“PREVIEW of POSTLUDE”

I cannot say it enough — start looking at corporate filings (showing age and location of organizations — or if there is not one around, then find the underlying organization or partnership or sponsor  or “fiscal agent”), and where available read tax returns (Forms 990, 990-PF, or some are 990Os, etc.), and/or an organization’s financial statements!  And consider what you see!  This information doesn’t “bite” — it’s just forms, words, and numbers, and it can be basically deciphered.  (NO, I’m not a CPA, I am speaking as a “layperson” and addressing the “laypersons” among readers.  Over the years, I have a sense of how resistant people are even looking at some numbers.).
In some states, such as California, also, annual required charitable organization filings require the entity to name and provide address and contact person  for government agencies donating to it.  The one I chose above to demonstrate  on isn’t the largest (plenty are MUCH larger), but it:

• been around as a nonprofit for over a century,

• it has a specific agenda and market niche towards several major public systems, and developed proprietary software for population management (especially young, juvenile and adult populations under supervision) which it sells to governments apparently for subscription

• In this century, its financial support — primarily grants, and many of them government grants — has more than quadrupled; as an organization, it is dependent upon donations, and not self-sustaining either through investment income (i.e., control of enough assets to produce income, or to sell for income) or “program service revenues” which if this were an individual working, would be considered taxable employment.  Only this is a tax-exempt organization.

• The governments listed as contributing to it are from across the United States AND other countries, a very unusual thing to be listed in such a nonprofit (I’ve seen plenty to compare it with engaged in similar fields).  Typically “Governments” registered on that annual form are from within the USA.  Here, they are not.  I show this below.

• It lists as its “Funding Partners” (without reference to year, geography, or amounts over time — but simply a list of names) a host of private, tax-exempt foundations, and several parts of the US DOJ (subdivisions of it), most of who are fantastically more well-endowed than this nonprofit.

That alone shows (assuming the list is accurate) which foundations, and private entities are supporting the entire agenda of this organization — and yet is it covered in the press?  Who even knows it exists?
As I have done in other situations, this time below I also looked at one of the $3-billion-plus-assets  Funders of this particular criminal-justice, welfare-to-work, child-welfare-, foster-care, juvenile-justice focused organization in their list, which was The California Endowment, at 1000 N. Alameda Street, Los Angeles, CA.
Image of a “Details” Page from California Charitable Registry of Trusts:

A sample from its “Charitable Details Form”(Search Site)…

(Link to Search Results, once clicked on, the page is labeled  “Details,” here: the-calif-endowmt-ein954523232-calendoworg-charitbldetails-oct2016-4pp-pdf (<==all pages; shown again at bottom of this post)

…shows that in prior years, it was even more “flush” (nearly $6 billion in revenues) one year, as well as assets continuing in the billions of dollars (Assets — basically holdings, “Gross” and “Net” //  Revenues — basically Incoming Cash Flow, sometimes an item can be a negative (i.e., net proceeds from sale of securities other than inventory could be a loss).  These details (chart of revenues and assets) also show patterns:
Look at 2004-2005 compared to 2005-2006 for this organization in the next table (one year under the other, 8 rows each; gray backlit row marks 2005-2006 year):

01-MAR-04

28-FEB-05

$3,729,571,000

$5,950,840,000

18-JUL-05

Y

Accepted

01-MAR-05

28-FEB-06

$4,405,938,934

$347,545,697

12-JAN-07

Y

Accepted

Obviously something happened in fiscal year 2005-2006, for revenue to have decreased by this amount / 94% (!!??)

$347,545,697 / $5,950,840,000*  ($0.35B / $6.0B rounded) = 5.8% of former year’s revenues.

*(sometimes this might be a clerical error in transcribing to the Charitable Details Page; underlying documents can be checked.  I see it does indeed report that amount of $5.9B revenues for YE 2004, none of them from government grants, which brings up the question, WHO or WHAT was providing $5.9B of private revenues to this organization, in addition to its existing assets?
(General Answer in this 2004-2005 Tax return (warning – it’s 272 pp!)  Look at descriptive column Page 1; $4.4B Gross (not net) revenues from sale of assets.  You will see this number (no commas) on Line 6b:  4409397797, However Line 6a was the net profits from the sale of those $4.4B (add the commas and it becomes clear) where some of it lies.  While $4.4B + other info on Part I doesn’t seem to add up to $5.9B, it still shows how the amount can be so high — it’s a “Gross” amount, not Net:

<== They sold off some assets for a net profit of $129M (for exact#, see return).  Browse the Full Return to see off-shore investments / partnerships (Cayman Islands, London, Forms for reporting Foreign Income), and in general, how it is organized.  For example, Board of Directors salaries — $2.3M.  Investment Management Fees (schedule towards the back), $11M+.   Among their assets (I think it was this year; double-check the link) is a $20,000,000 note payable to others, i.e., they are functioning as a lender/financer).
(<== Next image Below is Page 2,  “Balance Sheet.” although parts of it read simply “See Statement 6 ….7… 8” for explanations, it does show relative amounts and the $20M note):

the-calif-endowmt-form-990pf-2004-yefeb28-05-showing-page-2-only-balance-sheet-w-20m-line7-%22other-notes-and-loans-receivable%22-relative-investmts-lines-10abc131415-liabilities

Since this says “See Statements 7,8,9 (etc.)” I went through the return and found them.  The excerpt (pp. 36-40) however also includes a single typed page of text first, which lists “Four Largest Direct Charitable Activities”
Foundations sometimes support charitable activities “Directly” and other times through grantmaking.  For example, (It being “that time of year” — in a Presidential Election Year) I hear the Clinton Family Foundation &/or “Clinton Global Initiative” (or was it both?) (I did look at the returns too, but over a year ago and DNR without checking back) was unique, I thought, in its emphasis on DIRECT activity, versus GRANTMAKING as a major characteristic. What “DIRECT ACTIVITY as the largest portion means, it seems to me, is that the controlling entity (in that example, the Clinton Foundation) is into CONTROL versus TRANSPARENCY — as it’s their paid employees doing the main work — that is, the PROGRAM-RELATED, CHARITABLE work — of the Foundation.
In The California Endowment, “Direct Charitable Activity” at least this year was not the largest part (next section in combo with Page 1 also shows) but about $16M expenses, as opposed to $153M grants paid this year, quite a difference!  The next image (with link to see it full-size separate) shows this:

Click to see full-size and following pages ==>  cal-endowmt-irs-form-ye2-28-2005fyr2004-pp36-40-descr-four-highest-direct-char-activities-1pg-statements-1-12-from-balance-sheet-expenses-investmts-by-categories-full-return-was-272pp
All three were “in conjunction with third-party vendor.”  Here’s #2 text:

Why wouldn’t they name the third-party vendor/s?  Was it the one I referenced above, which definitely works in the web-based technology fields regarding public service systems….
Quick Search for “One e-App” shows that the other major partner was California Healthcare Foundation, and that with TCE (eventually in this link dated August 2010) you can see how “Social Interest Solutions” was set up to provide the One-e-App which evolved (sic) out of Health-e-App, and who stands to profit from providing this, although it was as I understand it, provided without licensing fees to government entities, including Indiana and Arizona also, not just California:   http://www.chcf.org/projects/2007/oneeapp-onestop-access-to-health-care also see https://www.socialinterest.org

(This would be a PRIVATE non-profit, and probably very “well-heeled” large…)

See “SocialInterest.org” and notice Board of Directors includes one with the technology background, two formerly with US Dept. of HHS (and probably others)….

The Product:   

SO — how big is CHCF.org?  It provides some quick “FAQs” on its website sidebar, referencing how many grants its giving out, and — get this! — started around the same time as “The California Endowment” and with similar stated purposes — they want to IMPROVE healthcare and access to it.

– – – – – about CALIFORNIA HEALTHCARE FOUNDATION – – – –

(different background color to clarify it’s not about TCE” (The Endowment)

Fast Facts

Purpose: Nonprofit independent philanthropy
Focus: Grantmaking to improve health care in California
Founded: 1996
Employees: ~50
Offices: Oakland & Sacramento
Assets: $781 million (2/28/2015)
Grants: $22.6 million (FY ended 2/28/2015)

and — EIN# 954523231.  This is odd, as TCE is IRS#943423232

So — they’ve posted the Year 2014 (YE 2/28/2015) tax return (see “Finances” page) showing that this organization, like TCE, doesn’t really need ANY donations — except probably to qualify for tax-exempt status and avoid taxation on the rest of their income, or anyhow, considerable income.  That year they made $16M from investments; but the prior year, it was $52M.  This with an organizational structure — only 10 board members, and of those 10, only TWO officers.  Each of the two officers, counting compensation & benefits, is paid over $600K.  The many directors working 3 to 5 hours a week are still paid well — perhaps the equivalent (it’s been years, so I don’t know the exact level) of a low-income, FULL-time administrative assistant, at between  $13,500 (with most, higher) to $43,000 a YEAR for total work time of perhaps 250 hours (with two weeks off:  50 weeks x 5).    In other organizations, this level of work would simply be volunteer.

---

Somehow, with a $6.8M surplus at the end of last year (Revs-Expenses) this organization managed to end the NEXT year with a $22M deficit.  And this is a role model for health care administration improvement HOW???  But, they gave away $22M grants this year ($28, prior year), and what I still don’t get is how at the end of one year, the “Net Fund Balance” is $722M, and yet the beginning of the next (which is literally one DAY later), it’s somehow $780M.  Maybe a CPA can explain it to me… 

Part VIIA Employees — $3.7M total (all of them), however like TCE, Part VIIB (Subcontractors) communicates that a MAJOR priority of “California Healthcare Foundation” is actually managing their $781M assets — out of 7 contractors paid over $100K, five of them shown on the form, three are “investment management” with the first one listed being paid $2.6M alone:

(Pt. VII) Section B. Independent Contractors
1 Complete this table for your five highest compensated independent contractors that received more than $100,000 of compensation from the organization. Report compensation for the calendar year ending with or within the organization’s tax year.

(A) Name and business address  //  (B) Description of services // (C ) Compensation:

MAKENA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, 2755 SAND HILL RD, SUITE 200, MENLO PARK, CA 94025 // Investment Mgmt // $2,614,947.

ANGELENO GROUP LLC, 2029 CENTURY PARK EAST, SUITE 2980, LOS ANGELES, CA 90067// Investment Mgmt //  $250,000.

PARSE3  13 FIRST STREET, WARWICK, NY 10990 // Website Developmt & Maintenance // $219,849.

HARBOURVEST PARTNERS LLC, ONE FINANCIAL CENTER, 44TH FLOOR, BOSTON, MA 02111// Investment Mgmt //  $157,710

LEGACY VENTURE  180 LYTTON AVENUE, PALO ALTO, CA 94301// Investment Mgmt // $133,580

---

INDEPENDENT SUBCONTRACTOR #1 – MAKENA CAPITAL MGMT, LLC

 

MAKENA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT is an LLC, legal domicile Delaware, formed (in Calif) in 2005 Cal. Business (Sec. of State) registration shows; and its main activity is HEDGE FUND MANAGER.

Bloomberg.com shows who (what types of individuals) it serves, under head executive Michael Gerard McCaffery (age 63):

Company Overview of Makena Capital Management, LLC (under “Capital Markets”)

Makena Capital Management LLC is a privately owned hedge fund manager. The firm provides its services to endowments and foundations, family offices, high net worth individuals, sovereign wealth funds and global investment institutions. It manages endowment fund for its clients. The firm invests in the public equity, private equity, and alternative markets of the United States. It primarily invests in equities, private equity, hedge funds, and listed and direct property entities. It typically invests in information technology sector. Makena Capital Management was founded in 2005 and is based in Menlo Park, California.

http://makenacap.com

[[Note: I do not control their website. On inputting: Makenacap|com (with “.” for “|”) it activates a re-formatting to bring up the company website, image, and cover the URL. This is not a factor of Bloomberg, but the company’s “activate-on-click” (or whatever else it may be called, that’s what it does) web capacity they have; I’ve seen it before..]]

We currently manage $18 billion in perpetual capital, providing investment solutions to endowment investors around the world.  Makena is positioned to deliver the expertise, operating platform and risk management required to effectively execute the endowment model investment strategy.  Our significant scale, experience and pooled investment structure give our clients access to broadly diversified, global investment opportunities that span traditional and alternative asset classes and strategies.  As fiduciaries, we work closely with our investors, considering their target levels of risk, return, and liquidity, often employing multiple Makena vehicles.

Founded in 2005 by principals from leading North American endowments and foundations, the firm offers clients the extensive experience and relationships developed while managing capital at the Stanford Management Company, the Hewlett Foundation and Northwestern University.  Our Managing Directors currently serve on the Investment Committees for a number of leading institutions, including The Rhodes Trust, The Bechtel Foundation, Washington University in St. Louis, the University of Virginia, and Dartmouth College. This provides us with a unique perspective on the challenges facing large endowments today.

They show about 25 Fund Managers (several of them look younger) and 8 “mature-looking” board of directors, ALL male except — Dr. Condoleeza Rice (!!).   Here’s the list:

• 

  WILLIAM J. BURNS

• 

  JAMES C. GAITHER

• 

  DR. ROBERT L. JOSS

• 

  WILLIAM J. KNEISEL

• 

  NG KOK SONG

  • Mr. Ng served as Group Chief Investment Officer of GIC (Government of Singapore Investment Corporation) from 2007 until 2013. From 1983 to 1987, he was the founding Chairman of the Singapore International Monetary Exchange (SIMEX), now incorporated into the Singapore Exchange. He has been the founder Chairman of the Wealth Management Institute since 2003. In 2013, the CFA Institute conferred on him the Thomas L. Hansberger Award for Leadership in the global investment profession. Mr. Ng has been a member of the Strategic Committee of Agency France Tresor since 2001 for which the Government of France conferred on him the award of “La Croix de Chevalier de la Legion d’Honneur” in 2004.
  • Mr. Ng graduated in Physics from the University of Singapore (1970) and in Management as a Sloan Fellow from Stanford University (1980).

I didn’t know what ‘Agence France Tresor meant (except the word “Tresor”) so looked it up, and got a short history.  A few moments on this topic — it’s talking about SOVEREIGN (governmental) DEBT.  “AFT” started in Feb. 2001, but before that (1998) its history page says, a STRIPS market for OAT was started.  “OAT” ?? I didn’t know, but apparently it’s a term for a debt instrument also.  See next logo, link, and below it:

http://www.aft.gouv.fr/rubriques/a-brief-history_68.html [[Luckily, this translates into English automatically….]] AGENCE FRANCE TRESOR is tasked with managing the government debt and cash positions under the most secure conditions in the interest of the taxpayer.

Global Capital.com, Feb., 2013, “AFT Helps France Plot a Safe Course through the Eurocrisis“

Blog Purpose can be deduced by: Browsing the table of contents below, reading a post or two, reading the sidebars, such as the one which starts:

This Absolutely Uncommon Analysis shouldn’t be!

What I do here: I expose the systems design, and the designers, so Y.O.U. can show others, and to notify those playing certain games, “you’ve been flagged.”

Heard of “disruptive technologies?” Disruptive innovations?

Well, this is a disruptive blog. I give people who’ve already been strung out and stripped down BY the system another place to stand and look at it, and a clear, fairly diagnostic language (vs. pretty logos and moving pictures) to describe it to others. AND, which many don’t do, I tell how I found the information; links databases and all.

*Because this blog was started to talk about what no other blog, that I could find, was consistently continuing to publicize and explain [##] See bottom of post for the footnote in the context of the family courts, I am frequently explaining and teaching terms, concepts and a basic system vocabulary for things that have not been talked about enough among people concerned about the quality and processes of decision-making within the family court system, not to mention among the wider public who is still helping fund the infrastructure.

This explain, teach, show, and tell style of writing makes for longer (and longer to produce them too!) posts, but this type of explanation, connecting description to examples, I believe makes for better understanding than debating the “causes” as legitimate as many of the causes are.

When it comes to “causes,” I look at who’s promoting what, and how this has been organized, networked, and as possible, financed by the public (often unknowingly financing both sides of any ongoing debate).  Having identified that, I look at what it’s been doing to our concepts of “justice” through the long-term, planned, and deliberate shifting of priorities away from due process and (it seems) towards ordering diversionary services (therapies).

To this day, unless the search engines are missing it, I do not know of ANY blog or blogger who has been through the family court system (i.e., divorce/custody) and connected the HHS federal grants incentives with the trade associations,*** including but NOT limited to, “AFCC,” which itself has been for a half-century under-reported and conveniently “ignored” among family-court professionals (and leadership of associated advocacy organizations) positioning themselves as pro-mother/protective parents or pro-father/pro-joint custody.

These professionals should be asked WHY they don’t want to talk about their own, or their colleagues’ involvement (at a minimum) with this particular organization AFCC when addressing audiences of distressed parents who just lost custody of or contact with their children, and responses noted.

They (those same professionals and/or leadership of advocacy organizations) should also be asked why, also now for decades, they choose NOT to discuss in front of the public while debating custody problems they did not feel like raising the possibility that “just possibly” federal grants intended to change custody outcomes away from non-abusive, no criminal history, nonviolent single mothers were just possibly, succeeding in that objective, even when it may mean returning children to their abusive, criminal-history, pattern of violence fathers — who are a SUBSET of all fathers and I still do not believe are REPRESENTATIVE of all fathers — although the federal government typically has no jurisdiction over state legislatures handling of custody cases, an excuse which is often voiced when pained parents try to take their cases back up through the courts to the federal level.

(Key Words:  Access-Visitation grants, Supervised Visitation, Mediation, Batterers Intervention Programming, “Alternate custody arrangements” CFDA#93597, where”CFDA” means “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance” — as opposed to “International” assistance to other countries, I suppose.

Simultaneously with the Access-Visitation grants, and fifteen-fold in size (in annual millions of dollars of federal grants ALSO administered by (distributed through) the federal Department of Health and Human Services (came into existence in 1980) / Administration for Children and Families (came into existence only in 1991)), there are the marriage/fatherhood grants (see http://HMRF.ACF.HHS.Gov for a summary description, of this blog, throughout, for a whole lot more detail, or the HHS TAGGS database to look them up yourself).  The CFDA # is 93086.

However, the overall purpose of promoting marriage and fatherhood (the “responsible” kind, of course) is NOT limited to grants under those two CFDA #s but permeates the public/private (ad)ventures made available through this, primarily “Welfare Reform” of 1996 policy.

By 15-fold, I’m referring to $10M a year for the one type of grant, and $150M/year for the other, and I also learned not too long ago that, despite the overall purpose being to reduce the public burden (debt) of paying welfare, instead it has set up fields of practice, and in a given year, whatever is NOT used of that $150M is KEPT for further research and administrative purposes.  This information was buried in one of the promotional “clearinghouse” style websites…(http://healthymarriageinfo.org).

(My recent 10/4/2016 Table of Contents 2016 post has more details — including some recent information this past summer that the State of Oklahoma wants to quit funding this programming it’s been involved with for 17 years.  That doesn’t necessarily mean the private parties will stop promoting or running it, however.  Possibly those in office over the past 17 years have paid off all owed favors to others (through this programming) and so no longer need it.

Or perhaps my consistent blogging, and SOME other reporting on the grants, may have influenced a decision to come up with some excuse for shutting down the State-level participation.  Without further lookup, I just don’t know — but check this out! (Oklahoma Watch, 8/3/2016 talking about the $70 million — mostly to Public Strategies, Inc. — expended over the years.  July 2008 Brief of the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (produced by ASPE.HHS.GOV as part of a paid for Brief, in a series of Briefs on this program). Oklahoma Lays the Foundation for a Marriage Initiative

The next comments inside the next green box, and paragraphs introducing it (light-blue background marks them), I added early June, 2016, being in a somewhat ornery mood about the overall scenario.   My own (housing, in particular) situation is in transition, and short-term and long-term future not looking too positive, so some of this probably relate to that personal situation.  There is a situation involving extortion (I am presently being extorted in a more direct way than previously) and concealing of a financial paper trail I’m entitled to.

This next green box and these few paragraphs will probably be removed within the week, but I am having a real hard time NOT saying it at this time….  What follows isn’t, irrelevant or untrue — it just doesn’t belong here because of space considerations. I do want to make the point that functioning as an adult in our current society, it’s not good enough to have a passing vocabulary to flip off some comments on what’s in the mainstream media, and/or on Facebook campaigns, or one’s favorite alternate “talk show radio” hosts (conservative or progressive, etc.).

ADULTS in the USA who are working and engaging in cash flow of any sort, (even if they are recipients “living off” so-called social services outflow) are contributing to “the economy” which includes both Public AND Private Sectors.  Taxpayers and those who pay fees- for-services (which most of us do — can you spell, marriage license, drivers’ license, court filing fees for divorce, custody, support of local or unified school districts, plus the state university systems -in most states, that’s two entire dual systems:  University of MyState-XYZ (location/campus) and MyState State University-XYZ (location/campus).

As adults and citizens, we really all ought to know how to read government financial statements, research government grants where it comes up.  Because governments are obviously contracting with and donating TO private corporations, particularly tax-exempt, for certain programs, we ought to be able, by subject matter, zero in on key corporations for which government services have been outsourced.  We really ought to know a whole lot more, and be able to reason independently from ANY local advocacy group, OR religious group, knowing what went where, and how it got there.

The clear, fairly diagnostic language was not designed for use by the public who has been targeted to pay for the system while being assaulted by it.

But, without a clear fairly diagnostic language and awareness, those people who have been hooked like worms and used for bait,  will continue struggling and continue baiting others, already injured or bystanders,  into conversations circling around the same, circular arguments, or illogical (when compared to evidence of how the system has been designed), coached suggestions for systems reform — such as better training on child abuse or domestic violence for:  judges, custody evaluators, or family lawyers, and elimination of “unsound psychological theories” like parental alienation (or, on the contrary, promoting remedies for the big, bad “parental alienation”).

INSTEAD — and SEEKING TO AVOID THIS TYPE OF CONVERSATION,

I talk “show me the money,” I show prime organizations and associations moving it, I also show federal grants to prime organizations and associations for propaganda about men, women and children.

I do this in words other adults are quite capable of using among themselves, IF they will look at the system design and admit to the importance of, perhaps, instead of choosing “a la carte” from which divide-and-conquer language they choose this season (whether, religion, politics, race, or gender), starting to talk, and insisting others also do,  like grownups about things like: assets, balances, revenues – expenses, and public/private alliances operating tax-exempt organizations while most people do not focus their “paying my bills” lifestyles on forming, running, or being primarily employed by, nonprofit organizations.

In general, I think it’s fair to say that most people not directly employed by government or in a public institution (that includes universities and school districts) or running their own businesses, IF they are working, are working as employees for a “for-profit” corporation or business — or [See ** right below].

The emphasis is that for most of the population, individuals’ JOBS (collectively, if in partnerships or families) pay the bills, at least within individual household.

This is an entirely different mindset than those in the business and investments sector.  You cannot consider the business and investments sector without taking into accountthe tax-exempt sector (corporate which is often historic family-based wealth housed in tax-exempt foundations and from there, participating in government itself as “helpers”) and how unregulated (by and large it is).

Religious institutions are part of the tax-exempt sector, and part of the mix.

Is anyone alive in the USA now likely to “forget” that there was a 9/11/2001? Or, a Civil Rights Act of 1964?

I blog significant government events and private profits from them, and some of the promoters (including those in academia),  between the 1960s and now which have transformed the safety of men, women and children who decided to separate from each other, or not marry in the first place, in the era of “Federal Family Design” initiated (large-scale) by 1996 PRWORA, i.e., Welfare Reform.

In the larger context, and because it does relate to the family court venue, I also bring in the vast expansion of the fields of mental health and psychoanalysis, psychology, psychiatry (psychiatrists can prescribe Rx), and the tendency of family court judges to order parents and children into psychoeducational classes and evaluations whenever, and wherever possible — then complain about lack of resources for the courts.

Parallel to this marriage-promotion has been the growth of domestic violence organizations (often centrally controlled as “Coalitions” at the state level) which somehow, “forgot” to incorporate an anwareness of the PRWORA impact on women leaving abuse with children who would be, soon, dumped into the family court system and have to fight the same, only expanded, mentality, again — and often, again, for years at a time.

Many people already are bi-lingual, or have proven the ability to learn a different language.  This one is no different.  It does require reading and not being intimidated by forms with lots of lines (called “Tax Returns”), the ability on looking at a form to tell BIGGER numbers from SMALLER numbers.

Look at a Form 990 for some large non-profit and see the categories, being aware that the mix will vary by organization — but typically they are NOT limited to ONE source of income called employment, but gain revenues in a variety of ways, and typically from a variety of sources.

Nonprofits can also completely own and control other “entities” (Read “Schedules R”), and as to their owner/operators (my word for Board of Director personnel) may be only one of a series of businesses controlled by the same.

Here’s just one — not a large one, but one organized to influence the criminal justice situation — originally around juvenile probation issues.  Eventually it changed its name to the National Council on Crime and Delinquency, and moved its legal domicile to California from, as I recall, previously New York. It also maintains an office (?) or “division” Children’s Research Center” walking distance from the listed HQ of the Madison, Wisconsin-based Association of Family and Conciliation Courts.  First, paragraphs from its website which now (after the years shown on the tax return) simply reads:  NCCDGLOBAL.org

The SDM® MODEL IN WELFARE-TO-WORK

“TANF agencies sometimes struggle to engage families receiving cash assistance in qualifying activities and employment. TANF-involved families, for their part, face challenges as they work to move toward self-sufficiency. The Structured Decision Making® (SDM) model for welfare-to-work helps employment counselors consistently and accurately identify participants most likely to have difficulty participating in required activities or finding and maintaining sustainable employment. The SDM® model for welfare-to-work seeks to improve program participation and create pathways to self-sufficiency using three assessments:

• Appraisal screening: This actuarial assessment estimates the likelihood that agency clients will have difficulty participating the required hours or finding and maintaining employment. Clients assessed as having a high likelihood of difficulty in either of these areas are provided additional follow-up and support.

• Family strengths and needs assessment: The FSNA helps employment counselors identify barriers to employment shortly after program enrollment. Clients and counselors are able to create a plan to address the priority barriers to employment through a mix of qualifying activities and services.

• Support level reassessment: This actuarial reassessment helps the counselor determine if the client has addressed barriers to employment sufficiently that support may be reduced, or if a client is having difficulties requiring additional follow-up and supports.

Vague and Misleading Vocabulary: “*TANF agencies” “TANF” is a government program, ‘Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” and refers to federal block grants to the states. In addition, under TANF, and separately, under “TANF,” the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, (HHS/ACF/OFA is the hierarchy) is allowed to grant directly to private organizations (nonprofits or for-profits) in pursuit of the program goals and it definitely does so, as I detail and provide example after example of, on this blog.

“Agencies” belong to either federal or state governments, and some of them administer “TANF” — but I have yet to hear of any category “TANF agency.” It’s a very loose usage and labeling from NCCD, which claims its specialty is the exact opposite — standardized and appropriate, “actuarial” labels for government work.

See organization’s “history” page and its left-sidebar for what public institutions they are marketing to, ALL of which the public’s income tax receipts go towards supporting, in addition to the government grants (quadrupling in a few short years) going directly from many governments to this specific organization to produce software the public will continue paying for and designed to monitor, standardize, and essentially run, major public programs — prisons, foster care, juvenile systems, welfare systems, and both people housed in insitutions and people being monitored “in the community.”  WHAT ABOUT COUNTRY BORDERS?

A lot of tax-exempt corporations are also “into” this process, although from what I can see on the tax returns, most years it was MOSTLY Government Grants (and some years, only government grants) supporting the organization.  The list of “Funding Partners” on their website is presented:

• Alphabetical
• Mixing Public (government) entities with Private, making it harder for US taxpayers (and other citizens whose governments have been contributing — NOT listed on this page) to sort out where their governments are spending.
• Completely absent any reference to years, or in any amounts
• Completely absent WHERE the private contributors are operating (in which state, if US, of if all are indeed domestic to the USA).
• Completely absent any links to any of the mentioned organizations
• In general, disrespectful of the public who is a stakeholder, in learning why, in particular, these organizations (again, most look like FOUNDATIONS) might be so enthusiastic about contributing to NCCD.

For such an organization whose speciality is detailed, finessed software systems, why such neglect at this public interface level?

Here’s that list (referenced as “partial” — of course, the organization has been around over 100 years (!!) of “Funding Partners”

I have pulled to the right margin those in the list which would qualify as “government” and at a glance, it’s clear that they are all under the US Department of Justice, and nothing shown from under HHS.  No overseas government funding is acknowledged here — but it as I show in this post, is indeed reported as received, from the organization. No indication of whether these were discretionary grants, entitlements, block grants from those parts of the USDOJ:

http://www.nccdglobal.org/about-us/funding-partners

NCCD’s work is made possible by current and recent grants and contributions from the following institutions. We are grateful for their ongoing support of our work.

Again, “institutions” is a misnomer.  I’ve separated the foundations (and US Bank) from the only “Institutions” which are showing right-aligned, if you could call a division of a federal department to be an “institution.  The common usage of the word “institution” differs from the common usage of the word “foundation.”  If NCCD webmasters are mis-labeling something that basic — how well are they doing with labeling children, juveniles, adults, and their behaviors — or money received and spent on their financial reports?

Akonadi Foundation

Annie E. Casey Foundation

Arcus Foundation

The Laura and John Arnold Foundation

Bureau of Justice Assistance

The California Endowment**

**  [[NCCD Funding Partners list is continued below several paragraphs of comments on this one which sounds, and is, LARGE.  ]]

Wiki sponsored search result:

The California Endowment is a private, California-focused health foundation that advocates for health and health equity, and raises awareness of how and where health can happen. Wikipedia

From http://www.calendow.org/our-story/ (Mission sub-menu) we can see that part of the purpose is to change laws and policies for the “broken” system and restore balance of power with the people (….???)

MISSION:

The California Endowment’s mission is to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities and to promote fundamental improvements in the health status of all Californians.

We don’t focus on prescriptions.

We focus on fixing broken systems and outdated policies, ensuring the balance of power is with the people. We don’t focus on the individual, we focus on the larger community as an ecosystem of health. We work with citizens and elected leaders to find lasting solutions to impact the most people we possibly can.

The goal is simple: First, change the way people view health—from the notion that health happens in the doctor’s office to a belief that health happens where you live, work, learn, and play. We call this “narrative change.”

Second, integrate smart solutions in communities across the state. We do this by working with our partners and grantees to fundamentally change “the rules”—laws, policies, and systems—that impede health in our communities. Building Healthy Communities is our 10-year $1 billion-funded initiative that aims to bring health to where we live, learn, work, and play.

We’re changing the narrative around health to ensure health and justice for all.

HISTORY:
We are a not-for-profit, statewide foundation that works to make California a healthier place for all.

We were created in 1996 when Blue Cross of California acquired the for-profit subsidiary WellPoint Health Networks. Today, with more than $3 billion in assets, The Endowment is the largest private health foundation in the state. We have a number of active and effective programs to improve health—from Building Healthy Communities at the neighborhood level to statewide awareness and engagement campaigns that impact millions of Californians.

Each and every day The California Endowment and its community partners seek ways to improve the state of health in California

Organizations “are created” but they always have creators.

A more direct, forthright statement than “we were created” would be to name the creators, or incorporators — SOMEONE came up with the decision to organization in this manner, and if it was a committee, then name that committee.  Right now, it sounds like Blue Cross of California in a major acquisition of a for-profit was going to have an excess corporate taxes problem on its hands if they did NOT go non-profit.  Perhaps WellPoint Health Networks wasn’t functioning well as For-Profit in part because it (maybe — I don’t know) wasn’t funneling off excess profits into its own foundation.

They are proud of their Board of Directors (see large-font run-down on that page, from a variety of backgrounds), but I managed to find (light-gray font, VERY bottom of the web page) their “Audited Financials” which at least are for 2015-2016 **(pretty current).  The numbers are so large, they are stated “in thousands”

I have not yet found the related EIN#:   The statements are “consolidated” indicating (predictably for any organization this large) another business entity– here an LLC holding title to land, with the Endowment the only member of that LLC — combined assets.  “The Endowment” (refers to both entities) runs or holds three conferences centers — Los Angeles (SoCal), San Francisco (NoCal) and of course, Sacramento (the Capital).  I already realized the SoCal one was helping out other mega-community foundations and nonprofits, a nationwide pattern:  One larger foundation acquires the real estates, and leases or facilitates reduced-cost or even free office space, or conference space.

From those financial statements, Note #1 identifies who it represents:

The California Endowment and Subsidiary (A California non-profit public benefit corporation)
Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements March 31, 2016 and 2015

1. OrganizationThe California Endowment (“The Endowment”), a California non-profit public benefit corporation, is a private foundation that began operations in May 1996. The Endowment’s mission is to expand access to affordable, quality health care for underserved individuals and communities and to promote fundamental improvements in the health status of all Californians.In May 2009, 800 N. Main LLC (the “LLC”) was organized and operates for charitable purposes described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and sections 214 and 23701d of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. The LLC operates exclusively for the benefit of The Endowment, with The Endowment as the sole member of the LLC. The LLC holds title to land located adjacent to The Endowment’s premises.The Endowment and the LLC are consolidated for financial statement presentation. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in the consolidated financial statements.

BNY Mellon is holding its cash and cash equivalents:

The Endowment maintains its cash and cash equivalents primarily with its custodian bank, BNY Mellon. The cash and cash equivalent balances are generally not federally insured; however, The Endowment has not experienced any losses in such positions and believes that they do not represent any significant credit risk.

Still looking at (for an example of just ONE founder of NCCD) this last statement, as it mentioned the over $3 billion in investments, here’s a page characterizing IN WHAT:  (I’ll provide direct link to that page along with the image, but link to whole document is shown above) (labeled page “9”):

the-calif-endowmt-financial-statemts-2015-16-p11-only-note-4-investments-by-category)<==Click to see full-sized).  The numbers are in thousands, but you can see respective sizes — $1.1B (2016) in “Equity Securities” and the majority ($1.8B, 2016) in “Private equity, real assets, real estate and hedge funds”

(in “The Network for Social Work Management” — 2016 Day 2 Keynote Speaker)…

… Dr. Ross has been actively involved in community and professional activities at both the regional and national level. He serves as a Member, President’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for African Americans, Co-Chair, Diversity in Philanthropy Coalition; Board member, USC Center on Philanthropy and Public Policy; and has served as a Board member of the California Health Benefit Exchange Board, Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors; Grantmakers in Health, National Vaccine Advisory Committee, the National Marrow Donor Program, San Diego United Way and Jackie Robinson YMCA.

---

He has received numerous awards and honors including the 2011 Public Health Champion award from the UCLA School of Public Health, 2011 Latino Health Alliance Champion Award, 2011 California Association of Human Relations Organization Civil Rights Award, 2009 Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles Access to Justice Award, and the Council on Foundations’ 2008 Distinguished Grantmaker of the Year Award. He has also been named by Capitol Weekly as one of California’s most influential civic leaders in health policy, and he was recently named by the NonProfit Times as one of the 50 Most Influential Non-Profit Leaders in America. In 1999 he was named by Governing Magazine as a national Public Official of the Year for his leadership in innovative health and social services delivery

(The Network for Social Management, Executive Offices also in Los Angeles, solicits affiliates sponsors in these categories).

President’s Advisory Commission — See July 26, 2012 Executive Order on this topic, which specifically mentions “African American males” (but no mention of women or females in this context at all — which complements the same language pervading White House statements on marriage/fatherhood issues, and in general his failure to mention “women” as a topic in the State of the Union addresses, either)…

~ ~ ~ ~

WHO WE FUND INCLUDES

• 501(c)(3) nonprofit organizations that are not classified as private foundations
• California state and local government entities
• Faith-based organizations that welcome and serve all members of the community

WE DO NOT FUND

• Individuals
• Organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, gender identity and expression, national origin, citizenship status, age, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran status
• Organizations that require membership in a certain religion or that advance a particular religious faith
• Political campaigns, voter registration drives or lobbying for specific legislation

The California Wellness Foundation

Casey Family Programs
The Chartrand Foundation
The Community Foundation of Jacksonville
Cowles Charitable Trust
David A. Stein Family Foundation
DuBow Family Foundation
Edith B. Smith Trust
Evelyn and Walter Haas Jr. Fund
Jessie Ball duPont Fund
Henry & Lucy Gooding Endowment
Langeloth Foundation
Longwood Foundation
Ms. Foundation for Women

National Institute of Justice

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Office for Victims of Crime

Open Society Foundation

Paul L. and Berta Klopsch Trust
Public Welfare Foundation
Quest Foundation
Remmer Family Foundation
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation
Russell Family Foundation
Sierra Health Foundation
Stoneleigh Foundation
U.S. Bank
Vanguard Charitable
W.K. Kellogg Foundation
Walton Family Foundation
Weaver Family Foundation
Women’s Giving Alliance
Zellerbach Family Foundation

Note: This is a partial list.

NCCD, Continued:  EIN# 131624111 is searchable:

On the IRS Forms (Look at Page 1, Part I for summary, Part VIIA for Personnel, Part VIIB for “independent subcontractors paid over $100K, Part VIII for supporting detail to Summary categories of REVENUES, and Part IX for supporting detail to Summary categories of Expenses, and Part X is the BALANCE SHEET.  So, basically, it’s Revenues – Expenses = Difference (+ or -, i.e., there was either excess or a deficit for that year,) on a yearly basis, and Fund Balances and Assets – Liabilities = NET fund Balances/Liabilities at end of the year.

Part III (page 2) lists program service accomplishments, it’s supposed to be in categorized detail, with $$ figures (Expenses — including grants to others first, Revenues to the right as shown in the above example).  Look at this description from a Year 2012-2013 tax return and notice that it’s basically addressing several government services:

MOVING THE NUMBERS THROUGH ACCOUNTING PRACTICES: Obviously, just like I can move text from one post to another on my blog, shortening one post and lengthening another, accounting tactics (legitimate) can affect any net fund balances as they also can affect end of year excess/deficits.  Seeing this in operation across many tax returns is a reminder that similar events, only on a far larger scale, are still possible within government accounting also.

AS OPPOSED TO ILLEGITIMATE — SIMPLY REPORTING DISHONESTLY.  To deduce whether this might be a common practice for a specific organization (or between related ones), without access to hard evidence such as an audit might provide, it takes some time to look at internal inconsistencies within a return (from parts to summary), or missing numbers or information on a return, or simply doesn’t make sense.  

TAKE THE MONEY AND RUN CORPORATE REGISTRATIONS: (Note:  I learned about this in following HMRF — healthy marriage, responsible fatherhood-backed — HHS grantees over time. Again, that takes time, but in that category, it seemed so obvious that I began to deduce that (very likely, in my opinion) the ultimate purpose of this type of financing as run through the public budget includes setting up an ONGOING means for money-laundering through the private, nonprofit sector.  I could name specific organizations — if you want some names, submit a comment.  It takes more than summary, passing attention to see, which is another reason I am so annoyed at advocacy groups which have wasted, literally, YEARS of time which otherwise might have been put into volunteer-style, organized, following of these grants among the people most directly affected by them.

Char Details::$16 million revs; Oakland’s NCCD (EIN# 131624111) gets $641K from NYC’s Children’s Rights Inc in 2012 (This record is of the organization Details as a registered charity; at the time I looked (June 2014) it had $10M assets and $14M Revenues for Fiscal year 2012-2013.  Of the $14M Revenues, some came not just from government entities (public funding) but from apparently governments OUTSIDE the USA.  I was shocked to see the list at the time, knowing already that this organization had also contracted with a New York charity (Children’s Rights, Inc.) with its own sources of revenues including settlements from lawsuits it was filing against child welfare agencies in multiple states.

IN California, charities have to report from which government entities (with address and contact#) when they receive grants — and this would show on an attachment to an otherwise (if no government grants or other “yes” answer requiring explanation, were checked off) one-page form, the “RRF”.  NCCD Year Jul2010-June2011 RRF form (<=several pages, click to see full-size images & more, as shown below)(This was already in my media library, Revs $9M and Assets $5M just two years earlier, illustrates the same points):

The left image is the RRF Form (filled out) and the right image lists how many different states, and a few different COUNTRIES, have been contributing (per this form) to the organization whose headquarters is now listed as 1970 Harrison, Oakland, California — which is right in downtown Oakland (downtown Oakland not being that large an area). According to the State of California laws regarding charitable registries, at least as shown on this form, they are ordered to provide not just a government NAME (for example, “Government of Bermuda” but also an address, and a contact number. Too bad they don’t also require a reporting of the amount donated and when — which might help the public fact-check on the donating end.

Not shown on page 3 above, were the last two “government entities” contributing that year — listed as:

THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ