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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Re: My June 4, 2011 Post on Four Special Issue Resource Centers (Ellen Pence/MPDI): (Pt 2 of, well, now it’s 3), “Same text, better formatting, some updating”).

leave a comment »


Before digging into this post, click on this “TinyURL” which leads to a report generated by the “new face” of TAGGS.HHS.Gov.  This is some of the subject matter I am discussing.   That link leads to a a report run today (3/29/2016) showing by year, grants to a single organization in (Duluth) MN:

Recipient Name: DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS
Report Total:  $23,841,530 [= 2016 search results; about $3.8M higher than my post in 2011]
Distinct Award Count: 38

You will notice that some grants refer to the “Special Issue Resource Center.” …

Given the column headings I selected, that of over perhaps twenty years, only THREE different women are shown:   Ellen Pence and Denise Gamache headed up most of them as “Principal Investigator”, then in about 2000, mostly just Denise Gamache, and in 2016, I see a “Renee Gutman.”

Denise Gamache is now associated with “Battered Women’s Justice Project” (and was while working also at DAIP) which decided to “come out” (incorporate in MN) in the year 2013.  I see that “Renee Gutmann” got her degree in 1993, and has worked for DAIP since 1993 (LinkedIn) and is characterized as “Accountant” for DAIP.


Part 1 (most recent post) explains why I’m re-blogging it with some updates. It was recently reblogged on Red Herring Alert, in an interesting juxtaposition of articles.

This version of the same post makes some charts more readable. The gist of the material is the Ellen Pence / Casey Gwinn connection (representing the Duluth, MN-based “DAIP” as it now goes by, and the Family Justice Center concept (now called “Alliance for Hope International” as a California nonprofit of which the “Family Justice Center Alliance” has become a program). It also intersected with Telling Amy’s Story, and got under my skin at the time, as it still does.

As does the entire “Family Justice Center” setup.  I still remember “connecting the dots” on discovering that the San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation (it’s full original, corporate name) existed to funnel money to Camp Hope, Inc. — but Camp Hope, Inc. wasn’t staying properly incorporated.  No matter, shut down one version, file for a new one, move the money.  It was a minor, minor detail — charitable registration number was so close, and more recently realizing it’d changed names AGAIN, that got me reviewing the earlier tax returns of this operations. I have been living IN California before, during, and while, this business model was created, funded, and replicated.  It’s worth an entirely separate blog to alert people to what, exactly IS that business model — but I am only one person.

The fuller background on the original (a) philanthropic private wealthy couple and (b) public funds behind the multiple names surrounding both the San Diego Family Justice Center and the associated “Camp Hope” theme, are another separate story which I also learned considerably more fascinating background on this past summer. By doing, the usual thing — scrutinizing tax returns and looking up the entities and people named in them.  Some of this is exposed below in the section with light-brown-background and teal borders.  Actually, influence from “Fuller Seminary” leadership may have been involved so, “fuller background” could be a pun, also.

“Getting” the reality of the Family Justice Center Alliance is, I’d say, as important as getting the reality of the Duluth Model, CCR, treat everyone and let us be the train-the-trainer people concept. So I will continue to bring it up, where it ties into the other subject matter.  Both involve replicating BUSINESS models.  A close diagnosis of the original models then, is always appropriate — and by “diagnosis” I mean, accounting-wise.  This can’t be just one organization, but involve the various related organizations (translation:  “networks”) to construct something of a picture of operations.  Even for people who weren’t “there,” right on scene locally — it can still be done.

6/4/2011 post begins here.  Interjections from 2016 will have a different background color.  If they get too long in the writing, I’ll move them to a separate post.  It also looks like HHS/TAGGS database just got radically revised and (at first glance) I don’t see how one can access any data before the year 2007 (previously, it went back to 1995).  See very bottom of this post.

I am moving part of this post to a 3rd “Part”….


The Nonprofit Preventing Family Violence and Dispensing Family Justice world can be a very friendly set of associates.  In getting to know these individuals, besides hearing what they say & write (including positively about each other), I think it’s also helpful to look at who is paying how much for the time and the talents.Getting to know each other …

On a  recent [in 6/2011] post and here (currently), there is a graphic of Ellen Pence — well-known in Domestic Violence circles — interviewing Casey Gwinn, well known in San Diego and for his work on the National Family Justice Center Alliance, i.e., for starting it.

(broken link to “Interview of Ellen Pence by Casey Gwinn was “http://nfjca.mediasite.com/mediasite/Viewer/?peid=bd05931ed27e4ab9afc89c5878e74ce21d“)

(second broken link to “Interview of Ellen Pence by Casey Gwinn” was “http://telling.psu.edu/“)

[This color background inside green borders in this post designates my 2016 UPDATES}


2016 “Broken link” substitute:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZeppoVr5f0&feature=youtube (Found by searching; found at a wordpress blog complaining about the feminist ideology.  I may know the individual who posted it)..  Youtube summary with this video (may not be the same one) describes it as:

On March 29, 2010, Casey Gwinn interviewed Ellen Pence in St. Paul, Minnesota for three hours. Ellen and Casey focused on the recent release of the Blueprint for Safety by Praxis International and on the work and future of the Family Justice Center movement in America. This video is a 41 minute edited version of the interview. It was played at the International Family Justice Center Conference on April 28, 2010. The National Family Justice Center Alliance, in partnership with the Verizon Foundation, will be making available the entire interview in the next 60 days. Please remember Ellen in your thoughts and prayers as she battles cancer. She has played a powerful leadership role in the domestic violence movement for over 30 years. The impact of her vision, work, and leadership is profound and will help shape the struggle to stop domestic violence for many years to come in the United States and around the world.

Ellen Pence did battle, but did not beat, cancer, and died within about two years.

Ellen Pence Obituary, January 19, 2012 by Julie Bindel in The Guardian (UK)

Ellen Pence aimed to teach offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and to desire change

It is not an easy task to make an audience roar with laughter while lecturing on domestic violence and homicide, but such was the compelling humour of Ellen Pence, who has died of breast cancer aged 63. Pence was a pioneer in creating and promoting innovative strategies to deal with domestic abuse. The training she developed, and the accessible and motivational way in which she delivered it, changed the way violence towards women and children in the home is viewed.

In 1980 she founded the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, widely known as the Duluth model (named after the Minnesota city where it was developed). Based on an inter-agency approach in which police, probation services, courts, social services and women’s advocacy projects work together to assess risk, protect victims and deal effectively with the abuser, this strategy remains a blueprint across the US and UK.

.. The Duluth model pioneered the somewhat controversial perpetrator programmes for abusive men which now run in several countries as an alternative to, or as part of, a custodial sentence for domestic violence offences. Pence always had a clear understanding that abusive men can change if those working with them have the appropriate training, skills and tools. She created the programme with the aim of teaching offenders to accept responsibility for their actions and to desire change.

If you don’t know this material yet, please read the rest of the article.  The key concept of promoting TREATMENT PLANS as alternative to CRIMINAL (“custodial” — meaning, incarceration) sentence for “domestic violence offences”), i.e., often called “batterers intervention programs” is a MAJOR big fish to swallow along with the field.  It is in my opinion, one of the main problems with the response to DV as those intent on their persuasive abilities — and focusing on TRAINING, at many levels has simply reinforced a focus on the perps, and not those perpetrated upon.  This is now so engrained it would be tough to re-consider.  Entire conferences, associations, agenda, and grants streams might need to be re-arranged — and once people are involved, who wants to do that?

From that same article, in case it’s not clear, Ellen Pence wasn’t exactly heterosexual and it’s unclear if she ever had children (apparently her surviving wife did).  As popular as this single woman is, and no doubt, brave, I still do not believe it represents the interests of people who have given birth to children, raised them, and are seeing downgraded criminal offences in exchange through sitting through trainings.

Until late 2011, Pence was the executive director of the organisation Praxis International, which she founded in 1998 and is dedicated to the elimination of violence against women.

She is survived by her partner, Amanda McCormick; her son, Liam; and her mother, two sisters and a brother.

(Praxis International:  

Praxis International, Inc. is a nonprofit research and training organization that works toward the elimination of violence in the lives of women and children. We work with local, statewide, and national reform initiatives to bridge the gap between what people need and what institutions provide. Since 1996, we have worked with advocacy organizations, intervention agencies, and inter-agency collaborations to create a clear and cooperative agenda for social change in their communities….”

To Friends of Praxis,

The Praxis Board has regretfully accepted Cyndi Cook’s resignation as Executive Director of Praxis International. Praxis is in a stronger place organizationally because of her leadership and skills and her contributions have positioned Praxis for continued growth. Cyndi deeply appreciates all she learned and accomplished here and the organization is grateful for her accomplishments. She remains committed to the Praxis mission and is now pursuing other professional opportunities. We thank her for her tireless service and wish her the best in all of her future endeavors.

=See website for more info.  Still selling Ellen Pence-written materials and coaching others into becoming “systems-changers.”  For example:

Work Book and Training Package

Invisible Workings cover graphic
(In)Visible Workings: A change-agent’s guide to closing the gap between what people need and what legal and human service institutions do
Item #16
$225
              
The training materials, written by Ellen Pence, Ph.D., are designed to teach readers to recognize, and account for twelve structural features of institutions that adversely affect the people who have been drawn into institutional processes as “cases” to be “managed”. The focus is specifically on the management of domestic abuse related cases but the concepts and issues discussed can be applied to any social issue processed by the legal or human service systems.
This package is designed for people who want to understand these key institutional features in more depth – in particular, trainers who provide assistance to communities attempting to evaluate and enhance their current institutional responses and systems advocates who are ready for a more advanced and personally challenging course. We have assumed that readers have a high degree of training and advocacy expertise and a shared philosophical orientation to the issues relating to community intervention in domestic abuse cases.

This training course includes a 221 page Problematic Features Workbook, a 176 page Supplemental Materials Manual, and three DVD’s.

Interesting, the Fiscal Year 2011 tax return (bottom row) which still shows Ellen Pence as one of four officers; she’s paid $88K for FT work (not too high, considering her overall influence on the field) — but the organization’s ONLY contributions are Government contributions, and it’s $1.6M  Take a look:

Search Again

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
PRAXIS INTERNATIONAL MN 2014 990 22 $217,220.00 41-1891724
PRAXIS INTERNATIONAL MN 2013 990 21 $262,025.00 41-1891724
Praxis International MN 2012 990 24 $144,073.00 41-1891724

So, Year 2012 — Contributions exclusively government grants, and they made $70K “training.”  Page 1 makes it clear — they are spending nearly (over) half of this on Salaries — and the rest on “Other Expenses.”  No grants to any other organizations (if you’ve got “the answers” why bother?)  The “program Purpose Accomplishments” is clearly “Boilerplate” and seems the same from year to year, reading like this:

(Code ) (Expenses $ 1,562,328 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 96,150

PRAXIS HAS EARNED A NATIONAL REPUTATION FOR INNOVATIVE AND VICTIM-FOCUSED APPROACHES TO WORKING WITH LEGAL AND HUMAN SERVICE INSTITUTIONS TO CREATE DETERRENTS TO VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN SINCE 1998 WE HAVE IMPLEMENTED COMPREHENSIVE AND TARGETED TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROJECTS FOR THE U S DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN FOR THEIR GRANTEES IN VARIOUS GRANT PROGRAMS (RURAL, SUPERVISED VISITATION AND SAFE EXCHANGE, AND GRANTS TO ENCOURAGE ARREST) WE MANAGED AN OVW DEMONSTRATION INITIATIVE FROM 2002- 2007 AND CURRENTLY MANAGE AN OVW BLUEPRINT FOR SAFETY DEMONSTRATION INITIATIVE AND CURRENTLY PARTNER WITH OVW TO IMPLEMENT THE ADVOCACY LEARNING CENTER, A COMPREHENSIVE TRAINING COURSE FOR ADVOCACY PROGRAMS ACROSS THE NATION
SEE ATTACHED SCHEDULE 0 THE PRIMARY FOCUS OF OUR WORK IS TO UNCOVER AND REFORM INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IN 14 YEARS WE HAVE HAD ONGOING AND REGULAR CONTACT WITH HUNDREDS OF GRANTEES ON CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM EFFORTS,

Very nice — but this historic information for a website, not a tax return.  The purpose of this part and all the blank lines on any tax return is what did you do THIS year, beside probably copy information from one’s website or other boilerplate, onto a tax return? And there are four categories and prompts for “Expenses” including Grants” not to mention any “revenues.”

CONDUCTED MORE THAN 90 CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM TRAININGS, CONDUCTED 75 SAFETY AUDITS IN COMMUNITIES AND PRODUCED NUMEROUS TRAINING AND TA RESOURCES INCLUDING ONLINE TRAINING COURSES, PUBLIC AWARENESS CAMPAIGNS, ORGANIZING MANUALS AND TRAINING GUIDES OUR CURRENT PROJECTS INCLUDE ADVOCACY LEARNING CENTER – A COMPREHENSIVE PROJECT TO BUILD KNOWLEDGE AND SKILLS FOR EFFECTIVE, HIGH-QUALITY INDIVIDUAL, INSTITUTIONAL, AND COMMUNITY ADVOCACY ON BEHALF OF WOMEN AND SURVIVORS OF ALL FORMS OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN BLUEPRINT FOR SAFETY DEMONSTRATION INITIATIVE-DOCUMENTING THE ADAPTATION OF ST PAUL’S SUCCESSFUL BLUEPRINT FOR SAFETY MODEL IN COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS/COMMUNITY ASSESSMENT -SUPPORT TO COMMUNITIES TO CONDUCT COMMUNITY ASSESSMENTS, BEST-PRACTICE ASSESSMENTS AND SAFETY AND ACCOUNTABILITY AUDITS OF THEIR LOCAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE, CHILD WELFARE OR OTHER INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSE TO BATTERING RURAL TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN – DEVELOPING SUCCESSFUL RURAL MULTI-AGENCY COLLABORATIONS TO CONFRONT SEXUAL ASSAULT, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, DATING VIOLENCE, AND STALKING


 

Among their non-salary expenses that year were $214K travel and $310K “Other” (unexplained, although they’re supposed to explain if it’s over 10% of the Total Expenses, which it was).  The next year (middle row above) I see even larger grants — $2M — of which they continued the HIGH salary expenses, and even higher “Other expenses” ($1,152,124)…but were down to only three officers, those mentioned in the “Cynthia Cook resigned” paragraph above.  That comment is undated, but may reflect why she was only paid $16K (and the others over $60, $70K) — for a 40 hour week, with no notation why. As before ALL grants were Government grants, apparently their training revenues ($117K) are made from other government OVW grantees of people in the civil sector.

They spent a whopping (almost one quarter of total expenses) $498K on “Expenses/Other” (Line 11g) and “explained” this as “program consultants & trainer” — but listed no independent contractors in part VIIB.   Travel was also up by over $100K to $393,231.  I am purely speculating here, but PERHAPS Ms. Cook quit because she didn’t like the books being cooked…(if that’s the case).



UPDATE or LITTLE-KNOWN FAMILY JUSTICE CENTER INFORMATION

However, this summary reveals the hookup with the “Family Justice Center” movement and the “Praxis International” “Blueprint for Safey” concept.  Centralize, collaborate, coordinate — and break down local legal jurisdictions for the cause.  (Note:  The National Family Justice Center Alliance” has very recently changed its name, and now calls such alliance a “Program” of “Alliance for Hope”)..

Entity Number Date Filed Status Entity Name Agent for Service of Process
C2810315 11/18/2005 FTB SUSPENDED ALLIANCE FOR HOPE DAVID SCOTT BARRETT
C2536194 05/15/2003 ACTIVE ALLIANCE FOR HOPE INTERNATIONAL CASEY GWINN

Sec. of State Registration Details on the Alliance for Hope International (colors will appear different in search at Kepler.sos.ca.gov).

Entity Name: ALLIANCE FOR HOPE INTERNATIONAL
Entity Number: C2536194
Date Filed: 05/15/2003
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 101 W BROADWAY STE 1770
Entity City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO, CA 91201
Agent for Service of Process: CASEY GWINN
Agent Address: 101 W BROADWAY STE 1770
Agent City, State, Zip: SAN DIEGO, CA 91201


ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR Frm PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
National Family Justice Center Alliance{<==click through to see name change and address change effective in 2014} CA 2014 990 30 $849,203 11-3692035
National Family Justice Center Alliance CA 2013 990 27 $1,157,817 11-3692035
National Family Justice Center Alliance CA 2012 990 24 $721,819 11-3692035

Tax Return Notes, Yr 2014 — website “allianceforhope.com”  This theme matches the parallel charities formed earlier in association with the “Family Justice Alliance.  “Year of formation 2003”  Notice (page 1) as of 2014, it has only 14 employees, and (Summary Revenues chart) about twice as many contributions as program service revenues.

They didn’t re-grant to anyone (this organization is into CONFERENCES and TRAININGS; it is the “hub” for propagating a certain public/private business model – -internationally — involving police officers and other public officials.  But it likes also taking private funding. …. Casey Gwinn as worked for SOME years as San Diego City Attorney; in one sense, I call this operation “Casey Gwinn’s retirement plan” — although as a public civil servant, he of course also has the city’s no doubt.

Regardless of how my readers may personally feel about it, THIS TAX RETURN shows that the original purpose of “San Diego FAMILY Justice Foundation” (One of the first national models and cited by the USDOJ) was not justice in the courts, but sponsorship of camps for kids.  And the Contributions began with $1.6M ($1,6829 exactly) of PRIVATE (not government– in fact NO government) contributions — but with as it says above, at some level, co-location or cooperation with a city water department.  I wonder what the financials of the city water department showed in 2003… The fund-raising of a Gala and a Golf Tournament somehow (direct expenses too high) managed to lose $53K between them, and only $24K was spent on “Consultants.”

Where did the $58,800 go?  To an organization called “Camp Hope, Inc.” per “Statement 4,”

CASH GRANTS AND ALLOCATIONS STATEMENT 4 APPROVED BUT NOT PAID BY FILING DEADLINE …”Support and Construction of Camp Hope” ….[Donee’s name] “Camp Hope, Inc.” [Donee’s Address] 707 Broadway #700, San Diego, CA 92101  [Donee’s relationship] “Designated Recipient of Foundation.”

So, are some lights starting to go on now?  If you want to understand the Family Justice Center model, which you should (want to!), it is necessary to better understand Camp Hope, and how money is going from one to another.

Let’s, however, take a look at Tax Return Year 2004 of the San Diego Family Justice Center FOUNDATION.  THIS year, government contributions were the major share, at $2.0Million, with $484K (almost) Private.  Of the $2.0M + $484K private, $997K was spent on “Grants.”  They had also earned $15K interest on savings (first year, it was only $1K).  They SPENT $322K on “Management,” managed not to lose money this year on “Fundraising” ($78K) — and at the end of the year, had $1.4K left over.  NOT BAD for just two years of operation… I guess if you have wealthy sponsors (year 1) and government sponsors (year 2) this can indeed happen..
This year (2004) their “Program Service Accomplishments” are simply labeled “See Statement 5” but already I can see accounting “problems” when their “Grants” figure is nearly double the “expenses.”  This shows me the group has, probably, confused “grants FROM the organization to grants RECEIVED BY the organization.”  The first year it seemed they understood that total expenses of $59,430 INCLUDED the $58,800 given to “Camp Hope.”  But this year — not so, as it reads:  Grants $2,115, 709 …. Program Expenses $1,088,215”  “Grants” are PART of “total “Expenses.”  Going to Statement 5 doesn’t help clarify it much more, as no way did this organization DONATE $2,115,709 TO the Office of Violence Against women as it appears to claim.  (Page-down through the tax return to take a look!).  The visual will show that whoever did the tax return does not comprehend the wording of “Grants” as to confusing From/To designees!
DESCRIPTION ** Grants and Allocations Program Service Accomplishments
RAISE MONEY AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR CAMP HONE, A JOINT PROJECT OF SD WATER DEPT AND CAMP HOPE, INC . TO PROVIDE A CAMPING FACILITY FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

   $508,759

   $746,073
OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROVIDES EXPERTISE AND SUPPORT NEEDED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT 15 SUCCESSFUL STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL AND CAMPUS PROJECTS, TO INCREASE VICTIM SAFETY, AND BOLSTER OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY .

$1,606,950

   $342,142
Totals……… $ 2,115,709  $1,088,215

..**This table is a hand-constructed picture of what would be shown in plain black & white on the tax return (copied text)  I don’t yet know how to display this “face-up” on a blog post.  Some people do, but right now, I don’t.  I’ve stared at this before.  It appears someone can insert numbers into a single table, and add them OK, but possibly doesn’t read English too well when it comes to understanding what the 990Form is asking for — and doesn’t seem to “get” (or care) that what’s entered in the tax return details IS supposed to relate to what’s on the summary page in some fashion.  THIS section is for what they are DOING and SPENDING, not what they WERE GIVEN or EARNED….

Meanwhile, same return, there is a “Statement 2” — from Part II, Page 2 “expenses” and FIRST item up,  asked any 501©3 filing this form, “what did you redistribute” (which is what cash grants means….) — and they filled in “See Statemt 2.”  Only thing — Statement 2 DOES NOT SAY TO WHOM.  Probably Camp Hope, Inc. — but it just doesn’t say so…

$997,053  Cash Grants and Allocations

Perhaps this is a good point to mention that this year, Casey Gwinn was added as an “Executive Director” and “Sharon Smith” (who seemed to do OK on the tax return the year before) while still “Executive Director” (making two of them — fairly odd for such a small organization) — had her pay cut about in half, allegedly, to only $18,000.

So — how about internal (in)consistency reporting what they spent on their officers trustees, etc.?  Well, Part V, “See Statement 6” fills in that $18,000.  The corresponding part on the return where this might go is Part II (Expenses), again, page 2, Line 25, “Compensation of Officers, Directors, Etc.”  — well, this is where it ought to read $18,000 if that amount is right for that section of employees.  However, it doesn’t – -it reads $96,754, with Line 26 “Other (meaning NOT officers, directors, trustees, etc.) Salaries — $69K.   Not to mention, $70K, professional fund-raiser fees, etc.  HUH???  Is a tax return like a picture puzzle — where you have to fill in SOMETHING most places, but it doesn’t have to actually end up giving a reasonable portrait of WTF happened with the money that year??   

This year, “books are in the care of “Michael Scogin” (two places the return asks for address and tel# and it’s left blank.  Luckily he’s listed as the CFO:  “MICHAEL SCOGIN 2300 BOSWELL ROAD CHULA VISTA,** CA 91914″ separately.  What kind of individual wouldn’t bother to type in a simple contact information on the form??  Also, there’s an interesting tax return preparer “Sandra Hara, 7955 Rufus Court, San Diego” who I looked up separately, but don’t feel like discussing right here.  It gets, well, complex.

**Street Address check shows this as North Island Federal Credit Union and Mr. Scoggin as “regional director” (Spokeo.com), which  has this history:  ”

Established in 1940, North Island Credit Union has been serving the San Diego community for over 75 years.  North Island was originally founded as the “Naval Air Station San Diego Federal Credit Union,” providing banking resources to military and civil service personnel. Today, operating under a community charter, we have the distinct honor to offer our products and services to all San Diegans.

LinkedIn shows a Mr. Scogin with a degree in (acronymn unknown) at Oklahoma University, and three company websites, one which is “domain for sale,” another “page not loading,” etc.

Program purpose summarized, page 2, Year 2014 return, by which time it’s “Alliance for Hope International,” although after looking (starting, scratching my head, comparing parts to the whole, year THIS to year That, and the Family Justice Center’s with those Camp Hopes (plural) tax returns, other than it seems to me like a perfect setup for money laundering, … I’d say that fiscally the situation would be “hopeless” IF they didn’t know they could count on good old USA Federal Government to keep them contributions coming….And that perHAPS that’s the name of the game and the business model.  Those involved continue to HOPE no one is looking at the tax returns…..

OUR MISSION IS TO CREATE A NETWORK OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL FAMILY JUSTICE CENTERS WITH CLOSE WORKING_ RELATIONSHIPS, SHARED TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE COLLABORATIVE-LEARNING PROCESSES,-AND-COORDINATED-FUNDING-ASSISTANCE

Program purpose summarized, Form 990 Year 2006, as “San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation” and at street address 707 BROADWAY #700, San Diego, CA  92101 (This year obtained by tweaking the year on the URL; look for the phrase in bold on this example; year is 2006; year-end 12″ (December):  http://990s.foundationcenter.org/990_pdf_archive/113/113692035/113692035_200612_990.pdf?_ga=1.15150006.1006580894.1457818499)

(Boilerplate, same as earlier years, Page 2 Program Service Description, with #s — you can see now the separate existence of the “family justice center” from “Camp Hope”)

Note: I constructed this table and filled in information from Page 2 of this tax return because unlike some bloggers, or blogging platforms, I do not yet know how to get a full-page excerpt from a separate pdf to display on the blog. “Scribd” may be an option, but right now, I don’t have it figured out. In aother world, this would be a powerpoint slide, or an in-person presentation, but I am not currently living in that world…. Info in 2nd column would show at end of paragraph “Description” and 3rd column as a separate column on the tax return.

DESCRIPTION **  SDFJC Foundation, Year 2006 Grants and Allocations Program Service Expenses
RAISE MONEY AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR CAMP HONE, A JOINT PROJECT OF SD WATER DEPT AND CAMP HOPE, INC . TO PROVIDE A CAMPING FACILITY FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

   $ 945,190

   $ 381,432.
OFFICE ON VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM PROVIDES EXPERTISE AND SUPPORT NEEDED TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT 15 SUCCESSFUL STATE, LOCAL, TRIBAL AND CAMPUS PROJECTS, TO INCREASE VICTIM SAFETY, AND BOLSTER OFFENDER ACCOUNTABILITY .

$ 336,997

   $ 766,137

RAISE-MONEY AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR THE FAMILY-JUSTICE-CENTER,-A JOINT. PROJECT OF-SAN-DIEGO*

$ 37,717  $ 37,717


 *That’s all it says.  The sentence is just incomplete.  (A joint project with WHOM — the Water Department, as above?) Already they are using “boilerplate text” — see similar table, below, for year 2003.  Here, they have apparently figured out that Program service expenses should INCLUDE the grants (for Row 3) but not for Rows 1 & 2.  What the heck kind of accounting and reporting is that?  Would you like these people making life and death decisions on safety, or making policy?  Interpreting the law?   Good grief….  There’s more:
Part V-A, Current Officers, Directors and Trustees (“See Statement 9”) were all volunteers– no salaries whatsoever. “$0”  The corresponding line under p.2. “Expenses” correctly? reads “$0” (line is blank).

Part VI-B, Former Officers, Directors, Trustees, and Key Employees That Received Compensation or Other Benefits — they list Sharon Stone (see below) and payment, $96,955.  Corresponding part on the Expense page (Line 25)? $10,303.  Discrepancy – $86,652.
Sched A, Part I (Supplemental Info), “Compensation of the Five Highest Paid Employees Other Than Directors, Officers and Trustees.”   They had only one, but still wrote “See Statement 10) and then listed $70,833.  Go to last page of tax return (link above), that’s “Statement 10” to see:

MICKEY STONE
6571 PASEO DEL NOTRE CARLSBAD, CA 92009

TITLE:  “Director” AVERAGE HOURS WORKED “0”  PAY $70,833.  HUH?

What do the words “other than” mean?  Why is this “Director” listed separately from (“SEE STATEMENT 9”) what is clearly labeled “Directors, Officers, Trustees and Key Employees”?
(This year “Tom Brown” was President and Casey Gwinn, Executive Director.”)

Program purpose summarized on its initial return Year 2003 —
“See Statement 3” and

RAISE MONEY AND PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR CAMP HOPE A JOINT PROJECT OF SD WATER DEPT AND CAMP HOPE INC . TO PROVIDE A CAMPING FACILITY FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.  (Grants:  $58,800, total expenses only +$430 = $59,430)

Or, on “Statement 3”

PRIMARY PURPOSE IS TO OPERATE A COMPREHENSIVE FACILITY FOR, AND PROVIDE SERVICES TO, VICTIMS OF FAMILY VIOLENCE AND THEIR CHILDREN .

 More to the point,revenues shown — NO government revenues, but $1.6M from private sources (+ $75,000 “noncash”).  Same name, street address (Executive Director, Sharon Smith) 1200 Third Street, San Diego, CA. The Form 990 was different then, and didn’t require a listing of how many employees — but it does on first page distinguish government from private contributions.  The FIRST year of operation, the purpose of this “San Diego Family Justice Center Foundation” under that name, and with the website “FamilyJusticeCenter.com” (probably now a broken link) was as I showed above.  The original trustees, directors, officers. Gael Strack was President (5h/week) and Sharon Smith, executive director (and paid only $34K).  It reads like this:
  • GAEL STRACK, President
    707 BROADWAY, SUITE 700 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
  • SHARON SMITH, Executive Director
    1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 700 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
  • MARA LETTAU, 5643 COPLEY DRIVE SAN DIEGO, CA 92111
  • SANDRA BURR, Vice Chair, 6670 FEDERAL BOULEVARD LEMON GROVE, CA 91945
  • MONICA B . ARMSTRONG, 470 W.LAURELSTREET 3 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
  • KAREN BERNEY, P.O. BOX 1090 SOLANA BEACH, CA 92075

All these are “Trustee” working about 5h or less/week and volunteers.  Notice Casey Gwinn street address matches the Executive Director’s (except suite#)

  • DENISE-BOWMAN 5265 CANTERBURY DRIVE  SAN DIEGO, CA 92116
  • TOM BROWN P.O. BOX 231640  ENCINITAS, CA 92023
  • KURTINA CHODOROW 10916 SPICEWOOD COURT SAN DIEGO, CA 92130
  • MARY ENGLAND 7915 NICHALS STREET  LEMON GROVE, CA 91445
  • CASEY GWINN1200 THIRD AVENUE, SUITE 1620 SAN DIEGO, CA 92101
  • MIKE SCOGIN  2300 BOSWELL ROAD CHULA VISTA, CA 91914
  • MARTIN WALDINGER  7340 CAMINITO BASSANO WEST, LA JOLA,* CA 92037

(*La Jolla?) 1200 Third Street is City Attorney’s Office — see address of current occupant, Jan Goldsmith

Directions to City Hall (map of buildings shows 7th Avenue not far off this grid)

As a domestic violence survivor with young children at the time, I must say I was more interested in justice and protection than camping experiences for myself and children, particularly run by people with religious backgrounds (Casey Gwinn’s father has connections to Fuller Seminary and evangelist Charles Fuller in fact an article says he was practically raised on a Christian conference campground).  The domestic violence I’d experienced had been justified (rationalized) in the name of God and Jesus….

More later, or submit a comment if you want other links.  Some of this I wrote up on a word processing document during 2015 when I was not posting here on the blog.

The closer the tax returns, especially if you include the related organizations, compared to corporate filings (etc.) are examined — or even read — the more fiscal fiascoes show up surrounding these One-Stop Shops. Somehow, the civil servants involved LOVE them; it’s just victims and taxpayers complaining.  The USDOJ also seems to “love” them as did former US President George W. Bush.  That said, the USDOJ doesn’t have a halfway-decent grants database accessible ot the public either.  This is DEFINITELY a scenario to continue watching, and as possible, writing up; as the networked and mutual-backslapping PR continues.   I also found “Alliance for Hope” recently participating in a BISC-MI (Batterers Intervention Services Coalition – Michigan) conference, which anyone can search on-line to see.

SOME people are starting to catch on — but it hasn’t slowed the zealots promoting the model, particularly from the USDOJ.  An article on a center in Montgomery County, MD paying above-market rent (nearly $1 million) for a center, it’s claimed, sees less than four clients a day.  I submitted a comment in almost three years ago:

Montgomery Domestic Violence Center to pay close to $1 million in rent by Len Levick in MarylandReporter.com, also by Glynnis Kazanjian, May 5, 2013

Montgomery County government may soon be paying close to $1 million a year in rent  — above the market rate according to one expert — for a domestic abuse center in downtown Rockville that on average sees less than four clients a day. The innovative center celebrates its fourth anniversary Thursday (see sidebar below).

County Executive Isiah Leggett’s proposed fiscal 2014 budget includes new lease payments for an expansion to the Family Justice Center, a nationally recognized “one-stop-shop” domestic abuse center that houses public and private agencies in the same location. The county is moving ahead with that funding plan even though it’s possible the county’s payment could be reduced if it renegotiated an existing 12-year lease approved in 2008.

In the fiscal 2014 proposed budget, the county will be paying about $960,000 for the existing 23,907 square feet and another 5,500 square feet Leggett is requesting. The 2014 lease rate for the existing Justice Center space is about $31 per square foot, but it will go as high as $40.58 per square foot by 2020 because of a built-in annual escalation

And I submitted the comment as “Let’s Get Honest”:

This is an excellent article, and FYI this pattern is typical. I have personal experience (as DV survivor) with family justice centers “handling” of clients and have been noticing the patterns of raising money, acquiring capital (or expensive leases, plush surroundings, great website) and some funky tax returns. I last sought help from stalking by an ex-batterer and an immediate relative, spoke directly to leadership and was told it wasn’t, somehow, “family violence.” Why? No kids in the home= doesn’t matter any more? I have tracked funding and incorporations in the founding model (San Diego) and others, blogged some of it, and would like to talk to this author (as well as say thank you). Money is being donated to entities which DO NOT EXIST, or are formed, then abandoned. In San Diego, I’ve counted about four different nonprofits, nonfiling and you can see the money move around. It was Camp Hope, Inc., San Diego Family Justice Center (later “nat’l family Justice Center Alliance, a namechange). Camp Hope Inc doesn’t file for several years !! then suddenly shows up flush with $2 million (assets/revs), then claims they ceased operations and gave it all to “National Deaf Advocacy” (or such) — which it turns out had suddenly just moved out of the same street address as the other two. After dissolving themselves (and there seems to be some missing money — quite a bit of it) then ANOTHER “Camp Hope California” (at same street address in San Diego).. San Diego Family Justice Center FOUNDATION (vs. just the “Center”) was not incorporated until this past February 2014, yet it was alleged taking donations in the early 2000s, per Verizon, per “Caseygwinn.com” and an American Camping Magazine….

In 2011, however, as I noted then, it’s clear that the One-Stop-Justice-Center Shop people are shaking hands with the “Coordinated Community Response” people as represented by the meeting (video, interview etc.) of Casey Gwinn and Ellen Pence.  Just a reminder — there’s a reason San Diego was at one time known as “Enron-by-the-Sea” and this may be part of why.  It’s like no one even cares to much cover their tracks any more!


[BACK To the 2011 Post, as written then]


 

(Telling Amy’s Story comes out of Pennsylvania, and I’m starting to wonder who paid for that one, too. The Amy in question ended up being shot by her stalker/abuser and probably just fortune/luck/God (etc.) that her parents and her child wasn’t also shot — as all were foolish enough to drive her back to the house for some diapers (etc.) RIGHT after a strong confrontation with the man.  Amy now being dead, others, heads of domestic violence prevention groups, are telling her story — and they are telling HALF her story.  They didn’t even notice that it wasn’t too bright to lose one’s life over some nonfoods that could be purchased cheap at a local store.)  But doesn’t it look official and appropriate — “Telling Amy’s Story.” )

Personally, what inspired me much more (while in or shortly after leaving the abusive relationship) was stories of women who were NOT shot to death, and how they recovered, went on to succeed in their new lives, and these stories were told in their own words — which could happen because they lived.  They did not die!)

Wikipedia on “Ellen Pence”:

Background

Born in MinneapolisMinnesota, Pence graduated from St. Scholastica in Duluth with a B.A.(in ???_______)   She has been active in institutional change work for battered women since 1975, and helped found the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in 1980. She is credited with creating the Duluth Model of intervention in domestic violence cases, Coordinated Community Response (CCR), which uses an interagency collaborative approach involving police, probation, courts and human services in response to domestic abuse. The primary goal of CCR is to protect victims from ongoing abuse. Pence received her PhD in Sociology from the University of Toronto in 1996. She has used institutional ethnography as a method of organizing community groups to analyze problems created by institutional intervention in families. She founded Praxis International in 1998 (?? see bottom of my pos) and is the chief author and architect of the Praxis Institutional Audit, a method of identifying, analyzing and correcting institutional failures to protect people drawn into legal and human service systems because of violence and poverty.

(incidentally, St. Scholastica ain’t your average private liberal arts college.  See the 27-member Board of Trustees, for one.  Catholic/ Benedictine Order influence)


Here (for the new to this) are some of the “Power and Control” Wheels circulated through The Duluth Model.  I’ve linked it to a young woman’s memorial fund who was trying to break out of this cycle while murdered.  Her relatives hope that publicizing this may help others…  (does it?)  They formed a nonprofit to commemorate here and use the wheel with the permission of:

Used with permission of the
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROJECT
202 E. Superior St.
Duluth, MN 55802
218-722-2781
www.duluth-model.org

Not knowing the “Lindsay Anne Burke” case from Rhode Island, I find out that she was girlfriend to a man who’d previously fathered two children, and had had their mothers get restraining orders out on him.  Moreover, she started dating him around the time his second child had been born!

A law was named after her dramatic case (PROJO — R.I. paper — describes, 2005)(2007, warning!: graphic account of trial & testimony).  QUESTION:  If these groups have been educating and warning women about the dangers of stalkers, controlling personalities and in general domestic violence issues since the 1980s, how come this still happens in the 2000s ?  Sadly, we see the Burke memorial fund suggesting people contribute to the local Coalition Against Domestic Violence.    Yet this horrible murder was clearly preceded by not one, but two domestic violence restraining orders in the context of custody battles — children born in 1998 & 2003 —  and the officers are saying they had no record?

The COLLABORATIVE COMMUNITY RESPONSE (CCR) TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE:

You can see readily how the collaborative response from Duluth might have things in common with the San Diego-based Family Justice Collaboration model, including focusing on training, and credibility when it comes to a great grants stream.  One difference is that Pence did not come from public employment in law enforcement or a LEGAL or ENFORCEMENT background, but a SOCIOLOGICAL perspective.  I don’t believe this can be said of Casey Gwinn’s background. However, it’s clear they have common ground.

In 1979, there was already an existing domestic violence prevention group around.  From what I can tell this group (associated with a university) got basically outclassed and, if I may, “out-gunned” (financially and as to web presence), although it’s still around, it’s hard to find through Google Search, and its current “history” page is blank.  It is based in Minneapolis, not Duluth and is associated with (Dr.) Jeffrey Edleson.  I reports income of of about $1.6 million (per Guidestar) and is in this tax-exempt

Category (NTEE):Crime, Legal Related / (Protection Against and Prevention of Neglect, Abuse, Exploitation)

Year Founded:1979 Ruling Year:1979 (EIN# 411356278).

[This tax return supplied during update, not original post.  I notice their revenues (Part VIII) are still primarily government contributions; the money going mostly towards salaries (Part I shows); and the boilerplate “what you do” text reads:  Therapy, Advocacy, Training for Professionals (p.2, Part III).  Also, most Key Personnel, though not all, are women (Part VII).  Not distributing anything towards others (no “grantees”).  In 2014 they were overspending, despite nearly $1.5M of receipts.]

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Domestic Abuse Project MN 2014 990 29 $791,299.00 41-1356278
Domestic Abuse Project MN 2013 990 29 $1,028,761.00 41-1356278
Domestic Abuse Project MN 2012 990 28 $857,353.00 41-1356278

 

It shows 15 board members, 53 employees and 35 volunteers and receives a lot of grants in support.  It has not tried, from what I can tell, to change the entire world or justice system, or franchise itself.  It does not appear to be drawing from HHS funds, perhaps that’s why it’s a measly $1 million and not a bustling $3 million or $4 million per year, as others…  But the question that comes up, why form a group only a year later that is hellbent on transforming the distribution of justice through training projects?

logo

About Justice Alliances and Resource Centers:

Given the economy, perhaps you should attempt to get a job in one of these places, get on the conference circuit and establish your reputation, and then you can run things AND perhaps have a retirement, and a mobile lifestyle (at least periodically) as well.

How is it that justice can’t be achieved and violence prevented by the process of equal enforcement (whether towards men or towards women or towards children) of the existing state laws against assault & battery, against felony child-stealing, against rape, against molestation of minors, against abuse in general?    Why is it necessary to form nonprofit after nonprofit (staff them, sometimes set up buildings, or lease buildings), build curricula, train & retrain judges, and everyone else, and sell “risk assessment kits” to family law professionals?

What are people so angry about, that they have to keep assaulting and trafficking each other, and where did they learn this habit of treating people like animals, including selling them?  . . . Hardly the answer for a single post (or lifetime), but did you ever consider why — given that these things seem to be part of human nature, if not the history of our species — it is now suddenly thought that an institution or resource center could somehow change human nature and stop this, bringing in world utopia, starting with organizations that — by this point in time (say, starting in the 1980s) are actually run by people already involved in running the major institutions of our states and local communities?

Then these organizations, with leadership by public employees or former employees, already whose salaries were paid by the public, drawing on FEDERAL support pooled from the IRS, and distributed largely according to decisions that many local populations are unaware of — meaning from a database of wage-earners in and out of state.

If you can’t grasp the concept — let me illustrate.  Have you ever heard of “Minnesota Program Development, Inc.?”  (pause to allow search).

I have — but only because I research the grants system.  Better known is its subsidiary (?), “Domestic Abuse Intervention Project,” and the well-known (among domestic violence circles, and many victims have received some literature on  “the Duluth Model.”  This is from a facebook page based on a Wikipedia Article which is clearly not written by someone involved with the DAIP.  (Contributors).  I came here after attempting to find Minnesota Program Development Inc. on the Minnesota AG’s list of charities.  So far, it doesn’t exist.  Until recently, I’d thought it was some sort of workforce development organization, similar to MDRC a group that kept cropping up as fulfilling contracts with the government, and/or evaluating them.  The kind of contracts & grants I’ve been looking at here, i.e., fatherhood promotion and the legal rights dilution process.


FOR COMPARISON, WHO IS MDRC?

“MDRC: Manpower Development Research Development, “What IS MDRC?

(Broken link updated.  MDRC has since revamped its entire website)…

It says “Building Knowledge to Improve Social Policy”

Too often, public policies that profoundly affect the lives of low-income families are shaped by hunches, anecdotes, and untested assumptions. Ineffective policies waste precious resources and feed public cynicism about government. Most important, such policies may hinder the very people they are designed to help. MDRC was created to learn what works in social policyand to make sure that the evidence we produce informs the design and implementation of policies and programs.

Created in 1974 by the Ford Foundation and a group of federal agencies, MDRC is best known for mounting large-scale evaluations of real-world policies and programs targeted to low-income people.

A Foundation/Federal Agency blend has significant power and influence.  

Its apparently top 3 Board of Directors are from MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology, you DO know who they are, right?), the JFK School of Government at Harvard, and The Urban Institute.  [LINK to Current / 2016 “Board of Directors“]

Reading below the line, I notice the  first one (the list is alphabetical) is Ron Haskins, well known (nay, infamous!) for having pushed through the Access and Visitation Grants section of the 1996 Welfare Reform, and from his work at HHS.  Translation:  Fatherhood promoter.    The last one, Isabel V. Sawhill (both of Brookings Institute) and both known as collaborators and researchers on fatherhood and family issues, along with such as Sara McLanahan, Ron Mincy, and others.

Inbetween, we have people from Harvard [Economics], Harvard [Education and Economics], Harvard [Education], Princeton, @ Univ. of Chicago [School of Social Service Administration], UNC (North Carolina), a bank (Citigroup) the president of a foundation, and “Chair, Steering Committee Association of Corporate Counsel Value Challenge.”  Counsel, as in lawyers — corporate lawyers’ association.

Clearly, this is an influential group of some very high-ranking people influencing and possibly directing policy of masses  — like THE masses (see K-12 education influence) of population, with an emphasis on the poor.  Their (2009) budget being over $80 MILLION (66% from gov’t, 28% from private foundations,  1% from Universities, and a small sliver from others) takes a few pie charts to even visualize.  I’ve dragged it here  — or see link:

Financial Profile:

With an annual budget of more than $80 million, MDRC derives its revenues from a wide variety of sources. About 67 percent of MDRC’s funding comes from federal, state, and international government contracts. The rest comes from foundations, corporations, universities, individuals, and other sources. MDRC uses these funds to support the work of its five research policy areas: K-12 education, youth and postsecondary education, families and children, low-wage workers and communities, and health and barriers to employment.

2016 Update — for a perspective on size — here’s the tax returns:  Notice, after a certain level of assets acquisition, the profits can expand significantly in just a few years’ time! (like, about $15 MILLION each year here):Search Again

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
MDRC NY 2013 990 142 $103,145,080.00 23-7379473
MDRC NY 2012 990 30 $90,045,462.00 23-7379473
MDRC NY 2011 990 46 $85,982,863.00 23-7379473

Click on the top tax return to see that, like some organizations, this one gets XX $ of “Contributions” (that year — $71M!! !!! !!!) and then spends it, being tax-exempt on that income. Can you imagine what the level of taxation on $71M might be?  This is why corporations also like to contribute to tax-exempt places, a win/win — those corporations (like Ford) pay less taxes for their donations (and get influence) — and the 501©3s they donate to, are tax-exempt anyhow, and get to put the savings into building powerful relationships, either with subcontractors, or their board members/employees, or their grantees, or all of the above.

They spent about half on Salaries and half on “Other Expenses” and a fraction on “Grants” — that’s what page 1 will show you (“Expenses” category).  Part VIII will also show that their grants are split just over half government // private. That’s Part VIII, Lines 1e and 1f:

GOVT GRANTS $38,658,378  ALL OTHER $33,226,351 (“All other contributions, gifts, grants, and if similar amounts not included above”).

They are B.I.G.!! Subcontractors getting over the cutoff amount ($100k) (Part VIIB) were 34.  From my posts, or otherwise, you might recognize some of these names (“Abt Associates” came up in a recent one, I know): (Click return to see them in a 3-column chart).  All are for “Research Contracts” and the amounts are BIG — in the millions.  $4, $2, $2, $1, and $2M, respectively.

  • mathematicapolicyresearchinc, pobox2393PRINCETONNJ08543
    abtassociates, 55wheelerstreetCAMBRIDGEMA02138
    DecisionInformationResourcesinc, 2600SouthwestFreeway Suite900 HOUSTON TX77098
  • JamesBellAssociatesinc, 3033WilsonBlvdHOUSTONTX77098
  • The Osborne Association, 809WestchesterAvenueBRONXNY10455  [“Transforming Lives, Communities and the Criminal Justice System“]

Thomas Mott Osborne, an industrialist and former mayor of Auburn, New York, spent a week in Auburn prison as prisoner Tom Brown, #33,333x in 1912. He lived just as other prisoners did and left that harrowing experience committed to the goal of turning America’s prisons from “human scrap heaps into human repair shops.” Committed to the ideal of a criminal justice system that “restores to society the largest number of intelligent, forceful, honest citizens,” Mr. Osborne went on to become a progressive warden at Sing Sing, where the majority of his prisoners did not return to prison after release. He also established the Mutual Welfare League and the National Society of Penal Information, and later became known as the “pioneer and prophet of prison reform.” The Osborne Association was established in 1933 to continue his work. “

 THE OSBORNE ASSOCIATION is also a nonprofit, formed in 1933 it says.  It’s govt/private grants are $7M to $2M
ORGANIZATION NAME STATE YEAR FORM PAGES TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Osborne Association NY 2014 990 36 $5,696,201.00 13-5563028
Osborne Association NY 2013 990 34 $5,374,309.00 13-5563028
Women on the Rise Telling HerStory NY 2012 990 37 $4,142,891.00 13-5563028

 

We are all citizens, but some citizens have more influence than others, and those running foundations, perhaps as much as government.  Moreover, foundations are historically close to the running of the U.S., however much we struggle to view ourselves as individually sovereign citizens with individual rights, and seek to uphold the law without respect to, say, connections or wealth.  BUT our society is a jobs-focused, Public-education-grounded (for most children), earn wages and consume products and services (including products and services we probably don’t need most of), while the leaders and innovators work on consolidating their wealth to organize new technologies, explore outer space and deep oceans (great projects), build bridges and highways and so forth.       It bears a humble reminder from time to time how relative & subjective the word “freedom” is.

What we sometimes forget (and it’s certainly not mainstream media headlines) is that a lot of this “technology” is in management of humans, and measuring how well that management has been working.   We may think in terms of civil rights and due process, but there are groups like MDRC (and with the foundation influence) thinking in quite different terms….  And that nonprofits, corporations (including those that fulfil government purposes, for profit), and foundations define themselves, in the U.S., in relationship to the IRS, the strong-arm-collection agency of the taxes that support every governmental function and institution.

OK, CONSIDER THE INCOME TAX . . .

(1)  From “infoplease” article:

The US Tax system has a dubious history, obviously.  Originally, early (1791, this source says), it internally taxed certain [sales of] goods, including slaves.  A quick review from this “infoplease.com” page does indeed relate to business at hand today — why some people can have laws to protect them enforced, and others can’t — and why more of us should pay more and more organizations to figure out why…

The nation had few taxes in its early history. From 1791 to 1802, the United States government was supported by internal taxes on distilled spirits, carriages, refined sugar, tobacco and snuff, property sold at auction, corporate bonds, and slaves. The high cost of the War of 1812 brought about the nation’s first sales taxes on gold, silverware, jewelry, and watches. In 1817, however, Congress did away with all internal taxes, relying on tariffs on imported goods to provide sufficient funds for running the government.

In 1862, in order to support the Civil War effort, Congress enacted the nation’s first income tax law. It was a forerunner of our modern income tax in that it was based on the principles of graduated, or progressive, taxation and of withholding income at the source. During the Civil War, a person earning from $600 to $10,000 per year paid tax at the rate of 3%. Those with incomes of more than $10,000 paid taxes at a higher rate. Additional sales and excise taxes were added, and an “inheritance” tax also made its debut. In 1866, internal revenue collections reached their highest point in the nation’s 90-year history—more than $310 million, an amount not reached again until 1911.

The Act of 1862 established the office of Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The Commissioner was given the power to assess, levy, and collect taxes, and the right to enforce the tax laws through seizure of property and income and through prosecution. The powers and authority remain very much the same today.   

Hmm. . . . .Seizure of property and prosecution….

In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution made the income tax a permanent fixture in the U.S. tax system. The amendment gave Congress legal authority to tax income and resulted in a revenue law that taxed incomes of both individuals and corporations. In fiscal year 1918, annual internal revenue collections for the first time passed the billion-dollar mark, rising to $5.4 billion by 1920. With the advent of World War II, employment increased, as did tax collections—to $7.3 billion. The withholding tax on wages was introduced in 1943 and was instrumental in increasing the number of taxpayers to 60 million and tax collections to $43 billion by 1945.

In 1981, Congress enacted the largest tax cut in U.S. history, approximately $750 billion over six years. The tax reduction, however, was partially offset by two tax acts, in 1982 and 1984, that attempted to raise approximately $265 billion.

So, a good part of what we may call government included from the start raising money by selling slaves (not to mention that those who governed OWNED slaves), and then a nice income tax to help wage the civil war to free slaves (and prevent the South from seceding, etc.).


Now, presidents seem to rise (or fall) on what they do with taxes, and as we see above, groups like MDRC who know how to qualify to be wealthy and pay less taxes, and do business with government, decide without our real input, what to do with the population of the United States who do NOT know how to do these things, or run government.  While this isn’t technically buying and selling slaves, by controlling/influencing JOBS, FAMILIES & EDUCATION, it sure is great people management.  I imagine this is real heady work, helping influence a country of this size and wealth.  But the Ford Foundation and Rockefeller, etc. were always pretty good at these activities…..


So, in 1981, Congress enacts the largest tax cut, and (see below), in MINNESOTA, MPDI, a NONPROFIT AGENCY (what’s THAT corporate structure, as far as the IRS goes?) WAS FORMED, MAIN PROJECT “THE DULUTH MODEL” WHICH FILTERS ITS POLICIES THROUGHOUT GOVERNMENT, AND PUTS MILLION$$ GRANTS IN THE HANDS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATORS (THE HHS TERM) WHICH THEN SET POLICY — IN EFFECT — APART FROM OPEN DISCUSSION BY VOTERS WHO SUPPORT IT.

On Oct. 22, 1986, President Reagan. . . . On Aug. 10, 1993, President Clinton,  In 1997, Clinton,…President George W. Bush signed a series of tax cuts into law. The largest was the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001…. [[OK, that’s enough!]]

Read more: History of the Income Tax in the United States — Infoplease.comhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005921.html#ixzz1OKM4FlHq

(the ground was ripe for 1996 PRWORA act, which then allocated $10 million a year to run social science demonstration projects on people, through various agencies, and at the bequest/behest of the “secretary of Health and Human Services.”  It’s understandable, in this context, while policies voted in to do something — anything (or allegedly do something, or anything)  about welfare, or child support enforcement – might be popular.  This is the world we inhabit, whether or not we are conscious of it…..)

Or, say

(2) from MISES institute article:  “The Income Tax:  Root of All Evil“*

“The freedoms won by Americans in 1776 were lost in the revolution of 1913,” wrote Frank Chodorov.  Indeed, a man’s home used to be his castle. The income tax, however, gave the government the keys to every door and the sole right to change the locks.

Today the American people are no longer the master and the government has ceased to be the servant. How could this be? The Revolution fought in the name of the inherent natural rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness promised to enthrone the gains of individualism. Instead, federal taxation bribes the States and individuals to serve the interests of ever-greater submission to the centralized will.

How did tax slavery come to the land of the free?

OK, if you are a woman or descended from people who needed a special amendment to the U.S. Constitution in order to VOTE, not exactly in the 1700s, (or, if you, now more enlightened, see what they’re missing) — they still have a point.   The American people ARE no longer the master nor does the government appear to think of itself in private and in practice, at least, as the “servant.”  However, public proclamations justifying more and more expenditures to solve problems created by the same governental system to start with — will generally use the word “SERVE” as in, “Health and Human Services” or “Family Court Services” or “Child Support Services” or, for that matter, “Child Protection Services.”  And this site is probably a good read, whatever we (or you) think about (particularly any women adn children who have been captive in an abuser’s “castle” while knowing that others outside were cautious to invade or infringe upon it by, say, getting inbetween a man (or woman) assaulting, imprisoning, exploiting, or mentally torturing for years, a wife (or husband, or offspring).

Possibly because the word “SERVE” and ‘SERVICES’ has been so overused (or, like CPS, have developed really bad public reputations), the tendency now is to go for “Centers” especially “RESOURCE CENTERS” and coalitions, of course are also popular, plus partnerships.  Anything almost, but rule of law, plain and simple, and fairly practiced.

*an obvious misquote of “the love of money is the root of all evil.”  Notice, that the person who wrote this (apostle Paul) spoke of something in the heart, loving the wrong thing — but this is speaking an institution set up to collect and pool it, then dispense favor at will to those who qualified.  The system does bear questioning..

WHY WE MIGHT CARE, WHO IS MPDI:

(I figure $18 million to one organization might get our attention.  From HHS):

(HHS grants, from TAGGS.hhs.gov) RECIPIENT INFORMATION

Note: One EIN can be associated with several different organizations. Also, one DUNS number can be associated with multiple EINs. This occurs in cases where Dun and Bradstreet (D&B) has assigned more than one EIN to a recipient organization.

Recipient Name City State ZIP Code County DUNS Number Sum of Awards
MINNESOTA PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT, INC  DULUTH MN 55802-2152 ST. LOUIS 193187069 $ 18,027,387

Showing: 1 – 1 of 1 Recipients

(Note, this database only goes back to 1995, i.e., there are 14 previous organizational years unrecorded on the database).

 NOTE:  Run that same DUNS# again, on a “TAGGS” Recipient search by DUNS# and you’ll get a different organization name.  Here, I’ll show you!
WELL, WELL, WELL, HHS Just revamped TAGGS  website (user interface — I don’t know about the database itself) again…  RECIPIENT SEARCH link
AND — “conveniently” it seems you CANNOT search anything before 2007.  I’m not surprised — HHS has been spending some time on this website recently (meaning, in 2016, not to mention previously) and I’ve been posting lots of information.  What I have to say about the DV Resource Network in particular concerns Pre-2007 information.  So, the amount you will see here is LOWER than the $18M above, which included grants previous to 2007!!  But also shows the name change.

Good thing someone at least was doing the earlier printouts.  I wonder what other obstacles (along with what looks like some increased effiencies in generating results) will show up in the “new” user interface to this data?

Export Options:

NOTE RELFECTS ONLY YEARS 2007-2016!!
(search results for that one DUNS# only). I also tried a search by “Name” where the “keyword field” prompted “Recipient Name” without checking any year (which for an “Advanced Search” did produce years 1995 through current) but got NO results so far for either new or old name for this organization.  Perhaps they are still working out the kinks of the system? Also, so far, it appears that under “Recipient” search the option to plug in an EIN# as a “Select” category (even though you couldn’t have those EIN#s display — and show grantees which weren’t showing any) — has completely disappeared — which could be a real problem as the data I already noticed is kind of “iffy” in the labeling of the recipient names to match the organization’s legal or business entity names.
 THIS IS AN HHS-GENERATED “Tiny URL” to the same search results:   http://tinyurl.com/z8s5b43
Recipient Name
DUNS
City
State
ZIP Code
County
Country
Type
Class
Sum of Awards
DOMESTIC ABUSE INTERVENTION PROGRAMS 193187069 DULUTH MN 55802-2152 ST. LOUIS United States of America Other Social Services Organization Non-Profit Private Non-Government Organizations $8,526,435
I will post a “Part 3” while processing this completely new information about the state of “TAGGS.hhs.gov”!! I still don’t see why a plain “Name Search” field isn’t given for input.. Do they not expect people to search for “Recipients” by their names? ???

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: