th Floor, NY, NY $3,550,000:

  • To support a multi-state campaign to promote juvenile justice systems reform nationally, US Programs, Juvenile justice, Diffusion and National Campaign 

Robert F. Kennedy Childrens Action Corps 11 Beacon St. #820, Boston, MA 02108, two grants:  $190,000 and $500,000:

  • To provide technical assistance on juvenile justice and child welfare, US Programs, Juvenile justice, Models for Change, National Resource Bank
  • To support the national diffusion of Models for Change innovations in juvenile justice and child welfare systems coordination and integration, and juvenile court probation policies and practices (over two years), US Programs, juvenile Justice, Models for Change

Technical Assistance Collaborative Inc 31 St James Ave Suite 950 Boston,MA 02116 $100,000

  • To support technical assistance in the implementation of financing and policy changes to sustain reforms improving mental health services to juvenile justice-involved youth in Models for Change states, US Programs, juvenile justice, Models for Change

University of Massachusetts, Boston, MA 0211  $107,500: Domestic Battery Adolescent Screening Tool — as part of Models for Change: [SEE my last post about Batterer Typology studies!…]

  • To support the National Youth Screening Assistance Project to refine, validate and support the dissemination of a specialized adolescent domestic battery assessment tool developed as part of Illinois Models for Change (over two years), US Programs, Juvenile justice 

VERA INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE (NY, NY) $370,000 + $205,000:

  • To support the national diffusion of Models for Change innovations in policy and practice for the diversion of status offenders from the juvenile justice system (over two years), US Programs, Juvenile justice, Models for Change
  • To support research, data analysis, and strategic planning in the Models for Change states (over two years), US Programs, juvenile Justice, Models for Change, National Resource Bank

W. Haywood Burns Institute, 475 14th Street Suite 800, Oakland, CA  $117,500:

  • To support the role of evidence-based practices in improving the quality of juvenile justice programs and services for racial and ethnic minority youth (over two years), US Programs, juvenile Justice, Models for Change.

Practical Question:  WHO would like the job (unpaid) of looking up every one of those recipient entities and seeing how they handle tax returns, what else they are into, and how long before the Models for Change initiative began (which could be identified — I don’t know exactly, but believe within the last ten years, from what I saw at Justice Policy Institute tax returns — and it’s managing the ModelsforChange.net website), possibly around 2006?

Probably no one.

All that was just for a taste of the flavor of the initiative (in addition to its websites and self-promotions).

A separate post, which I have already begun, will discuss (from this analytical perspective, not experiential personal contact)  the “Juvenile Law Center” and their proximity  (involvement in) the Kids for Cash Scandal while functioning to help the MacArthur Foundation’s Models for Change. I also see in the sidebar on this FamilyCourtMatters blog (far down on the right sidebar, a pale-pink background “widget”)** I had been writing on this in 2013, and found that California’s AOC/CFCC (!!!) had also been designated a state “Models for Change lead entity” by MacArthur.  I can certainly see why, from what I know (and personally experienced,as a consequence of policies) from this part of the State’s highest judicial ruling body, the California Judicial Council!  NOT that I agree with the policy!

[2022, Apr. 24 formatting update comment:  I moved many widgets to a sticky “Page,” this material may be found on one of the top sticky posts listing those widgets, or it may still be down there, far below..  It’s probably easier to research it again separately, this many years later//LGH].

Now let’s get down to the “find” itself — which wasn’t Models for Change itself, but relates to to Models for Change, and to why I originally wrote this post.

Which will be delivered in two parts. You have almost completed part 1. 

Two More Points about “The Find”:

  • I would not have found (noticed) this information were I not already personally alert to specific organizations which I already knew to be interested in breaking down jurisdictional authority with a view towards first, nationalizing, then internationalizing, the many public institutions which deal with children, parents, and youth.  See 2016 posts, among others.
  • Nor I would even be alert to those organizations if I did not have enough common sense and cognitive function to reject analyses of problems in those problem-solving (so-called) courts which ignore “the 501©3 factor” and so fail to distinguish between: public/private, large/small, old/new-kid-on-the-block, and “deep in the networks or as independent as they wish to be viewed.”
    • Among the previously organized networks involved are (my terms:) the DV Cartel — or Family Values cartel (Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood, bipartisan patriarchy modeled after the 1965 “Moynihan Report” as to urban families and modeled after conservative viewpoints on how independent should men in control allow women to be? IF they are also mothers) or, let’s call it what it is, the AFCC-affiliated (formally or informally) “cartel.”
    • Whatever the subject matter or cause of conflict, when the network of organizations and individuals looks “cartel,” that’s what I call it and of all these, yes, I said, “cartel.”  See 2016 posts, among others.

The “FIND” and Questions it Raises:

REGARDING the NCJFCJ and its long-term and obvious attempts to transform both JUVENILE and FAMILY court systems into the “diversionary into mental and behavioral health services” model ,

how is it that the leader of one their primary “centers” in Pittsburgh developed a public-traded company in 1996 to take advantage of (profit from) this policy? 

And that several board members of this company, it turns out, had similar backgrounds in private, for-profit prisons and behavioral modification institutions involving youth? [Youth Services International, Parents and Children Together…]
And that, as I discovered, at least one of those associated institutions (run previously by board members of the public-traded corporation) had been subjected to lawsuits, among other things, over coverup of sexual abuse of youth and shut down because of this? (Links below).
And, how is it that NFJFCJ, in commemorating his (this leader’s) life’s work on their website, “forgot” to mention his public-traded company,  although their respected and beloved, recently deceased employee’s public-traded organization was so large that two years later, it sold off one of its subsidiaries which was generating $346 million dollars?
“Minor” amnesia by NCJFCJ?  What’s really going on here?

That’s the topic of this post.  Both parts together, about 12,400 words.  I split this post in about half almost where I began the draft on January 20, 2016 as mentioned at the start of this.

First, a few necessary definitions. This takes several inches of post, is important.  Patience will be rewarded here– or, scroll through or past for more details on this find. Since I blog to a general audience, at least let’s define “NCJFCJ” and, if possible, “NCJJ” in relationship to it.

FIRST, DEFINING RELATIONSHIP of NCJFCJ to NCJJ, and who/what is each of them:  That was also my question on first hearing of the Pittsburgh-based “NCFJJ,” and it is usually my first question on hearing of any new group name, especially any group name with the words “national” “juvenile” and “justice.” 

Basic Principles I Keep in Mind

ANY organization’s website is helpful and may be official, but organization website alone isn’t anything close to validated information — on any group.

Most organizations are less than specific and consistent in defining whether their centers, institutes, or “subdivisions” are, or are not separate legal 501©3s (or LLCs, etc.).  They are not speaking fiscal language, but public interface language.  Organization websites are usually in place  to validate or push some cause, justify grants already received (if applicable), and/or take donations.   Some may have a form of transparency and accountability, or even post some tax returns or annual reports.  However, it’s up to interested individuals to get a more in-depth, or at least a somewhat more detailed definition.

Therefore language on organization websites is often more promotional and sales/marketing oriented (even if its a tax-exempt) and without other sources of information, those can be considered, basically a form of organization “folklore” until at least partially validated. Without backup checkup, it’s “take it on faith.”



I’m showing three different, official sources of information on NCJFCJ so that, when you hear from, or hear about this organization in regards court-reform of ANY sort (whether regarding the family court, or domestic violence issues), you will remember — it is not a government entity, it IS a 501©3, and as such can take contributions from private sector, and grants from the public sector.  It does take HHS grants.

*Nevada Secretary of State (Business Entity Search Site) is “down for routine maintenance” as I’m ready to hit “publish” (at an ungodly hour in the morning…).   You may search the name (or names — there are two organizations listed on NCJFCJ tax return Schedule R as “related” — so when they were started could be searched…)

In a recent post, I pointed out that, in coordination with five other “groups” NCJFCJ plays a significant role in advising, or “technical assistance and training” of USDOJ/ OVW (Office of Violence Against Women) grantees — which could themselves be either government entities (courts) or private entities. 

Acronyms can get confusing when they are frequently about National Centers, Juveniles and of course Justice.  So here are these two: 

  • NCJFCJ = (The) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Inc. is a nonprofit organization. It is a separate business entity, incorporated, and functioning non-profit as to the IRS, it’s a 501©3 and has its own EIN#.  It files tax returns and is able to receive and distribute grants and in all basic respects, operate like a corporation.  It publishes and holds copyrights to what it publishes.  It has a website and a logo.
  • “NCJJ” =  (The) National Center for Juvenile Justice is not nonprofit organization, or apparently an organization at all, but being described by NCJFCJ as though it was and as located in Pittsburgh, PA. “NCJJ” therefore appears to be a concept or project of and run by NCJFCJ which it would like the public believe is so large as to be a separate business entity. However,  until further notice (from what I can tell so far), it does NOT appear to be a separate incorporated business entity or even organization in Pennsylvania or anywhere else.  I question whether “NCJJ” qualifies as an “it,” but there is an “NCJJ” website.

Logo from HHS grants database; records go back to about 1994-1995. HHS being the largest grant-making agency in the federal government, perhaps you should get acquainted with this database… Click logo to take a look.  {not shown — the Eagle in a Circle logo of US DHHS, which appears alongside}

Keeping the NCJFCJ straight from the NCJJ (and other similar named organizations) can be further confusing (and in my opinion, not accidentally so) in that TAGGS.hhs.gov (that’s a database for federal agency HHS itself) insists on continuing to report its grants to “NCJFCJ” under a different name.  In fact to find its $21M of TAGGS grants I had to first find an EIN# and search by that EIN#, 362486896).  Look at the name carefully and compare to “National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges” and the acronym “NCJFCJ” which, incidentally is also trademarked by the organization.  Notice any missing words in TAGGS version?

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards

  Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

LIKEWISE, a popular database provided by “The Foundation Center,” which I use often to display tax returns because it at least produces easy-to-copy tables of the last three years’ returns showing Total (Gross) Assets and the EIN#s, does not give the complete legal name of the organization. Consequences? Search by its commonly-used name, such as the one on its own website, and you won’t find it at all. You need to first know that it exists as a nonprofit, find the EIN# that’s a searchable field on the database you want to look it up on (whether 990finder, or HHS.gov, or the IRS select exempt check, etc.), to find it. Why this happens, I don’t know — but it happens a LOT on this database and often happens, I’ve seen, with key organizations involved in the justice system..

This search result reflects a mis-labeling (error?) by the database provider, which is the SF-based “Foundation Center,” itself a nonprofit.  EIN# 362486896 is for the National Center for Juvenile and Family Court Judges. Click organization name to see.  Incidentally, their tax year begins Oct. 1, so “2013” is actually a fiscal year 2012 return, not the most current.  Compare to “NCJFCJ” and to “National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges” — notice any words missing?

National Center for Juvenile Justice NV 2013 990 43 $3,493,170.00 36-2486896
National Center for Juvenile Justice NV 2012 990 45 $2,505,992.00 36-2486896

NOTE — click through the organization names to see the tax return, read the title of the reporting organization, and you will notice that it’s the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and NOT “National Center for Juvenile Justice.”  The 990finder labeled it wrong….

“BRIEFLY” (I hope you will review the tax returns yourself), looking at the “2013” return above:

“The NCJFCJ is a judicial membership organization, as well as a charitable, educational organization”

  • Keep it in mind that membership organizations protect and promote the interests of their members.  NCJFCJ claims to do this AND function as a charitable educational, organization, somehow.

Disclosures (Part VI,C — bottom of page 6):  “List the States with which a copy of this Form 990 is required to be filed – HI, NY, OR, PA, TN”  These appear to be states it’s operating in, or soliciting in.  Not exactly all 50, is it?

Schedule-R Related Organizations — there are two related tax-exempts.  I have looked at them before, but it’s late now, I want this published, and am not going to review –just mention them — at this point.  Both are controlled by NCJFCJ, and this next text gives their EIN#s for people who may want to look them up. Both are at the same PO Box. Note, “NCJJ” is NOT listed as a related tax-exempt organization; but (below) it claims to be a nonprofit organization.  I have yet to see proof of this.  I think it wants to be seen as a nonprofit organization, without actually being one….

(1) National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges Fund Inc PO Box 8970 Reno, NV 895078970 (EIN# 94-3109663)

(2) National Juvenile Court Foundation PO Box 8970 Reno, NV 895078970 (EIN# 36-6142750)

Contributions:  Page 1 shows $11M receipts (revenues).  $10M Contributions, of this $8M was Government Grants, $1.5M private contributions.  Program Service Revenues, about $1.6M.  This entity is dependent, unlike “juvenile law center” — on government grants.

What’d they spend it on? — Mostly, their own salaries.: 113 employees.  Of the Key Employees (section VII), however, only two officers are paid, and there are four other “highest paid employees” — ONE of who is listed at “National Center for Juvenile Justice.”   Some (not much) was spent on grants.  

Only three independent subcontractors (a certain year) were paid over $100K (listed on part VIIB), two of them bearing no company affiliations, and one relating to hotel conferences:

  • D Alan Henry ,456 33rd Street Manhattan Beach CA 90266
  • Paris Las Vegas Paris Las Vegas Operating Co Consolidated Financial Operations PO Box 17010 Las Vegas NV 891147010
  • Gene Siegel ,5530 N Camino Arenosa Tuscon AZ 85718

Notice neither man’s name has a company name attached.  Both have had affiliated business names and they could’ve been included.

Gene Siegel, I looked up and found in “Promising Practices in the Diversion of Juvenile Domestic Violence Cases ” published March, 2015, on the NCJJ.org website, and it says by “NCJJ” and sponsored by (you guessed it) The MacArthur Foundation.  GCS Consulting and NCJJ together cited as authors. While acknowledging NCJJ is “the research division of NCJFCJ” the material also states that it is “a nonprofit organization.”  (but,) See NCJFCJ tax returns page 2 fine print, and you will see that they are describing NCJJ as one of their projects…

Anyone may use the content of this publication as is for educational purposes as often and for as many people as wished. All we ask is that you identify the material as being the property of the National Center for Juvenile Justice. If you want to use this publication for commercial purposes in print, electronic, or any other medium, you need our permission. If you want to alter the content or form for any purposes, educational or not, you will also need to request permission.

© March 2015

National Center for Juvenile Justice 3700 South Water Street, Suite 200 Pittsburgh, PA 15203

The National Center for Juvenile Justice (www.ncjj.org) is a non-profit organization that conducts research (statistical, legal, and applied) on a broad range of juvenile justice topics and provides technical assistance to the field.  NCJJ is the research division of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Interesting, they are promoting the Adolescent Batterers Screening Tool (page 1). This piece is visually attractive, nicely designed with charts, and appealing. It has charts, columns, footnotes and references. At any rate, this is the description of Gene Siegel — that he’s been consulting for NCJJ for two decades now (at the end of document):

About the Authors
Gene Siegel, GCS Consulting, LLC
Gene is a consultant for the National Center for Juvenile Justice. He has worked with NCJJ for almost two decades, conducting research and other related activities in juvenile courts, juvenile justice organizations, and child welfare agencies across the country. Gene can be reached at genesiegel@mac.com
Gregg Halemba, Senior Research Associate, NCJJ
Gregg has been with NCJJ for going on 25 years. He retired as Chief of Applied Research in 2011 and continues as a part-time Senior Research Associate. During his tenure with the Center, Gregg has collaborated on a variety of juvenile justice, child protection and family court projects including research regarding the prevalence and court processing of dual jurisdiction youth.

Interesting, “GCS Consulting, LLC” didn’t register in Arizona until May, 2013.

Both men were found as participants at 9th Annual “Models for Change” conference (2016) hosted by “CJJ” (I may post separately on the DC-baserd Coalition for Juvenile Justice (formed in 1984?), which is another nonprofit taking MacArthur, Annie E. Casey, NCFCJ, Pew Charitable Trusts (and other) donations…)  :  D. Alan Henry under California simply labeled “Models for Change” and Gene Siegel, labeled GCS Consulting, LLC.  I would bookmark that 22-page list; it has judges, some other public officials, and from what I learned about CJJ being the fiscal agent of “National Network for Juvenile Justice, I felt it was misleading to have about 8 listings as “NNJJ” and as many for CJJ.  In addition, representatives from the the nonprofits listed above as recipients of Models for Change grants from MacArthur.

I found D. Alan Henry attending a Models for Change meeting.  I also see him associated with (being interviewed by) “Center for Court Innovation (.org) on Pretrial Services Diversion in Los Angeles; the interview is dated 2007:

Alan Henry, Director Emeritus, Pretrial Services Resource Center

D. Alan Henry is director emeritus of the Pretrial Services Resource Center, based in Los Angeles. He has testified before numerous state and Congressional committees, written extensively about pretrial issues, and provided technical assistance in the areas of jail overcrowding, pretrial release, supervision, and diversion to state, local, and federal officials in both adult and juvenile systems. H e spoke with Center staff about pretrial diversion.

What’s the history behind the development of diversion programs in the U.S.?
Back in the ’70s, prosecutors and judges realized that they were getting all sorts of relatively minor cases coming in, often involving drugs, and just didn’t have the capacity to prosecute them in a timely way. An old idea was resuscitated, the idea that maybe all these people don’t need to be prosecuted, maybe the system itself can be toxic or criminogenic for people coming into it, especially first-time offenders, and perhaps a minor charge should be an opportunity to take those arrestees out of the system and put them on a different track so they can live happily ever after—if they do certain things and abide by a formal contract.

Apparently “Pretrial Services Resource Center” was a USDOJ-funded nonprofit (springing out of another association), and D. Alan Henry ran it for about 24 years (1982-2006) after which it became Pretrial Justice Institute; the address is Gaithersburg, MD

The Pretrial Justice Institute History

In 1976, the Board of Directors of the National Association of Pretrial Services Agencies (NAPSA) submitted a proposal to the U.S. Department of Justice for the funding of an entity that could provide training and technical assistance to pretrial services programs and their staffs. The proposal was funded and the Pretrial Justice Institute, originally called the Pretrial Services Resource Center, opened its doors on March 1, 1977. As stated in the Articles of Incorporation, PJI was founded “…to promote research and development, exchange of ideas and issues, and professional competence in the field of pretrial services, to encourage the establishment of responsible agencies to provide such services, to provide technical assistance to those agencies providing such services, to provide a regular means of communication among such agencies and to develop and implement training materials and techniques for those engaged in delivering such services.” For three decades, PJI sought to fulfill this mission under the directorships of Madeleine Crohn (1977-1982), D. Alan Henry (1982-2006), and Tim Murray (2006-present).

The work of PJI has expanded beyond this basic mission at various points throughout its history to take a more system wide approach to pretrial justice. In 2007, the name of the organization was changed to the Pretrial Justice Institute to more accurately reflect a new focus on advocating nationwide for fair and effective pretrial justice practices.

I see 9 employees, and funding just over half governmental; and a $240K budget deficit in the last year reported, in a DC-domicile organization:

Pretrial Justice Institute DC 2013 990 29 $578,410.00 52-1078400
Pretrial Justice Institute DC 2012 990 27 $784,161.00 52-1078400
Pretrial Justice Institute DC 2011 990 28 $458,712.00 52-1078400

Los Angeles Blockshopper ( I don’t have a date) says the address, a home, was bought for $1.6M by two individuals.

Single Family456 33rd Street
3.0 | 3.0 | 2672
Feb. 25 $1,625,000 Buyer: Deborah A Denise and David Alan Henry
Seller: Adam D Goldenberg and Patricia L Goldenberg

What’d NCJFCJ do, per their its tax returns?  Well, out of (Page 2) Program Service Accomplishments Line 4 a,b,c,d (crammed with fine print), here’s the fine print behind purpose 4a, relating to domestic relations:

(Code ) (Expenses $ 3,543,851 including grants of $ 131,506 ) (Revenue $ 150,825 )

CrimeControl&PreventionPrograms Family Violence and Domestic Relations projects provided training, technical assistance and other services for 3,571 judges and other court professionals and direct-service providers through 43 trainings, conferences, and provider/collaborative meetings, in addition to development of two publications

They trained a lot of people, including “service providers” and published two things (namely…??)

The NCJFCJ has advanced social change in courts and communities across the country by providing cutting-edge training, technical assistance, and policy development on issues related to the effects of abuse across a lifespan NCJFCJ’s projects have enhanced the safety, well-being, and stability of domestic violence victims and their children by improving the response of criminal, civil, and social justice systems.

I absolutely beg to differ, speaking also for my now-adult [gender/s omitted as None Of Your Business], who spent their high school years, for the most part, motherless and (soon after motherless) fatherless.

NCJFCJ has provided assistance to judges and others with individual presentations on protection orders, elder abuse, child custody, and a host of other issues related to domestic violence NCJFCJ and its partners** recently launched the Family Court Enhancement Project, providing focused training and technical assistance to four courts and communities seeking to improve outcomes when domestic violence is involved in child custody and visitation decisions

Told you; I’ve been talking about this.  NCJFCJ and its partners seek to drive (control) “family court enhancement” now that, separately, parents, particularly female parents, are making such a loud stink about the disgrace of the same family courts when it comes to handling domestic violence — and (some of us) — the sense of betrayal in learning that the federal government even paid the states to help us lose both custodial (parenting) time AND custody and divert family resources into the hands of lawyers and paraprofessionals in the courts….

NCJFCJ maintains a lending library of books, videos, curricula, bench tools, policy manuals, and other publications NCJFCJ educates judges in domestic violence through the “National Judicial Institute on Domestic ViolenceNCJFCJ hosts and maintains the “Safe Havens Supervised Visitation and Safe Exchange Interactive Website”

**If I continue posting, on just who are some of those partners, and how many of them seem to come from Minnesota, that’ll be a real eye-opener!

Right.  NCJFCJ has indeed voted a substantial “YES” on the concept of supervised visitation as a recourse in violent or abusive situations.  Although people have been murdered, and children stolen in or around the course of court-ordered supervised visitations, or visitations, and although it facilitates (and there have been instances of) misappropriation of funds, double-billing (grants-money and individuals required to pay also), although supervised visitation has also been turned as a weapon upon non-abusive mothers.  The debate on whether supervised visitation should be taking place (and the professions it facilitates public-supported through dual grants systems — from the HHS and the DOJ side) is NOT going to be encouraged by NCJFCJ.  We are supposed to now take it for granted as part of the furniture….

NCJFCJ places significant emphasis on helping not only local courts and communities, but also other organizations who provide training and technical assistance (TA) on violence against women To that end, NCJFCJ operates the TA2TA project, through which it operates an interactive website that serves as a key portal of communication and resources for other TA providers, hosts critical issues roundtables on violence against women issues, and provides one-on-one assistance to assist TA providers in provision of TA

Train the training organizations  on violence against women.  Where is the solicitation of ongoing input from the field, when their focus is on training other organizations?

FINALLY, on the NCJFCJ tax returns, I’d like you to look at the about $208K of grants they distributed in year “2013” above. They were to members of (the DV Cartel) in part, particularly Futures without Violence  in California ($64K) and Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs in Minnesota ($25K), AND the University of Miami, Coral Gables ($38K) for domestic-relations-related activities ( and, two other grantees).   These are “Schedule I” on a single horizontal page and read approximately like this:

NCJFCJ Grant to Futures without Violence, Purpose:

Attend and participate in various Research Team meetings, provide technical assistance, develop and provide webinars, reports and curriculum for “Children Exposed to Domestic Violence

NCJFCJ Grant to University of Miami, Purpose:

Resource Center on Domestic Violence – Child Protection and Custody Update & revise EBP annotated bibliographies/literature reviews, attend and participant in Research Team meeting in Boston 2013, provide technical assistance, develop webinars and an EBP child protection and custody listserv

(“EBP” stands for “evidence-based practices” I’m sure…)

Grant to Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs, Purpose:

Collaborate with NCJFCJ on all training and technical assistance activities, provide its experience on developing a framework for identifying and explicating the context of domestic violence in custody cases and its implications for custody determinations, incorporate the findings of its OVW-funded Child Custody and domestic Violence Project into the training and TA provided under this project

What you have just read, above, sets the context, and I hope establishes the presence and identity of SIGNIFICANT networking, showing where the money is being distributed in order to switch the paradigms of juvenile justice nationwide.

To go back to the top of this post, click the link (The Title):


The next published post was:

But, I see from my drafts that I was probably referring to a short one which is still in draft.//LGH 4-24-2022.

2 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. i’m so confused. is your point that alot of politically like-minded organizations, whose genuine goal is to work to reform our juvenile detention system where its needed, are sort of all financially in bed with each other? and i don’t doubt that for one hot second. my question for you is, does all this data translate into **less effective, or less HONEST work actually being done by any of these orgs ON BEHALF OF THE JUVENILE’S IN QUESTION?? in other words, financial networking aside, is the the networking lessening the legitimacy or efficacy of the actual work being done on behalf of juveniles who are struggling in the system? i can’t tell. i can’t tell what the on-the-ground implications are for THE KIDS. i get that orgs are gonna be savvy about their own little networky hives, but what i’m not clear on is whether or not this fully de-legitimizes them in real time as they are – or are not? – actually doing work that is beneficial and healthy to be done on behalf of the kids in crisis who are in question.

    sophia evangeline

    October 10, 2016 at 10:55 am

    • I have been delayed in noticing comments submitted (normally through email alerts, was locked out if my own emails for too long). I want to reread post to see what it is that apparently didn’t quite communicate, but am approving thus from cellphone.

      But as I recall, it is not just the networking, but that along with networking too often also comes fiscal cheating.. in the case of ncfjcj and e. Hunter Hurst, as I recall there was a major conflict if interest in the macro scale AND some if his company’s also, had been running corporations had been getting sued for abuse of juveniles in different states (Florida was one). What I do not recall without rereading my post is how much if what I researched actually was published on the blog.

      The glaring omission of Hurst’s major company on his own memorial by employer ncfjcj was no accident. On general principles, where there is already fiscal dishonesty and cover-ups, it is rarely good news for children, and often likely to be accompanied by exploitation.

      I hope you may eventually come to see that the real role of nonprofit networking is never restricted just to any good causes, but also practicing a disbursing if dispersing of accountability for public money into ways that cannot be properly monitored. It affects more than just individuals as clients or employees of the nonprofits.
      [my reply edited much later to correct for cell-phone auto-correct changing a few words (“us” for “is” and “disbursing” for “dispersing”)…//LGH 7/15/2017]

      Let's Get Honest

      October 27, 2016 at 10:26 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: