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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

About the Language and Length (Notes on Writing Style from TOC 2014 post) with Work Sample: The Calif Endowment (Publ. 10-13-2016, “Sticky”)

with one comment

Some Notes on Length and Writing Style,

and Work Sample (Preview/Postlude)

(Exploring one nonprofit & one of its backing foundations  with financial and filing details sheds light on the organizations’ mutual and relative sizes, revenue sources, and overall purposes, as a counterpoint and “backdrop” to organization’s public-profiles, i.e., their websites)  

Full Post Title & ShortLink:  About the Language and Length (Notes on Writing Style from TOC 2014 post) with Work Sample: The Calif Endowment (Publ. 10-13-2016, “Sticky”) [Just over 16,300 words @ Jan. 2018]

Including evidence from “The California Endowment” (“TCE”)’s Fiscal year 2004 Form 990PF return; it shows supplemental Statements detailing Direct Charitable Activities (expenses $16M),  and afterwards, showing dollar amounts in expenses, investments, liabilities, etc. as shown on the main IRS form.

The “charitable activities” performed that year were in part in conjunction with The California Healthcare Foundation to develop an Internet “app” to streamline people’s applications for as many social services and healthcare (welfare-type, public-funded) services as possible:

In conjunction with third-party vendor, The California Endowment supervised the development and implementation of the One-e-App technology solution. One-e-App is a Web-based system that is designed to screen and enroll all eligible individuals in California in multiple publicly funded health and social service programs, such as Medi- Cal and Healthy Families…

While paying that same year $11M in investment managers’ fees and holding a variety of investments as the “evidence” link above shows.  Here’s TCE more recently and right underneath it, “The California Healthcare Foundation (also more recent return):

California Endowment CA 2015 990PF 188 $3,768,442,347.00 95-4523232

Check out the close similarity in EIN#s — interesting, huh? 954523232 and 945423231

We are looking at $3.7 billion assets vs. $0.78 billion (or $780M) in total gross assets…

California HealthCare Foundation CA 2015 990O 237 $780,974,997.00 95-4523231

The California Healthcare Foundation (assets a mere “pipsqueak” by TCE standards) with its (2015) $781M of assets, spent also a lot on its 7 independent contractors, i.e., investment managers, including over $2.6M on “Makena Capital Management, LLC.”…

see-chcforg-ein954523231-fyr2014-pt-viib-indepcontractors-annotated see-chcforg-ein954523231-fyr2014-pt-viib-indepcontractors-annotated

…which, as it turns out, specializes in certain kinds investments, and manages over $13 billion of them, with a Board of Directors which does (at the time viewed) include just one woman — Dr. Condoleeza Rice.  One of their directors has had close connections to management of governmental funds in Singapore and of governmental debt and investments in France via “Agence France Tresor.”


On revisiting this post (Dec. 2016) I looked more closely at the CHCF tax return showing $2.6M to this one contractor (above) and found two “Makena Fund…LPs” listed as a “Related Entity” on Schedule R (Taxable as Partnerships) with their Total Assets listed over $128M.  Next annotated image (click on filename|link to see it full-size with comments):



calhealthcarefoundatn-chcf-ein954523231-fyr2014-sched-r-nmakena-liq-endowmt-b-associates-lpfixed-incomefund-lp-total-assets-128m-taxable-as-partnrship-2016dec167-30pm <=Click to enlarge image.

CHCF’s Schedule R also has a section for reporting transactions with related entities which were (1) really high that year and (2) the filing entity (California Healthcare Foundation) made sure to NOT list on the same page, which it easily could have. Go to the final pages of the California HealthCare Foundation return (also in table above) to see those transactions; one was $75,000,000.

Back to “TCE” — This annotated image (<==click for full-sized) is Statements 4 (Other Professional Fees) and 5 (taxes) from the TCE Fiscal Year 2004 (not “2014”) return; the plain version’s link (several pages in a row) is above. This is mostly for scope of size and showing where some of the investments are held, and expenses allocated.  In this case, I don’t see how $338K extra (blue markings) was somehow allocated to “Charitable purposes” without explanation.


So you can see in the DETAILS of these organizations here and below that overall, we are talking, management of high net worth individuals, institutional funds, and sometimes “sovereign wealth funds.”  The revenues from some of these investments are so high for some groups that if they did NOT function tax-exempt and give away millions of dollars yearly, the tax rates would erode the holdings.

Always watch the bottom line of the involved organizations, which is to say, their “Balance Sheet” statements.  Where are the assets being held?  Who are the related organizations?

I have never run across a situation, in this blog, where two organizations working as a partnership had, literally, EIN#s that were only a single digit apart.  I have seen some with charitable registry numbers pretty close, but not this situation.

This dynamic duo (and their related entities, Makena and others) are deeply into the social services delivery sector; and as health insurance itself is one of the MAJOR sources of revenue around, I find it no surprise that they are donating to smaller, but influential nonprofits like “National Council on Crime and Delinquency” (NCCD, referenced below) with a vested interest in influencing the courts and justice systems also and either investing globally, or (in the case of NCCD) literally taking funding from international governmental services.

In fact, barely week before I first published this post, I see there was a 2016 NCCD Conference on Children, Families and Youth held in Orange County, California, prominently mentioning The California Endowment (and Casey Families, and two others) sponsorship.

(discussed in this post near the bottom as a nonprofit, and who has been funding it, including TCE,

(Discussed in this post near the bottom as a nonprofit, and who has been funding it, including TCE, “The California Endowment.”)


(Sponsorship referring to the 2016 NCCD Conference) For what the four logos represent, click link, then the logos. Finding the financials from those pages would be quite the trick; and “Automon” looks like an LLC from Scottsdale, AZ, with a focus on data management and software).

http://conference.nccdglobal.org => =>

Another page shows agenda (somewhat) , sponsors, and speakers  (featuring the smiling faces, hover for partial description, probably click for more) and agenda.  Representatives from Texas, Maryland, Canada, and I noticed several from Vera Institute of Justice (NY with an international interest), and California. =>>

narccw-home-welcome-p1-only-image-pdf-is-2pp-url-actually-reads-wwwihstrainetcom-as-an-umbrella-agency-does-it-have-an-ein-ihs-surely-must narccw-home-welcome-url-actually-reads-wwwihstrainetcom-as-an-umbrella-agency-does-it-have-an-ein-ihs-surely-must

Click link to read website (and my comments); below, are some quick (Dec. 2016 revision of this post) observations on “NARCCW’ as an “umbrella agency” and at least fiscally, what it’s up to.

The section immediately following needs some work and may be updated or moved to explore this new territory on three nonprofits shuffling funds between each other, run by a VERY inbred board of directors who clearly have some connection to Ohio state-level contracts, which is where the money seems to be coming from. The three entities I reference do NOT equate to the four maroon arrows featured on the main website (image to left).  However, they were, formed in 1979, 2000 and 2003 (per the returns found so far) and it did NOT take long to see several “anomalies” between the three, and some missing money as to reporting grants distributed….

The two people running those three orgs (shown below) have co-authored a multi-volume “Field Guide to Child Welfare.” :

Rycus, Judith S. and Hughes, Ronald C. (1998). Field Guide to Child Welfare, Volume II: Case Planning and Family-Centered Casework, CWLA press.

Meanwhile, Ohio has divided its Child Welfare Training into 8 regions (I see from this 2015 report), and Ronald C. Hughes, Ph.D., MSSA, “Director, Institute for Human Training” is the coordinator, per this pdf labeled 2015 “Ohio Child Welfare Training Program Annual Report

Pie chart from that last report shows expenditures, followed by contacts:


NACCRW (middle logo of 2016 NCCD CYF Sponsors, with logo showing architectural columns)

reveals a 2014 Ohio/Russia partnership in training child welfare workers (but not readily any of this umbrella entity’s financials, or that of its four listed sheltered groups shown at the top of the web page. See notes on the next pdf and click some logos, go fetch some tax returns (like I do) if you’re curious enough.

Examples of ways to do this are on this post and throughout the blog. It takes time but gets easier with practice (and the ways in which websites work to conceal their holdings, inter-relationships, and overall intents also gets easier to see over time).

And this is where I move the follow-up to a separate post, “Consulting, Training and Program Developmt. for Public Child Welfare and Child Protection Organizations to Promote Safety, Permanency and Well Being for Abused, Neglected, and Sexually Abused Children” (Or, “A tale of 3 Ohio Nonprofits basically run by a Board of 1 man, 1 woman, + the Perpetual-Motion Grants Recycling Operation”) 1980-2016, with some overlap.

Anyhow, the next box contains about the shortest and still-accurate summary of the blog I have been able to come up with to date.   It was written a long while back, and still applies.

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.


About half of this post, the “Some Notes on Length and Writing Style” part, was just removed from the other, Table of Contents 2014 post (“My Posts, Just the List,” dated April 24, 2014, and as a Sticky Post currently in second position at the top of this blog at all times, since I created a separate 2016 Table of Contents post, now in first position at the top of this blog at all times).
The other half, the “Work Sample (Preview/Postlude)“portions as that label indicates, is split into Before/After (preview/postlude sections).  It was inspired, or at least written (!) after the move.  So the original material, written in more general narrative, summary terms, is now in the middle of this post, now about 14,800 words long.  The difference between the two types of writing (but actually three different sections) is in level of detail.

If you are new to this blog, please read at least the part in light-green background (closer to the bottom of post), which is that part moved from the other Table of Contents.  It’s more summary and less detailed.

If, however, you are not new to this blog — or if you have read the 2014 Table of Contents recently (late September, October, 2016) — please know that the material in light-green background was taken from there; it’s a “copy & cut” from there and “paste” here (=a move), not a re-write, up until a certain point, marked by a section title and change of background colors.
Some was added to smooth the transition to a new context. I’ll put the added material PREVIEW of the POSTLUDE in this fontdifferent background color. That material is a quick summary and not necessarily best writing; my purpose here is housekeeping (re-positioning blog content to promote the Table of Contents itself), and I am also working concurrently on other posts dealing with current state of affairs on specific, relevant topics.  BELOW the light-green section, it will be this background-color (for more contrast with its quotes, charts and images, starting with this Heading:
The section title leading off the “postlude” is:


..and as I’m saying, as shown above, in more olive-colored background.

This next section here previews the “Postlude,” after which the section with a light-green background, again, represents earlier material moved from the Table of Contents (2014 and before) page, to simplify that page.  Easiest way to locate either might be background-colors.  Also, the middle section has more text and fewer images.

In the next section I simply “get into it” and show some of what I was looking up, and how I look some of these things up, on two (actually three) organizations which show different elements of the “public/private partnerships” moving both public AND private money, energies, and assets around for all the allegedly right reasons, but sometimes in less than the appropriate means.
The Before and After section may have annoyingly focused levels of detail and are not “an easy read.”  Sooner or later, however, people must start to see this level of detail to even have a clue what’s going on in the larger scope of events, or why.  Many fields in life are somewhat optional to understand (astronomy, perhaps geology, or nanotechnology/robotics) — but basic accounting and economics:  how our own government [and business] entities are organized, fund themselves, and expend those funds — basic accounting and investment things — is not optional.  Nor is to any generation, mine, my daughters’, or any potential grandchildren’s, an awareness of key events of the late 1900s as pertaining to Welfare Reform, and the accelerating influence of the Internet in transforming government records of corporations and charities it (collectively) does business with, or donates (grants) to — is also not optional.
If it’s any encouragement to readers, I have found since engaging on these studies myself, the news (including articles in Wall Street Journal, local papers, New York Times and plenty of other places) is starting to make a WHOLE lot more sense, and (for a point of comparison) I was raised in a family where the NYT and others (Scientific American — before it got so skinny, The New Yorker) were always on the table.  Even as a child I was looking and reading through them.
In the process of looking up major tax-exempt foundation owners or founders (as it pertained to this subject matter) I ended up getting fascinating histories of corporate America.

Some Company Background Information Resources, (mostly non-jargon, basic English vocabulary)I have used repeatedly:

One good resource is fundinguniverse.com, or for specific corporation snapshots, for example, Bloomberg.com company snapshots (here, for Makena Capital Management, LLC, which comes up in this post as a $2 million-plus subcontractor, I believe, of California Healthcare Foundation (current gross assets, it says $781M) as a project partner (2005) of The California Endowment (current gross assets about $3.7B) itself (being nonprofit) a sponsor of the much smaller — but, “location (“positioning/leverage”) is everything” when it comes to the fields it’s in — nonprofit I used as an example in the Preview/Postlude section).

Sometimes a major founder of some organization may eventually die, resulting in major obituary summarizing primary life contributions.  I’ve read plenty of them.  Behind some major corporate wealth is a patriarch (or, matriarch).  They each have their life stories, and not all were “nice guys.”

I found this for one significant patron of Detroit:  a UNESCO City of Design” redevelopment projects now underway, which made it into this blog also. The man was actually facing felony convictions for security-based fraud, did a very SHORT time, was let out, and in the wake of ongoing donations and patronage, apparently all was forgotten and forgiven — as tends to happen with the very wealthy white-collar crooks far more often than we may like to think.
Over time, this sheds something of a cold light on the enthusiasm generated behind each new redevelopment project and emotions of boundless gratitude for some mercy from the corporate profiteers of our modern world.  Again, they keep their wealth, once obtained, often in tax-exempt foundations, and buy influence through donations to universities, cities, other foundations, and “causes”  — but rarely without in exchange, demanding an influence over the results.
Or sometimes Reuters.com (for same company, this is a March 24, 2011 article, “Makena Capital launches new fund with better terms” — that fund was $300M in assets, but the article reveals that this LLC managed at that time $13 billion in assets, for: 

By Svea Herbst-Bayliss
BOSTON, March 24 Investment firm Makena Capital, which oversees $13 billion for schools, colleges and other wealthy investors, has launched a new portfolio that gives clients faster access to their money.
Inspired by lessons from the financial crisis, the Makena Liquid Endowment Fund promises to avoid illiquid investments like private equity and developmental real estate that have long been a hallmark for university investment pools.
At the same time, the fund will offer clients, including foundations and sovereign wealth funds, the option of getting their money back within months, not years.
Launched nearly five years ago {{2011 article date – 5 years = about 2006}} by Michael McCaffery, who helped Stanford University’s endowment nearly double to $15 billion during his six years as its endowment chief, Makena Capital is a big player in the investment world that calls itself especially sensitive to universities’ needs….

The fund is being launched at a time the $1.9 trillion hedge fund industry is roaring back to life after the financial crisis but also as clients are flexing their muscle an asking for better terms and conditions, investors have said.
Makena, which was started with seed capital from Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, is remembered for having launched with $7 billion in assets in 2006, one of the biggest hedge fund industry launches ever.
While the fund suffered during the crisis in 2008 and lost 29 percent, it rebounded quickly. In 2009, it returned 22 percent, beating the average hedge fund’s 20 percent return and for 2010 the firm’s projected gain is 13 percent.

This type of information reminds us of just who is sensitive to whom.
While The California Endowment positions itself as sensitive to the poor, in its “Direct Charitable Activities” developing a certain app with “third-party vendor” (see paragr. 3 here, 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)

2. In conjunction with third-party vendor, The California Endowment supervised the development and implementation of the One-e-App technology solution. One-e-App is a Web-based system that is designed to screen and enroll all eligible individuals in California in multiple publicly funded health and social service programs, such as Medi-Cal and Healthy Families, in an automated and streamlined fashion.
[[One out of four paragraphs describing Direct Charitable Activities (by The California Endowment, whose assets total around $3.7B) of $16M in this year — Fiscal Year 2004.  More on this is shown below; however, I got TO this information reading a tax return!]]

Looking up the One-e-App led me to The California Healthcare Foundation, whose most recent return (on its “Finances” page) shows $2.6M spent on Makena Capital Management, LLC, as describe above:   (YE 2/28/2015) CHF tax return.
….so it seems that its smaller** partner in this adventure (“Direct Charitable Activity”) designed to get “All eligible Californians” on as many public-funded health and social services programs as possible (through stream-lined, One-stop, web-based application for them all), ** “California Healthcare Foundation” (formed about the same year as The California Endowment, that is, ca. 1995) is itself prioritizing an investment manager (independent subcontractor) paid in one year over $2M for managing investments service) catering, and “sensitive,”  to the opposite end of society.
Another general source of information on corporations (and their associated tax-exempt foundations’) and their sometimes famous (or, infamous — but still philanthropic) founders is — when they die — a well-written obituary, for example as in the New York Times.
For Example, speaking of the rebirth of Detroit as a “UNESCO Design City,”  A. Alfred Taubman, Philanthropy + Price-Fixing, Strip Malls, Sotheby’s Scandal with Felony Conviction, and Major Philanthropy to Major Universities (I’ll post right after this one..)
This PREVIEW section, then, also introduces some of the places (websites) where I look, and resources they provide, in checking out any organization.
Hint:  Any organization’s website is basically going to be PR — advertisement.  Read it, gather information from it, but realize that’s the “front-office” receptionist (gatekeeper) area of the organization — and what we should want is its “back office.”  We should want this, again, as we (as in, the public) are already financing it in multiple ways, and are going to be dealing with it, too, in this and future generations. It is typically  a good place to start regarding ANY organization of interest.  
The more one does this (the more I have done it, certainly), the better and wider context one becomes familiar with over time, as opposed to attempting to force dialogues about individual corporations AS IF they were not operating in a larger context, or influenced by it.  

// Presidential Contender Foundations Commentary: //

It’s a Presidential Election Year — IF looking up tax returns and financial statements of
(a) private non-profit 501©3s (whether private foundation only, or also public charity — a subset of all private “foundations”) OR (better yet AND)
(b) government entities (there are thousands, well over 100,000 in the US — not just 50 states and territories!) — might NOT THIS MONTH (let alone “yesterday” “yesteryear” and “last decade/century” which are no longer available — they’re past!) be a great time for you (Dear Readers, if the shoe fits and you aren’t already doing this…) to start, then when would — never?
I took a recent look at some of the Trump (related to Donald J.) Foundations, and intend to again compare to the Clinton ones, at this link. (Intentions =/= Guarantee; and almost any post on this blog already has demonstrations of how and where to look for tax returns and corporate filings, and several also the IRS Pub. 78 (Exempt Organization Select Check data).  New York State in addition (for the Donald J. Trump and Eric Trump Foundations at least) has an informative “CharitiesNYS.com” search site by EIN# with additional filings — where the organization has registered. It has a dark green banner with white print and reads “New York State Attorney General” even though the site ends “*.com” not “*.gov.”


I could simply say (talk about) these financial issues, but feel it’s more productive to also show it, messy (?) complicated (?until it becomes more familiar) details and all. Certainly many aspects of investments are “above my pay grade,” but, in the bottom line, these are public filings of either charities or private trusts (functioning also tax-exempt, corporation-wise) and the worst one has to deal with is potentially unfamiliar vocabulary — for which there is usually a sane remedy, LOOK IT UP! and SEE IT IN USAGE! ALSO, FIND SOMEONE WHO DOES UNDERSTAND (and can communicate) AND ENGAGE IN CONVERSATION WITH THEM — and something I hope most of us are at SOME level already familiar with — numbers, and the ability to tell larger from smaller, and a few basic math competencies (add, subtract, divide, multiply — or use those cell phones — and mentally estimate or “guess”timate where appropriate).



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):
















Fiscal Begin:
Fiscal End: Total Assets: Gross Annual Revenue: RRF Received: Returned Date: 990 Attached: Status: Fiscal Begin: Fiscal End: Total Assets: Gross Annual Revenue: RRF Received: Returned Date: 990 Attached: Status:


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 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:

2. In conjunction with third-party vendor, The California Endowment supervised the development and implementation of the One-e-App technology solution. One-e-App is a Web-based system that is designed to screen and enroll all eligible individuals in California in multiple publicly funded health and social service programs, such as Medi- Cal and Healthy Families, in an automated and streamlined fashion…



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

(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.


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



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.


[[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:

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.

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




On this one, there is a Form 8865, which is reporting interest in a foreign partnership or (see direct title):  Form 8865, Return of US Persons [[remember, a corporation or I guess here, also trust, is a “Person” for this purpose]] With Respect to Certain Foreign Partnerships.  So, here it goes – that return (only for the Foreign Partnership’s — which is in the Cayman Islands, but managed by The Blackstone Group in NY — Fiscal year, which is the Calendar Year 2004.  That leaves two more months (for the Endowment’s Fiscal year ending two more month’s activities), which I guess would be reported on the Endowment’s next return regarding any activity or investments in this (or other similar) partnerships.  Complicated, when the fiscal years don’t match between organizations.  

So, paging through that material (towards the end of the return), it shows $4.2M of investments, and here come the “Schedules” — Schedule A which asks about the filers (The California Endowment’s) relationship to this foreign partnership.  California Endowment answers “See Statement 1″ and See Statement 2” (image, upcoming) to the questions:  Schedule A (to this Form 8865 for Blackstone Capital Partners IV (Cayman), L.P.) (organized, it says, 11/02/2003), regarding Constructive Ownership of Partnership Interest says Check “a” if (you) own a direct interest (they did, adding “See Statement I”), and regarding Schedule A-2, Affiliation Schedule List all partnerships (foreign or domestic) in which the foreign partnership owns a direct interest or indirectly owns a 10% interest (they said “See Statement 2”).  Here’s that page (and corresponding image) listing in what (companies or funds) California Endowment owned (that year) a direct interest, and in which the partnership owned a direct, or 10% indirect interest:

(This is a sample — there is yet more information, obviously, on foreign investments or partnerships, on the return):


==>Click to see image:  cal-endowmt-ein9454523232ye-02-28-2005-supporting-scheds-for-form-8865-foreign-partnerships-p22-only-statemt-1-2-to-scheda-a-20-constructive-affiliation-interests-1page-lists-companies

This list shows two groups of companies in which investments are held (Foreign Partnerships, Constructive/Direct, or Affiliated.  The first group is labeled “Disregarded Entities”












thecalifendowmt-04-05-rrf-showing-5950840000-revs-nothing-govt-b6-2pp-for-2-forms-signed-8-8-b9yesfinancl-statmts-and-7-5-05-b9n thecalifendowmt-04-05-rrf-showing-5950840000-revs-nothing-govt-b6-2pp-for-2-forms-signed-8-8-b9yesfinancl-statmts-and-7-5-05-b9n

As an example of major tax-exempt organizations acquiring property (and holding it in related organizations — here, it’s an lLC) and then leasing it out (as The California Endowment does) at lower-price or for-free to nonprofits, who are then indebted (at least morally, if not financially) to it for their housing, or conference space.

One benefit to the agency is, not only does it get to depreciate the real estate, but also write off rental income as a net loss (every year, it looks like) which for such a large organization would seem to help. It also builds alliances.

In Year-End 2012 I looked through some of the ($100M++) grantees, and noticed several totaling $1,000,000 (exactly) to an organization in Oakland:  Youth Uprising.  May show at bottom of this post — it’s a grants-dependent organization which doesn’t bother to fill out tax returns (starting with Page 2, which instead is all “See Schedule O” which goes on and on about the projects — minus ANY dollar figures, which the IRS form directs them to produce) properly, whose main expenditures are on “salaries” and one year, is overspending by $1.3M and — no matter, more contributions the next.  Some also anomalies between the references to a “25,000 s.f. community transformation center” when their own balance sheet shows NO real estate, and in fact the primary “Assets” is grants pledged.  In other words, they are counting on on-going donors, year after year (first organized in 2004) for community transformation, however wonderful the causes may be — the accountability to the public isn’t there.

http://www.youthuprising.org/about-us/who-we-are/ (see which local public officials — School District, City Council, City of Oakland Chief of Staff, etc. — are on the board).

Theory of Change colorful graphic:

“Theory of Change” from (YouthUprising.org)

YouthUprising Board Member Andrea Glover Blackwell, as “President and CEO of  PolicyLink,” moderating at a 75th Anniversary Ford Foundation event on Just Cities and Metropolitan Opportunities, etc.  Ms. Blackwell was moderator of Session One.


Marking its 75th anniversary, the Ford Foundation gathered some of the most creative minds in metropolitan development on July 14. Civic leaders and policymakers, urban designers and entrepreneurs explored how fairness, opportunity and equity could serve as the defining features of a new era of urbanization.

(Session One):

Session One: A New Vision of Metropolitan Opportunity
Cities have long been engines of opportunity, creativity and vitality. In today’s increasingly global and rapidly urbanizing economy, how do metropolitan regions continue to fulfill this promise? How can they connect all citizens to opportunity while ensuring economic growth? What is the new urban vision—and how can we break through old assumptions to make it a reality?

Angela Glover Blackwell (Moderator) Founder and CEO, PolicyLink
Alejandro Echeverri Architect and Director, Center for Urban and Environmental Studies
Bruce Katz Vice President, Brookings Institution
Kasim Reed Mayor of Atlanta
Robin Willner Vice President, Global Community Initiatives IBM

(In another session on the Just City, then-mayor Jean Quan of Oakland was also there.  So was a HUD representative, other governors, other mayors, others who are involved in WHO GETS to REDEVELOP and REDESIGN BROKEN-DOWN INNER CITIES, FOR EXAMPLE, in the USA [EXAMPLE:  DETROIT!]  WHICH HAVE BECOME OVER TIME VIRTUAL THIRD-WORLD (OR “UNDER-DEVELOPED”) COUNTRIES — AND ARE BEING COMPARED TO CITIES IN SUCH COUNTRIES.

TAX RETURN (Youth Uprising) sample — the Form asks them to give concise summaries of program purpose, and of program accomplishments for a reason, with blanks for “Expenses … including Grants …. Revenues” I’m sure in part for the public, who has a right to see these for public charities, and also the filing organization should demonstrate it can conduct a concise summary — and attach some numbers to it.   After typing in the provided forms, continuation sheets are sometimes of course necessary — and any organization can also include its current website, if it wants to continue advertising its projects.  But the IRS form is for dollar figures (revs – expenses, assets & liabilities, etc.), for a financial  and organizational snapshot as of that year and showing some information from several previous years.   If they simply don’t want to do the “financial snapshot” on their own activities, why should the funding continue?  Tax Return Year Ending 2012

In addition to the public officials on the board of directors, there were no less than EIGHT (8) sources of government funding for Youth UpRising in the YE2013 (this RRF form turned in over a half year late, just before their YE2014…).  Image shows RRF page 1, but pp2 and 3 list the contributing entities.  This year, Gross Revenues were over $6M:

ein2013321544-calentity262515-youth-uprisings-rrf-for-ye2013-6m-revs-16m-assets-eight-8-govt-agencies-funding-3pp ein2013321544-calentity262515-youth-uprisings-rrf-for-ye2013-6m-revs-16m-assets-eight-8-govt-agencies-funding-3pp


The California Endowment was initially funded from Blue Cross of California after it acquired a for-profit entity, or possibly (I’m not clear yet which) its own subsidiary — and then continued operating tax-exempt — we perhaps should be asking, who and in what means are these major tax-exempts acquiring so much wealth, and income-producing assets (which those tax returns reveal, as to financial statements) that they can buy real estate in major metropolitan areas and begin controlling not only the infrastructure, but also the government programming, of so many critical aspects of human life, for so many people?

And why would they be doing this?  Is it really primarily altruistic, or is it PR, or is it just, in the long run, corporate profit?

When I see a still-small (compared to many of the others) nonprofit citing a BIG list of foundation donors, I begin to question whether those donations actually took place.  Maybe they did, but connecting the dots in any case is major administrative labor — where even possible.  Truly we have a convoluted, dual system of government in nearly ALL spheres, it would seem.  Meanwhile, I have recently — and show below — the salaries some of the leadership (boards of directors) are getting while proclaiming their concern for the poor, who do NOT function tax-exempt for the most part.

The highest paid officer (Ruth Wernig, Chief Investment Officer) of this one on the latest available Form 990PF was $1.2 MILLION plus benefits.  Several others, well over $600K (plus benefits) as to highest paid employees.  In addition, the major (highest paid) contractors — 15 are listed — are Lazard Brothers in NY, an investment firm in London, more in New York, and one in California, all receiving well over $750K for a single year of managing the investment platform.

Something tells me that what the organization (The California Endowment) is most concerned about is its investments, and keeping its high-profile officers, and I’m sure competent ones, happy.  Others, the form reveals, for “3.27 hours/week” (apparently) are being paid amounts I know I could’ve raised a three-person household on, i.e., low secretarial wages.  As Directors (!!).


“Some Notes on Length and Writing Style”


This description of the same section just came out, unsolicited.  I feel it’s worth reading and decided to put it here, referring to the middle section:

The middle section explains why I have had to go to such lengths to show and tell an entirely different way of looking at the family court issues from the typical approaches by:

~ Professionals involved (whether in the legal or behavioral science fields) descriptions among themselves in professional journals or conference materials (available for viewing on-line);

~ Some professionals among the above who have formed nonprofit advocacy groups at times with parent followers (as the warm-bodies clients they are advocating for) who wish to “clean up” the practices of the court itself, or (some of them) set up a new type of divorce action not involving the courts — but most certainly involving themselves and colleagues as important players; or

~ Mainstream media or other freelance, journalism covering problems in the family courts as they occur, i.e., high-profile (or a string of ongoing incidental) disasters relating to divorce, custody, domestic violence, child abuse, or deprivation of visitation privileges.  These typically will feature some headline-making case (or even a string of articles in such a case) quote one or both parents, and quote bystander professionals on the case.  Rarely are the financials exposed in all the players.

~ Feminist / women’s rights or fathers’ rights groups, respectively, speaking in generalities with an appearance of favored statistics to justify the over-broad statements.

~ Individual bloggers typically echoing any of the above approaches and having started a blog (as I started this one) after personal horror stories, or horror stories of people they had personal involvement with, and typically focusing on LOCAL judges, LOCAL courts, LOCAL professionals, and hoping that the coverage may somehow hope the individuals involved — or the system.*

*One reason this approach does not work is it’s based on such partial information. There is no real “local” left in any local county courthouse or even judicial district in this field while major organizations have existed (for decades, most of them) with the specific purpose of (inter)nationalizing and standardizing “best practices” or “guidelines” for custody cases.

I want to talk about other aspects, and to do this, have to establish a  common enough language to discuss the matters.  Over the past seven years (this blog), or twice as long (experience in the court systems with my particular divorce/custody — and domestic violence — case), and extensive networking, I have become aware of how resistant MOST people are and the average person is, to talking about economic and operational manners when the content and conclusions those discussions lead to is so disturbing to a sense of confidence in public institutions, and with it, sense of personal, long-term safey, stability or viability, should the state of affairs be exposed on a wider scale.

This leads to a collective, widespread, public cognitive dissonance between how our own country works, and what it’s been doing in the courts and criminal justice system, and how we think it works.  For example, how aware are you of the influence of public/private partnerships and the impact of the availability of tax-exempt status to owners of major corporate wealth, including multi-national corporations for whom MOST people work, and whose products and services most people in developed countries (such as the USA) are relentlessly pushed to consume, and believe we need.

Are you aware of an entire parallel, virtual “shadow” network (hidden out in open, but not openlya advertised that much in mainstream or classical traditional print+ on-line media (Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Chicago Tribune, etc.) of civil-servant-focused 501©3s // NONPROFIT associations targeting and/or run by (with Board of Directors including) civil servants (judges, governors, lieutenant-governors, district attorneys, city managers, heads of state court systems, heads of state mental health departments, “State legislatures” and more).

Did you know that the existence of these various “coordinating council-style” organizations, being private and not public, permits extensive private money to be donated, and obtains private audiences at conferences, often out-of-state and sometimes out of the country — not as registered lobbyists, but just as “helpful” experts, with elected and appointed officials?

Could you name even THREE of these which deal directly with the issues that family courts handle on a daily basis?

Not only is all this unfamiliar territory, it is deeply disturbing territory, and a natural impulse is to discredit how wide, deep and high the issues (problems) run, and how long they have been running in that direction.

I have had the same impulse, but I have not been willing because of it to sacrifice my cognitive function for the sake of comfort based on, well, to put it straight, ignorance,  or to hook my heart to what I already know is a false hope, that the family courts are inherently susceptible to being made “ethical” or somehow cleaned up in their operations to create a fair process for any parents, or for the public who is, of course, sponsoring the whole operation as an infrastructure because they are the courts — they are a public institution, part of the legal and judicial landscape now, real estate, administrative support (with employees and their pensions) and all.



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”).


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


“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:


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 (….???)


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.

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 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

And, relative to those two, next to nothing in: Commercial paper and U.S. treasury bills
Government and corporate obligations

The California Endowment CEO (currently and since Year 2000) has an extensive background, but I see from the top paragraph, before this assignment, he had 10 years of experience as a civil servant in health sector (Philadelphia, then San Diego) and in the closing paragraph, specific interest (it’s a “going concern” across public/private partnerships) the initiative based on “young men of color,”  and religious affiliation with the Anglican (Episcopal) variety of Christianity.  I DNK on which side, but DNK that the Episcopal Church has split over ordination of women (in a prior generation) and after that of LGBT individuals, with the more progressive side in the US, and those who disagreed, seeking “spiritual sponsorship” from more conservative variations in other continents, such as Latin America and Africa.

President and Chief Executive Officer

Robert K. Ross, M.D., is president and chief executive officer for The California Endowment, a health foundation established in 1996 to address the health needs of Californians. Prior to his appointment in July 2000, Dr. Ross served as director of the Health and Human Services Agency for the County of San Diego from 1993 to 2000, and Commissioner of Public Health for the City of Philadelphia from 1990 to 1993.

Dr. Ross has an extensive background in health philanthropy, as a public health executive, and as a clinician.  [detailed in inbetween paragraph]

Recently, he has helped bring greater philanthropic attention to the health and well‐being of young men of color across California and the nation. Dr. Ross and his wife Robin have four children, and he serves on the Vestry Board at the St. Mark’s Episcopal Church.
Funny, now matter how many biographical summaries of Dr. Ross — who is well-known in many national governmental, health, social work networking, and educational excellence / Diversity contexts and I have no question competent, despite the rather vague description of “St. Mark’s Episcopal Church” (a more than common name in California, let alone in SoCal and even Los Angeles) — there’s no specific identity given.  If it’s being mentioned, unlike some of the other much more specific and searchable descriptors (see next paragraph), why not finish the reference, unless the purpose is simply to say, “they’re Episcopalians.”

(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)…

~ ~ ~ ~

The California Endowment places its interest as solidly “progressive” in that it’s interested in funding “faith-based organizations that welcome all members” (to read between the lines is easy enough there for any Californian), but NOT ones that require membership in or advance “a particular religious faith.” Notice they are also funding state and local government entities. In fact a primary category they do NOT fund is INDIVIDUALS — including obviously individuals who are ALSO supporting state and local government entities through taxation and consuming various services, paying various fees to simply live in the state! Incidentally, ‘WHO WE FUND” is  a similar profile to who federal and other government entities (states) also may be funding, although other than the religious-exemption under the IRS, there is no IRS definition of the term “faith-based organization.”  It’s a catch-all phrase.  HHS doesn’t track it either, apparently — there is no database field identifier of “faith-based” over at http://TAGGS.hhs.gov that I can see.
Basically, preselected for grants is anyone BUT individuals (who are not tax-exempt) and or who discriminate against certain hot-topic categories involving the fields of gender and sexuality, or citizenship.  Although the CEO is promoting, apparently philanthropic attention to a state-wide and national movement based on both ethnicity (“color”) AND gender AND age (“young men of color”).   …


  • 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


  • 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
I also want to show the tax return, and specifically note they are not posting any 990s or offering up an EIN# for public scrutiny on this otherwise well-developed and complex website.   
Business Registration from Calif. Secretary of State produces an Entity# which can be looked up to locate its EIN# (and more info from the California Office of Attorney General):
Entity Number: C1930013   {<==searchable field on California Registry of Charitable Trusts}
Date Filed: 03/14/1995
Status: ACTIVE
Jurisdiction: CALIFORNIA
Entity Address: 1000 N ALAMEDA ST
Entity City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012
Agent for Service of Process: DAN DELEON
Agent Address: 1000 N ALAMEDA ST
Agent City, State, Zip: LOS ANGELES CA 90012
Searching here: http://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y, the header information (Get Search Results, the Click on them using top search field, “Entity Number” minus the leading “C”), it’s easy to see  The EIN# is 954523232.
What I saw in Charitable Details is, literally, stunning.  I’ll put it in Footnotes, but mention that from the earliest assets & revenues shown, both were in the Billions.  Three years before the 2008 “recession” (real estate bust), its assets (and revenues) were at an all-time high.  In 2008, the “Revenues” plummeted to a negative $160M plus, then negative $30M plus, then on a certain date, it was back up with revenues of $21M.  Around this time the LLC mentioned above was set up and probably money moving back and forth between them.  Meanwhile, those charitable details show that year 2008 IRS tax return has not yet been provided to the State of California, Office of Attorney General for this registry, as required by law.  It is the only “N” In the whole list.  So, be aware that the next three returns are showing REDUCED activities from the years when INDIVIDUALS throughout California (and the nation) were losing their homes through foreclosure; this endowment was “flush” with controlled assets and multi-hundreds-of-millions of revenues.

JUST TAKE A LOOK AT ONE OR MORE RETURN:  Total results: 3Search Again.

California Endowment CA 2015 990PF 188 $3,768,442,347.00 95-4523232
California Endowment CA 2014 990PF 182 $3,668,459,217.00 95-4523232
California Endowment CA 2013 990PF 162 $3,562,148,280.00 95-4523232

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:

Total results: 3Search Again.

National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2014 990 32 $11,102,090.00 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2013 990 29 $10,415,127.00 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2012 990 30 $8,015,446.00 13-1624111

Organization purpose, stated on Page 1:


From this organization’s IRS Year 2010-2011 (NOT in the table above; I tweaked a date code to locate; this can be done as far back as (at least) Fiscal Year 2001) the main Revenue-producer (“Program Service Revenues”) was developing (or subscriptions to) proprietary software for which it could charge (governments agencies obviously most likely end users) usage:

4a (Code ) (Expenses $ 1,744,071 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 2,358,585


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:






**(And this would be a tough one to measure statistically) for a nonprofit which, at the end of the day, is being primarily funded, as tax returns (IRS Forms 990) indicate, by either “handouts” (government or private contributions) or their own earnings (Program Service Revenues) OR, by Dividends and interests on savings, OR by possibly some profit on sale of securities.



##I have already acknowledged from the start, and in contents, that one of my first (as I recall) clues to the federal grants incentives and HHS as an incentive came from in part, the blog nafcj.net (Liz Richards of Anandale, VA) as well as, from California about a decade and a half ago, some writings by California NOW (Family Court Report of 2002, hard to reach) including a section by Marv Bryer on the origins of, apparently, the organization Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and other things.  In 2005 also, this California NOW also posted a public letter requesting that HHS scrutinize these grants.

That is simply not enough action.


However, no one was particularly, and consistently exploring the HHS database and the grantees of those posts — instead, there was some call for authorities to do so, which “laissez-faire” appeals didn’t bear much fruit, that I can see.

The authorities already WERE doing some things– such as keeping those grants coming year after year, and in part, supporting the AFCC agenda (which is private, and international in intentions — to internationally align the family courts across national borders).  It made no sense to me for United States citizens, where the premise is government of, by, and for the people (in patriotic theory at least!), to ask the government they were complaining about to “do something” without first out-lining what they actually had been doing.

Year after year since 2009, (and researching it backwards, also in hindsight on-line) I watched specific organizations solicited traumatized mothers, in particular, to put their name to the organizations’ repeated appeals for federal intervention in family court matters, on a national basis — while withholding fair reporting TO those mothers on just how the federal government already had been doing this, to their detriment, and their children’s.

This solicitation occurred on their websites, in newsletters, or in conferences, in private email groups — and at a primary, though not the only, conference was across the country — not really accessible to impoverished through the courts parents — in New York, and at the “Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference” outside Albany (state capital, right?), New  York. It has since, in recent years, apparently moved to Washington, D.C. where such appeals can be made more directly.  That some key presenters at the same conference were simultaneously presenting to fathers’ rights groups, was not mentioned.

That the US Department of HHS, according to Congress’s appropriation through “Welfare Reform” budgeting year after year, was administering marriage curricula (and fatherhood promotion strategies) at public expense was also not mentioned until, apparently, in very recent years, by which time most of the leadership of these groups had encountered some of their own membership blogging it, a lot of this posting at my prompting, in comments fields, and until I finally (2011) separated, basically, from coordinated blogging with mothers who refused to handle this coverup by their own so-called advocates.

Meanwhile, a number of self-referring organizations, very active in social media, on-line, and having hooked up (ca. 2005/2006, possibly earlier) with a certain public relations professional involved with a certain nonprofit organization in Northern California, who knowing about these situations, were just as intent NOT to talk about either of the above situations.

These organizations, over time, I realized had a primary focus of “cleaning up [fixing the broken] the family courts” with a particular emphasis on more sound psychological theories and “arguing Gardner,” [Richard Gardner] without reference to who was promoting said theories, and/or Gardner, or even how, by whom, or when the family courts (and the family code) themselves were developed, state by state.

Over time, and as a result, the general quality of on-line discussion of problems with these courts from the point of view of victims of domestic violence, or parents dealing with the nightmare of child abuse and/or molestation by the other parent (or a relative associated with the other parent), was kept at an ignorant-of-the-key-operating-principles of the courts, and the economic argument.  Even when some high-profile authors, and attorneys, were talking about the economics of divorce — somehow the impact of the nonprofit sector AS a nonprofit sector, or of collusion among networked nonprofits (let alone backed by much bigger tax-exempt foundations) never made their table of contents.

The factor of child support is well known by most parents to be an important factor, however, there was very little discussion and keeping the spotlight on how pro-father programs were run through Title IV-D (of the Social Security Act, as revised in 1996) services, and impacting custody outcomes from the federal level by setting up the infrastructure to do so, when in fact, divorce and custody is not a federal jurisdiction, basically.  This influence was acting in the “cracks of accountability” such that when parents, or advocates, would seek to crawl (sue) back UP to the federal level, a typical excuse was, this is a states matter.  [That’s a rough summary, I’ve worked it in more detail, including which cases are being cited to toss lawsuits, privately]. I know many of the advocacy groups tend to be led by a combination of either attorneys or former (disbarred) attorneys and/or professional psychologists still practicing; as such these white-collar professionals are highly invested in redeeming their own professions’ practices, and (in my opinion) NOT qualified to address what the significance of attorney (judge)/psychologist collaboration within “reform” groups represents as to tunnel vision, and ignoring that part of the issue here is, what are so many psychologists doing so highly positioned in the legal process in the first place, and at least one organization (AFCC) which helped get them there.





Searching herehttp://rct.doj.ca.gov/Verification/Web/Search.aspx?facility=Y, the header information (Get Search Results, the Click on them using top search field, “Entity Number” minus the leading “C”), it’s easy to see  The EIN# is 954523232.

After Fiscal Year March 1, 2009 – Feb. 28, 2010, (a year of a deficit $30M), you can see they moved the fiscal year up by one month, to start instead on April 1, 2010, so there is a single filing of just one month’s worth activities (revenues and assets).

The “Founding Documents” are available on-line thecalif-endowmt-3b-assets-1995-western-foundatn-for-health-improvemt-founding-dox-36ppand show that within about one year of formation (1995) it had changed name to “The California Endowment,” and other interesting facts — but I do not see any application to register with the California OAG.  “The Corporation has no members” (putting its basic control under the Board of Directors) throughout:


BILL JONES, Secretary of Slate

ROBERT T. KNIGHT and GAIL C. WATTS hereby certify that:

1. They are the President and Secretary, respectively, of WESTERN FOUNDATION FOR HEALTH IMPROVEMENT, a California nonprofit public benefit corporation (Corp. No. 1930013).

Image from its Charitable Details, and link to the other pages (4 total):

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.


    October 14, 2016 at 2:34 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: