Election Day USA, Polls are closed, I’m calling it a day — and posting this 17,000– 18,500-word post, the first since Oct. 2015 (not including updates or revisions to previous posts).  Feedback welcome via comments! //LGH.

Full post title of this post with shortlink: Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know).  (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List,” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)

Title updated for accuracy 11/10/2016.

By the time I am putting information on a Table of Contents Post this long after realizing that post should be primarily — the table of contents — you can guarantee I consider it vital information. So, this post does hold valuable and commonly overlooked information, formerly at the top of my sticky “Table of Contents” post, the one labeled essentially “My Posts — Just the List (2014 backwards).”  (Full title & link of that “Sticky” post is My Posts, Just the List (June 29, 2014..back to Sept. 24, 2012.  From Jan. 23, 2016 forward now available @ “Table of Contents 2016 ONLY” Post)  FYI, “shortlink” urls from WordPress posts appear to be case-sensitive.)

It appears WordPress was not designed to handle posts this long or with so many links (obviously as a Table of Contents contains one link per post — and I have hundreds of posts, and some abstracts, and underneath that “tags”) in combination with different tables of tax returns as I added in the front material earlier.  (Below, I displayed tax returns, which come in table format) as well as other format changes (below, I displayed logos and quotes regarding, in particular, about “The Greenbook:  Effective Interventions in Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment Cases | Guidelines for Policy and Practice” and the subsequent nationwide public/private project lasting approximately 2000 – 2008 and named after it, i.e., The Greenbook Initiative.  

Motto under the logo reads “SAFETY – STABILITY- WELL-BEING.” “Well-Being” is also a specific phrase (sound-byte) which has been incorporated into titles of a trade-marked type of model court (Miami Child Well-Being Court(™)), of Centers within University (Princeton: Center for Child Well-Being; Columbia: Center for Research on Father and Child Well-Being)… In other words, the noun-phrase “Well-Being” usually combined with the word “Child” or “Family”) has a general, common English use, and positive understanding, but among social work, court, and certain other types of  professionals, more application-specific meanings which may miss the public understanding UNLESS they study how these things are organized, set up for pilot programming– evaluation — replication — and promulgation. [end caption by blogger “LGH”]]

My top priority just now isn’t cleaning up lost format from this migratory front matter, but cleaning up and making clearly available my two main “Table of Contents” Pages.   I have decided to publish this again as a shorter post,** “as-is” ; some of the formatting has been lost since.  When I do, a link will be provided on the originating page.

**This “shorter post, as-is” section occurs after the “longer introduction” in two basic parts.  First, it’s time to check out one of the Greenbook Initiative “Foundations Partners,” and what other activities it’s been into over time — and that’s the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.  When that is better understood, we may have a better idea what EMCF is doing here, and not too expect too much from the Greenbook Initiative, regardless of what it may be promising.

Then, posted second, but written first, I make a strong statement about the Greenbook and its Initiative from a battered woman’s, custody-challenged single mother perspective, incorporating that we are post-PRWORA, which these “Guidelines” and “Interventions” studiously avoid writing about or even referencing in their for-public-consumption on-line studies.  This perspective starts noting the two Greenbook authors, and a 2006 tribute to one of them, Susan Schechter, and you will see an image (with link) like this, and this link also repeated at that time:

That section with my strong statement is also labeled:= = = >

KEY UNDERSTANDINGS re: GREENBOOK and INITIATIVE:

RE: Formatting in the migrated (“shorter post, as-is” bottom section): Paragraph separations and some quotations were lost somehow during updates, or browser refreshes, possibly.  The material moved,  in slightly-cleaned-up “as-is” format is labeled below, but again, first I am making another strong statement about my issues with the entire concept behind The Greenbook (1999) and subsequent (2000-2008 roughly) Greenbook Initiative and why I believe all people concerned with the issues it offers guidelines for should be aware of the potential “vested interests” conflict of interests and — overall– intentional, deliberate, and effective concealment of the HHS federal incentives grants intended to affect the family court systems.

In fact the family court system should be assessed with a failing grade IF the concern is about Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment, and given both its track records, and origins and even intentions (as also reflected in the founding actions and historic statements of organization “AFCC” (loosely speaking, the Illinois-domicile, Wisconsin mailing address organization whose tax return is included on this post, and about which my blog has so much to say) are taken into account — which they should be!  I see the entire Greenbook Initiative (and underlying Greenbook), when its publishers and conveners and partners are taken as a whole, to consist in large part of ‘damage control” as damages were beginning to surface with the family court’s handling (as they intended to appropriate and handle) domestic violence and child abuse cases in particular.

Also, on the macro level, it also is consistent with intentions to continue centralizing and coordinating entire subject matters (as “Outflanking National Sovereignty through Functionalism” has described and was outlined for implementation, decades — like about five decades — earlier).  That is, the overall intention is privatized government for international alignment, whether in name or in practice only. A reminder:  corporations can be multinational, but national governments (or as we’d call it in the USA, “Federal”) cannot.  One of the innate features of privatization is the ability to over-ride jurisdictional lines, and “stealth strategy” to pre-plan standardization for “local” jurisdictions, simultaneously if possible, of desired governmental structural reforms.

Another natural consequences of privatizing the setting of guidelines, practices, and how to re-write legislation (or administrative rules to effect similar results where that’s not possible) is that public receipts from taxation of citizens are not traceable.  They move in too many places, and back and forth among the nonprofits and their larger backers, with the administrative burden and cost on the public — who as true stakeholders, deserve the most to know where the money extracted from them is being disbursed — to do the impossible, i.e., scrutinize the tax returns, website declarations, connect the dots, and decide where to seek more documentation, do so, then act on it as required.

(1) Greenbook Initiative “Evaluation Partner,” Avon-heiress-based, +/- Billion-Dollar Assets, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (“EMCF”), and Its Other Friends and Sponsors besides FVPF & NCJFCJ.

• Preface Section — what is “EDC, Inc.” doing here as Evaluation Partner? Their focus is international development, and their funding is also international in origin as an UNESCO-designated “Associate NGO” and a USAID-designated “Private Voluntary Organization” (Volunteering after the $159M/annual contributions, that is??)
• This section precedes the detailing of Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

The list of GreenBk Initiative Partners:  Excepting the Federal Agencies at the top, here’s where “EMCF” fits in:

<==The heading “foundation partners” doesn’t describe the function the foundations played in the partnership, although the other two headings “Technical Assistance” and “Evaluation” do describe the function.

Presumably, “foundation partners” would be helping FUND or SPONSOR it, like the federal ones, but this is not specified, which shows a lack of basic labeling classification/ organization skills.  That is also FYI “Editing 101.”

In this arena, I have looked (often enough, and in detail) at both the California organization “Futures without Violence” (formerly “Family Violence Prevention Fund”) and the Nevada organization “National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges” as well as at several (not just one) of the tax returns, where available, of the Greenbook Initiative Partners (I’m referring in particular to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation), as well as done my “time” at USDOJ and USDHHS websites looking at (as to HHS) and for (as to DOJ) the records of grants and grantees in any intelligible, reliable, functional format.  I discovered that at one point FVPF reported on its RRF (which is to identify governmental units or agencies dispensing grants to them) money from NCJFCJ as “government,” which seems to show a lack of clarity on the reality that having plenty of judges on one’s board of directors doesn’t turn an entity into a government entity! Also, that money is moving back and forth between the two, apparently.

EDC, Inc. — ?? A “bit” out of place here?

Incidentally, under “Evaluation partners” (can you read the image above?) — I question what “EDC” (mislabeled Educational Development Center, the actual name for which “EDC” stands is “Education Development Center, Inc.” as the related website reveals at least under its Privacy / TOU details).

EDC is focused on international development and takes government grants — on which it is abjectly dependent — from both USAID and governments outside the US (specifically the UK  DID or “Department of International Development) as well as from a Dutch-family-wealth funded “Bernard van Leer Foundation” with specific agenda regarding Israel (wealth built generations previous from a global packing industry) as well as a host of corporate sponsors and several US (federal) agencies.  The current Executive Director of the Bernard van Leer Foundation is Michael Feigelson, https://bernardvanleer.org/articles/michael-feigelson/

Michael Feigelson from Bernardvanleer.org (uploaded it would seem 12/2015)

Does this beautiful baby girl have a mother somewhere, and is there any relationship Feigelson has with said woman?

I made that comment having looked around previously on this foundation’s inordinate (in my opinion) interest — with others — in controlling “early childhood development,” i.e., how the futures workers are raised, right alongside designing smart cities and sustainable food supplies, energy resources, and  (etc.).   This foundation is not alone in the cause, but here’s a sample screenprint:

New report from the Transatlantic Forum on Inclusive Early Years

Notice this isn’t just for “migrant” but also “low-income families” in Europe — and in the US.  Nice to know where input is coming from — and WHO is the “King Baudouin Foundation”? Apparently our children are subject to being discussed remotely, anywhere in the world, “our” meaning low-income families of all sorts.

Wherever “King Baudouin Foundation” is based, it apparently has a US operation also.

http://kbfus.org

Just discovered its existence 11/8/2016 evening; it’s a Georgia legal domicile (corporation) with 10 Rockefeller Plaza NYC address, incorporated only 2002, IRS determination it says in 2005, and its board of directors contains former US Ambassadors to Belgium, someone affiliated with Cargill (trucking industry, Nebraska as I recall), EIN# 582277856. Although tax return shows no “related” corporations (Schedule R), its parent foundation is stated, based in Belgium and named after a King of Belgium.

LEGAL & FINANCIAL INFORMATION from KFBUS.org

TITLE	DOWNLOAD
[KBFUS] IRS determination letter
Latest audited financial statements
Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax [i.e., Form 990]
Internal Anti-Terrorist Funding Procedures
KBFUS Investment Policy Statement

In most recent return I see $1M of government grants (charitable registration @ charitiesNYS.gov would reveal more details) and around $15M private. The website is fairly self-explanatory — they want to position themselves as “The” source of getting help for development and all things good for, especially Africa.  In year 2015 people were brought to the USA to learn the “American model” of fund-raising.

(Tax return search on 990finder.foundationcenter.org).  Again, this database has OBSCURED the organization’s posted (legal) name, defeating a namesearch for it under its real name on their website.  Sometime, I’d like a good explanation of why and how this happens!  Click through to see the attached returns are indeed King Baudoin Foundation USA, Inc. under this EIN#:

Search results for: ORGANIZATION NAME: , STATE: , ZIP: , EIN:  582277856 , FISCAL YEAR: 

Total results: 3. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Institute for Integrated Transitions <==wrong name!!	NY	2014	990	92	$25,926,066.00	58-2277856
Institute for Integrated Transitions	NY	2013	990	65	$19,406,794.00	58-2277856
Institute for Integrated Transitions	NY	2012	990	37	$17,134,778.00	58-2277856

Executive Director Jean-Paul Warmoes (see bio blurb and background), salary $276K + benefits that year ($284K the next).

[Year 2014 above, the donations to Europe (incl. Iceland and Greenland) were over $19M, and directly to Sub-Saharan Africa, less than $1M, see next comments]

The donations are being shown on a Schedule F (grants outside the USA), however, as going mostly to Europe and Iceland, not Africa or Asia. Schedule F does not list the grantees, although page after page of project descriptions (with no corresponding $$ amount per project showing) and NO NAMED Recipients. Probably the money is being sent to the parent corporation in Belgium.   (For full-size, click link to IRS return above and find Schedule F).

Image Filename: king-baudoin-foundation-usa-ein58-2277856-yre2015-irs-schedule-f-activities-outside-usa-by-region-scrshot-2016nov09-at-2-13-pm.png

I just looked at their financial statements (11/9/2016) and I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THIS ONE.  They are holding around $12M (mostly in “equities”) and, as I said, are moving funds to “Europe and Africa.”  In FYE 2015 — most funds did NOT go to Africa but to Europe (next image below)…  However their financial statements (for YE2014 and 2015) show some famous and valuable art collections (part of their holdings) are on loan to places European, including Belgium.***  Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Pfizer Global Health, Johnson & Johnson International Health, Alcatel Lucent (former AT&T/Bell Labs?), and other family foundations are involved in the “temporarily restricted funds.”

I almost mentioned one of the three largest (2015) holders of funds in Temporarily Restricted — the Guillaume Bastiens Family Foundation.  Spelled “Bastiaens” it seems Guillaume Bastiaens is also a Cargill executive of many years with a degree from a Belgian Institute also.  The next para. however, is from a 2004 US Securities and Exchange Commission Form 8-K filing on a different company (“The Mosaic Company”) and information on Mr. Bastiaens is because he was I guess a director, with term set to expire it says in 2007:

Guillaume Bastiaens, age 61, has served as Vice Chairman of Cargill, Incorporated since February 1998. Mr. Bastiaens is a member of the Cargill Corporate Leadership Team, and has executive supervision of corporate research and development. Mr. Bastiaens was elected to Cargill’s Board of Directors in 1995, and serves as a member of the Executive Committee and the Finance Committee of the board and the Corporate Center. Mr. Bastiaens also serves on the Commitment, Quality, Financial Position and Credit Committees and chairs the Technology Committee at Cargill. Mr. Bastiaens joined Cargill in 1967 as refiner supervisor of the Processing Division in Amsterdam. Mr. Bastiaens has held various supervisory positions at Cargill facilities in Europe and was responsible as plant operations manager of the European Processing Group until transferring to Minneapolis in 1981 as Vice President in the company’s Processing Group, responsible for the operation and engineering of all domestic and international processing facilities. Mr. Bastiaens was elected Corporate Vice President of Cargill in 1986, responsible for providing overall direction of plan operations and technical development for Cargill. Mr. Bastiaens was named chief technology officer in 1991, president of the Industrial Sector (which included Cargill’s fertilizer businesses) in 1992 and president of the Food Sector in August 1994. Mr. Bastiaens was elected an Executive Vice President of Cargill in August 1995. He is also a director of Donaldson Company, Inc., a leading worldwide provider of filtration systems and replacement parts. Mr. Bastiaens currently serves as Chair of the Environmental, Health and Safety Committee and also serves as a member of the Compensation Committee. Mr. Bastiaens holds a B.S. degree in chemical engineering from Hoger Instituut Der Kempen, Belgium. 

Guillaume Baustiens is also Audit Committee staff at KBFUS.org (KBUFUS.org, however only has 3 employees): Audit Committee:  Guillaume Bastiaens | Alan John Blinken.   Apparently he is or was (link is undated) also KBFUS board of directors He retired from Cargill (according to next quote from People.Equilar.com) in Sept. 2008, with this brief bio also describing Cargill:

F. Guillaume Bastiaens’s Biography

---

Served as Vice Chairman (1998-2008) of Cargill, Inc., a provider of food, agricultural and risk management products and services, until his retirement in 2008. Bassy Bastiaens brings to the Board his international expertise acquired over many years as a global leader at Cargill, one the world’s largest international privately held companies. Bassy served as Vice Chairman of Cargill from 1998 until his retirement in 2008. He is originally from Belgium and worked in leadership positions for Cargill’s processing operations in Europe and the United States, and as its Chief Technology Officer. Bassy is an experienced public company Board member having served on the Donaldson Board since 1995 and previously on the Mosaic Company Board. Bassy has a B.S. degree in Chemical Engineering from Hoger Instituut Der Kempen, Belgium.

Source: Donaldson on 09/27/2013

Next image just shows some (but does show largest remaining as of Dec. 2015) Temporarily Restricted Assets of KBFUS, totalling as shown (which is about half what is otherwise invested in public-traded securities):

---

Sub-Saharan Africe — $1.4M Grants to recipients.  Europe (including Iceland and Greenland)  – $15.8M Grants to Recipients.  Middle East and North Africa gets even less.

The donated artwork, described (and image from audited statements) (Note 4 to the Statements)

(4)  PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT

In 2015, the Foundation received a library on the history of Medieval Europe consisting of 8,894 titles, valued at $637,394. These works are currently on loan to the Musée de l’Abbaye de Cluny in Cluny, France. Also in 2015, the Foundation received a Roman bronze Sestertius coin of the Emperor Didius Julianus, valued at $5,000. This coin is currently on loan to the Coin Cabinet of the Royal Library of Belgium in Belgium.

In 2012, the Foundation received various historical letters and documents, valued at $5,000. These works are currently on loan to the King Baudouin Foundation in Belgium. Also in 2012, the Foundation received the full ownership including rights and title in the translations of Van Gogh family letters and other source materials on the artist Vincent Van Gogh, valued at $335,660. These documents are currently on loan to the Van Gogh Museum in the Netherlands.

In 2010, the Foundation received a sculpture, valued at $50,000. The artwork is currently on loan to the King Baudouin Foundation in Belgium. Also in 2010, the Foundation received five pieces of donated artwork, valued at $35,000. One of these pieces of artwork is currently on loan to the Royal Museums of Fine Arts of Belgium with the remaining pieces currently on loan to Beaux-Arts Mons in Belgium.

In 2008, the Foundation received donated artwork, valued at $30,000 which is on loan to the Belvue Museum in Belgium.

So, artwork is being moved by way of a newly (sort of) formed USA 501©3 to Belgium, and in one case, the Netherlands.  Whether or not these would be traveling exhibits to Africa and Asia, see website.  It’s an “interesting” way of helping underdeveloped nations or conflict-zones as well as early childhood education, or global health, I must say.. Here’s the image of the above text:

By looking through that “Transatlantic Forum on Inclusive Early Years” Policy Recommendations, I found on page 26, Footnote 48, (finally) a list of which foundations were involved, and which organized it also.  I thought readers might be interested to see the US participants:

Jacobs Foundation (CH), Fundação Calouste Gulbenkian (PT), Lego Foundation (DK), Bernard Van Leer Foundation (NL), Universal Education Foundation (NL), Compagnia di San Paolo (IT), Foundation for Child Development (US), California Community Foundation (US), The Atlantic Philanthropies (UK/IE), One America (US), Thrive by Five (US), Fondazione Cariplo (IT), Bertelsmann Stiftung (DE).

Purpose was to leverage for the ECEC cause:

Through seven twice-annual meetings, the Forum brought together a wide range of expert stakeholders including policy-makers, practitioners, philanthropists, and researchers to share and discuss the most recent and compelling research, strate- gies, policies, and innovations surrounding these issues with the aim of leveraging and scaling up existing knowledge and evidence-based research to make ECEC for children from migrant and low-income families a priority on the political agenda in Europe, the US, and beyond.

Also, the two Initiative organizers were one from Belgium and one from the US:  “Each meeting focused on a specific theme relevant to the challenges facing these populations in ECEC, and was organized in collaboration with two oper- ating partners for the initiative, the Belgian VBJK Centre for Innovation in the Early Years in Belgium, and the Migration Policy Institute in the US”

They had “seven twice-annual meetings” over four years (do the math on that — one year it wasn’t even two meetings) in the following places, which may explain why the true stakeholders — the parents and children involved — were not present for all meetings, or representatives of this population,  Nor was there systematic effort to inform these populations, I’ll bet, that such meetings were occurring:

1993 Independent.UK Obituary:  “King Baudouin I of the Belgians” has some historical context. Here’s the NYT Obituary:  equally interesting and enlightening.  King Baudouin I was the 5th King of the Belgians since their independence from the Netherlands.  He was a devoted Catholic and rather than sign a liberalized abortion bill, declared himself “unable to govern for a day,” let Parliament do it, and returned to duty the next day.  He was only 62 at his death.  He had taken the throne as a young man (effective 1951) when his father was forced to abdicate surrounding events involving World War I.  Anyhow, now we have a 13-foundation collaborative in EU planning early childhood education for people “transatlantically” without the informed consent, and voices, of said individuals — as the conferences were held on different continents over a four-year period. etc. 

image filename (LGH labeling only) TFIEY-posted-at-b-van-leer-foundatn-p26-showing-the-7-meetings-organizers-and-participant-foundation-fn48scrshot-2016nov09

Monarch Profile: King Baudouin of the Belgians (by “the Mad Monarchist”) July 2012. Included for some historical (dates, times, individuals) context; you’ll quickly pick up on the bloggers tone; or also read the “About” which admits to being a “monarchists.”  When it comes to the Belgian Congo, and intersection with World War II events; well, you can taste the “spin” on the benign patriarch approach to the brutal reality of exploitation (see also history of Unilever corporation, or “Leverhulme Trust” (UK) for more on that.  When you buy any “Dove” product you are buying Univelever.).

 

[END, for now, discussion of KING BAUDOIN FOUNDATION USA].

Below this line, still referring to the Bernard van Leer Foundation’s Executive Director connections, and the context of Bernard van Leer Foundation is as one of several international sponsors of the (Massachusetts address, Delaware Legal Domicile) “EDC” or Education Development Center, Inc. — which is posted as a Greenbook Initiative Evaluation Partner.

Hopefully by now you see that the words “Education Development” are well-loaded with international agenda in regards “low-income families” of all sorts, and there is no intention of letting up on the business (philanthropic, that is) sector to dominate the character of Early Childhood Education and involved professionals.  The public, of course, is welcome to continue helping foot the bill, but this should not equate to being expected to have a real voice in it, should it?

Context reminder:

The current Executive Director of the Bernard van Leer Foundation is Michael Feigelson, https://bernardvanleer.org/articles/michael-feigelson/

Michael Feigelson from Bernardvanleer.org (uploaded it would seem 12/2015)

Thomas J. Watson Fellow, — click to see it’s a scholarship offer by partnership among 40 colleges or universities from different countries (correction:) looks like across the USA. There is not one public university from the US on the list, that I can see.  For disclosure purposes, my alma mater (a non-IVY league 4-year liberal arts college in the US) is on there too).  The Watson Fellowships started in 1968, and:

The Thomas J. Watson Fellowship is a one-year grant for purposeful, independent exploration outside the United States, awarded to graduating seniors nominated by one of 40 partner colleges.

Privileges including being completely supported (incl. 12 months of payments on educational loans and apparently health insurance) time to explore right after college, before affiliating with anyone.  To get to this privilege one of course must first have been privileged enough to be able to afford attendance at one of the nominating private colleges…

The Watson is a rare window of time after college and pre-career to engage your deepest interest on a global scale. Fellows conceive original projects, execute them outside of the United States for one year and embrace the ensuing journey. They decide where to go, who to meet and when to change course. They do not affiliate with academic institutions and may not hold formal employment.

The program produces a year of personal insight, perspective and confidence that shapes the arc of fellows’ lives. Started in 1968, Watson Fellows comprise leaders in every field. The one year stipend is $30,000. In addition, the foundation provides (through reimbursement) health insurance and the equivalent of 12-months of payments on outstanding institutional and federally guaranteed (Perkins, Stafford) loans. Only partner colleges may nominate students.

The list of colleges (correct me if these are not all private) are active links to who on each campus to contact. Notice that Princeton, Harvard, and Yale, Smith, Brown, etc.  aren’t on them, but Bowdoin (considered an “Almost-Ivy” which I learned in studying the Harlem Children’s Zone (and some of its prime leadership in this century), and Feigelson’s “Wesleyan” is on there:

Requirements, after being nominated and accepting don’t seem too strict:  Show up at the start and finish, submit quarterly reports, stay outside the US and avoid countries on its “no-fly” zone list:

Fellow Expectations

• Attend the pre-departure webinar (spring)
• Depart by August 1 of the award year
• Remain outside of the United States for 1 year
• Remain outside countries that are on State Department Warning, Treasury Embargo or are designated CDC Level 3.
• Submit quarterly reports and an end of year expense report
• Attend the returning fellows’ conference (August)

Thomas J. Watson, Sr. built IBM, and was on the board of Columbia University 1933-1956, among other things.  The foundation named after him was set up in 1961, and his surviving wife was among one of the few (the website says) women to head a major public company (IBM!) at the time:

Beyond Technology

Tom’s work extended beyond technology to education, world affairs and the arts. He was a trustee of Columbia University from 1933 until 1956 and President of the International Chamber of Commerce from 1937-39. The Metropolitan Museum of Art’s Watson Library is one of the world’s most comprehensive art history resources.

Upon Tom’s passing, Jeannette, his wife of 43 years, was appointed to IBM’s board of directors. She was one of the first women to assume such a role in a public company.

Here’s that foundation. The trustee bank is JP Morgan, and the spread of investments seems pretty conservative, which surprises me some, given how famous are the founders.  A lot of it is illegible photocopies.

Total results: 12. Search Again.

The grants paid pages are (1) illegible (such fine print); (2) presented horizontally in such a way that expanding them to full-size makes them impossible to read in one page-view); and (3) apparently name colleges, then person, and include repeated negative entries (on loan payments to various colleges?) and individual stipends with dates, on other pages, it looks like.  Here’s part of one of the page views — and that’s considerably magnified.

(From YE 2015 return of the Thomas J. Watson Foundation).  I don’t “get” the big difference — about $58.4M — between their Book Value and FMV (Column two, beginning of year & column 3, end of year). Perhaps this just indicates they’ve been holding onto the same corporate stocks so long that their Fair Market Value has gone considerably up.  As you can see, it says NO liabilities, either.  There are no “contributions” and the only earnings are from dividends (around $1M+) and sales of asssets (around $7M); they aren’t spending much, and in general, it looks like a passively-managed entity.

ANYHOW, MOVING ON to another FEIGELSON (Bernard van Leer Foundation) reference, on his bio blurb:

World Economic Forum Global Agenda Council on Behaviour; — moving “beyond” punishment/ rewards, which obviously isn’t working, into “behavioral science” tactics for persuading people to make better (as defined by ______??? ???) decisions for their lives.  Seriously — this is the quote from that link, and notice it tells you in the second sentence WHICH areas are of specific interest for governments to be able to change people’s behaviors (!!)

Many government policies aim to change people’s behaviour for the better. However, in some areas, including health, the environment and personal finance, the punishment/reward framework has been inadequate. By using insights from behavioural sciences when designing these policies, we can ensure they have significantly more impact with very little extra cost.

This approach has already been successfully implemented in a number of policy contexts, helping people make better decisions across different areas of their lives. *

However, worldwide only a few governments have behavioural insights teams to build on existing brain and behavioural science research.** The remaining 190+ countries would greatly benefit from knowing more about proven behavioural solutions, and could then in turn also incorporate them into their policies.

The Global Agenda Council on Behaviour Change will work to increase awareness [among ____??] of behavioural insight approaches [to ___??], such as nudge theory. This knowledge could then be applied in the development of cost-effective and powerful policies. The council will be working with other Forum members on existing projects to ensure behavioural insights are included in approaches and recommendations.

Contact Us: Council Manager & Forum Lead: Olivier Oullier, Head of Strategy, Global Health and Healthcare Industries, Olivier.Oullier@weforum.org

EATforum.org, 4/2016 upload, Olivier Oullier

Oullier, Olivier as his name suggests, has a significant French Connection but has also been guest lecturer are SAID Business School in Oxford University:  http://eatforum.org/person/olivier-oullier/

Head of Strategy, Global Health and Healthcare Industries, Member of the Executive Committee, World Economic Forum

Olivier Oullier got a PhD in 2001 for studies in complex systems, human movement science, neuroscience and psychology. He was a PhD candidate in Economics at EHESS from 2009-2012.

So, did he get his second PhD then?

He was the World Economic Forum Young Global Leader in 2011.

Prior to his work at WEF, he was Professor of Behavioral and Brain Sciences at Aix-Marseille University and a guest lecturer at the University of Oxford’s Said Business School.

Oullier counts with more than 15 years of experience as an adviser for public and private organizations. He has also designed and implemented evidence-informed strategies in consumer behaviour, engagement, communication and crisis management and has co-authored more than 150 publications in scientific, medical and business journals.

From 2009 to 2012 he was head of the Neuroscience and Public Policy Program at the Center for Strategic Analysis of the Prime Minister of France.  [[WHILE STUDYING FOR THAT PhD at the EHESS]

The “EAT” forum is funded, it says, by three different foundations, none of them based in the US.  Its purpose is to transform the global food production for sustainability:

“Providing the growing global population a healthy and nutritious diet within safe environmental limits is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today. It can only be addressed through an integration of knowledge and action in the interwoven areas of food, health and sustainability.”

At which point, I think that’s enough on this post!

Also, now might be a good time to “click around” on the WEFORUM (World Economic Forum) in general, as a reminder of when and by whom it was formed, and to learn that as of 2015 it was designated an International Organization (by whom — not shown).

You may have heard of meetings in Davos…. It began on the eve of World War II, and until 1987 was known as the European Management Council, at some point inviting 1,000 of the world’s leading companies as members.  Also, if you’ve been reading material here with the constant use of the word “stakeholder” this may explain some of its origins — and how this was expanded to include “communities” and “governments” not just business owners, customers, and shareholders:

. . .Initially, Professor Schwab focused the meetings on how European firms could catch up with US management practices. He also developed and promoted the ‘stakeholder’ management approach, which based corporate success on managers taking account of all interests: not merely shareholders, clients and customers, but employees and the communities within which they operate, including government.

Professor Schwab’s vision for what would become the World Economic Forum grew steadilly as a result of achieving ‘milestones’. Events in 1973, namely the collapse of the Bretton Woods fixed exchange rate mechanism and the Arab-Israeli War, saw the Annual Meeting expand its focus from management to economic and social issues. Political leaders were invited for the first time to Davos in January 1974.

Two years later, the organization introduced a system of membership for ‘the 1,000 leading companies of the world’. The European Management Forum was the first non-governmental institution to initiate a partnership with China’s economic development commissions, spurring economic reform policies in China. Regional meetings around the globe were also added to the year’s activities, while the publication of the Global Competitiveness Report in 1979 saw the organization expand to become a knowledge hub as well.

In 1987, the European Management Forum became the World Economic Forum and sought to broaden its vision to include providing a platform for dialogue. World Economic Forum Annual Meeting milestones during this time include the Davos Declaration signed in 1988 by Greece and Turkey, which saw them turn back from the brink of war, while in 1989, North and South Korea held their first ministerial-level meetings in Davos. At the same Meeting, East German Prime Minister Hans Modrow and German Chancellor Helmut Kohl met to discuss German reunification. In 1992, South African President de Klerk met Nelson Mandela and Chief Mangosuthu Buthelezi at the Annual Meeting, their first joint appearance outside South Africa and a milestone in the country’s political transition.

And in 2015, again this doesn’t specify by whom it was “formally recognized as an international organization” but no question, the whole concept is “public/private and global.”

In 2015, the Forum was formally recognised as an international organization. It is now on the next phase of its journey as the global platform for public-private cooperation.

The “World Economic Forum USA” as a nonprofit has a rather interesting track record, does it not?  (Look at the years and the gap in filings) and two similar — but not identical (to the point of a possible typo?) EIN#s.

Total results: 5. Search Again.

I’ll discuss more of my concerns about the international funding component of “EDC” on the separate post, hopefully soon (it’s mostly written already), at the link I provided above, and will mention again below before getting to the Edna McConnell Clark Foundation part of this post.

EDC Home page — some letters are huge, others are microscopic, making sense of the whole is, apparently, discouraged.

<==EDC is into a little bit of everything, but despite this, still manages to have a lousy website when it comes to communication who it is, what it does, how it’s funded, and how it’s organized.  One way to straighten out SOME of that is to look at the tax returns.

The Greenbook Initiative is SUPPOSEDLY focused on the intersection of child maltreatment and domestic violence, and SUPPOSEDLY (judging by the name of one of its key sponsors, who goes by the name “National” implying USA (it’s located at a public institution – a US University in Reno, Nevada, I’m referring of course to the NCJFCJ).  So “What, exactly, is the EDC doing on this project?” is a REAL valid question.  But I am already working the reader pretty hard with the ECMF (Edna McConnell Clark Foundation) tax returns, collaborations, and drill-downs it didn’t seem fair to throw in the EDC on the same post.  So, I split it off.

ALTHOUGH, on quickly checking the Commonwealth of Massachusetts registration of this organization (which is the address shown on it), I got a real shocker:

#1.  It didn’t register there until 2006.  #2.  It was involuntarily revoked in 2012.  #3.  No Annual reports show up after 2006.  Say, HUH?

Here are the only two “filings” shown for the organization — one of which is a revocation:

Weird electronic footprint of EDC in Massachusetts; the “articles of organization” appear to have been electronically filed, contain no officer signature, and show “Joseph Winn Taylor” as Director, President, and Treasurer (and no one else).

=

It was registered 1974-1994 (brief revocation, re-instated within ½ year in 1995) in Massachusetts as a Foreign (Delaware) Corporation, that Corporation since 1958 as you can see here.  The New ID # is also coincidentally (as Massachusetts seems to do things) their EIN#:

My mistake — similar, but not identical.  The “C” stands for “Center” not “Corporation.  This list of EDC addresses was found searching their street address, but is actually courtesy the website HHD.org, but that again calls itself simply an EDC division.  EDC on its main page only lists the Boston address under “Contact.”

43 Foundry Avenue in 2007 was a joint development project of the former Raytheon building, in the Boston Area, and part of a larger office park to include both commercial office space and laboratories, as I read it here <==(image and link below the image to left showing offices in four cities):

the Joint Project announced who its construction company is and further describes the area (CenterPoint) where EDC has a Boston Office. http://www.saracenproperties.com/news/na-2

When EDC went looking for a new President, they looked internationally.  However in March 2015, a Press release from EDC announced they’d hired David Offensend, former head of the New York Public Library — and on the board of America Achieve (among other nonprofits):

EDC Appoints David Offensend as New CEO and President

Offensend, 61, served for 10 years as the COO at the New York Public Library, the nation’s largest public library system, with 90 branch libraries, 2,000 employees, and an annual budget of $270 million. During his tenure, Offensend increased circulation by 70 percent and education programs by 30 percent. He is credited with digitizing the library system and extending the reach and quality of both its research and education programs.

Most recently, Offensend served as COO for America Achieves, a nonprofit organization that helps communities and states build high-quality educational systems and prepare young people for college and careers. In this role, he had responsibility for supporting all of America Achieves’ program initiatives.

Before moving to the nonprofit sector, Offensend had a successful career in the financial sector. In 1995, he co-founded the independent investment banking advisory firm Evercore Partners, and prior to that, he worked in the investment organization of Robert M. Bass, and also at Lehman Brothers, where he served as president and CEO of Lehman Brothers Merchant Banking Partnership.

Offensend has served on multiple boards, including PrincetonUniversity, Bedford Stuyvesant Restoration Corporation, and Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation, and he is a trustee emeritus of the Brooklyn Children’s Museum.

Offensend holds a bachelor of arts degree in public and international affairs from Princeton University and an master’s degree in business administration from the Harvard Business School, where he was a Baker Scholar.

“I am honored to be EDC’s next president and CEO,” said Offensend. “EDC has a truly inspiring mission and a strong reputation for creating innovative programs to improve education, health and economic opportunity worldwide. I am excited to work with EDC’s extraordinary staff to expand the reach and impact of EDC’s work around the globe.”

ANYHOW, further discussions of EDC in this context (and its own context) to be posted at:

Do You Know Your EDC (EIN#04-2241718 in Massachusetts)?  Or Why It Became a Greenbook Initiative ~Evaluation Partner~ Alongside ICF International and the NCSC? If Not, Pls. Look Now! (<==Link will lead to this post when it is published; before then WordPress may make a “best guess” redirect)

Similarly, on the Greenbook Initiative Partners Page, the “Federal Agency” partners (only two — USDOJ and US DHHS) are listed as though multiple.  In fact, several divisions, improperly notated as to the organizational hierarchy, are listed.  In other words, “The Children’s Bureau” is under ACF (Administration for Children and Families), so from Large to Small, the Heirarchy would be HHS/ACF/CB.   This website “helpfully” lists it in the order HHS/CB/ACF.  Amazingly one can read the organizational hierarchy of HHS at this website: http://www.hhs.gov/about/index.html# under the link “HHS Organizational Charts,” with acronyms for the various office displayed in two columns:  Left Column:  Office of the Secretary // Right Column:  Operating Divisions, and right near the top, right side, under “Operating Divisions (“OpDiv” for short) is the mighty “Administration for Children and Families.”  Click on that to see that two levels down, under “ACYF” is “Children’s Bureau.”  So why would the Greenbook Initiative choose another, more confusing, less straightforward way to label the federal agencies involved?

Federal Agencies: [Top] …  [HHS is listed above DOJ elements]

• Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families  [Proper listing: HHS/ACF/ACYF/CB]
• Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Community Services, Administration for Children and Families  [Proper listing:  HHS/ACF/OCS]
  
• Division of Violence >Prevention, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for >Disease Control and Prevention [This doesn’t even label CDC’s as part of HHS.  The proper listing is “HHS/CDC/ (Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health)/NCIPC. (see below)
  
• Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation = [“HHS/ASPE” this is apparently higher level than the others to the top of the HHS “food chain.” or at least organizationally].

While “CDC” may seem to be its own entity, separate from HHS, it is still under the Federal Agency title Health and Human Services (“HHS”), and it’s not too hard to find an organizational chart from its home page, either:

Two screenshots from the CDC Page (“Top” and “Bottom” — note, both are partial, but from the link I just provided above).  You can see the “NCIPC” or National Center for Injury Prevention and Control under one of three separate offices, this Office (“Bottom Half” chart reveals), in the center, is called “Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, Injury and Environmental Health” and NCIPC is the very bottom rectangle showing in the chart.

<== see, “HHS” designator!

These offices (there’s fourth to left, not shown) overlap with bottom image.

<=Office of Noncommunicable Diseases, etc….

<==National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.  Here’s a link to that chart again, “with names” and the Director of this office (at least as of 2015 — which doesn’t reflect timespan of the Greenbook Initiative) is Deborah E. Houry, MD, MPH.  “Surprisingly” this chart was listed under “Learning about CDC.”

Dr. Houry assumed this role in 2014.  The second paragraph of her Bio Blurb as director of NCIPC under CDC indicates a certain award from “IVAT” (which has made at least a few appearances on this post, as working closely with Robert Geffner, and located at Alliant International University (in a Southern California campus), and which doesn’t seem to have a particular “entity” ID — but issues credits under AIU, while a smaller nonprofit (FVSAI) with still a Texas Jurisdiction, is also associated).  Odd that the “IVAT” wasn’t located, or otherwise identified.  The emphasis on IVAT tells me something about the orientation of the CDC as to domestic violence issue, as does (on their website) some “DELTA” programs which I noticed through the HHS grants program, but which from their point of view involved the DV State coalitions, and specifically emphasizing “engaging men and boys.”

Too much detail for this post, subsidiary to my other points, I’ll stow it on a separate post, called The Greenbook Initiative Federal Partner HHS/CDC/==>NCIPC<== (established ca. 1993, its New Director’s IVAT-dispensed Linda Saltzman Memorial Award, + SAVIR+ The Safe States Alliance.  It is, however, interesting and still relevant!  MOVING ON FROM THAT LEVEL OF EXCESSIVE DETAIL ….

Meanwhile, in the Greenbook Initiative Partners listing the USDOJ “Federal Partners” whoever compiled this list chose to simply omit for USDOJ (but not for US DHHS) the larger unit under which the identified units were listed:

This is a little less clear-cut, other than under the link “Partners” the OJP (Omitted in the Greenbook Initiatives) gives the initials (acronyms) for some of the “partners” listed on the Greenbook Initiative page — just omitting the reference to the “OJP” above.  Unlike the listings under HHS which have at least three parts to their “ID,” for some reason, these have only two and omit the “Office of Justice Programs” as the unifying umbrella under which these come.  The acronyms I added, were not provided initially:

Federal Agencies: [Top] …  [HHS is listed above DOJ]

• Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice [=”NIJ”]
• Department of Justice, Office on Violence Against Women [=”OVW”]
  
• Department of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime = [“OVC”]
• Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention [=”OJJDP”]

Check out this next proclamation on which foundations are involved at the highest level working with the USDOJ/OJP on various initiatives.  My point here, other than pointing this Public/Private Partnership (with certain major foundations and as applied on various public institutions referenced in the next quote — such as schools, or prisons) is that NIJ, OJJDP, BJP, and OVC are called “OJP BUREAUS.” (Yellow high-lit part).  Also, if you think they were public/private partnering before, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet; they are now going more “pro-active” on goals they hold in common with the big, privately controlled foundations of the country (lighter-yellow background).

Partnerships for the Office of Justice Programs

OJP’s support for state, local and tribal organizations is a critical part of our mission. And for many years, OJP bureaus, to include NIJ, OJJDP, BJA and OVC have had long-established working relationships with philanthropic and non-profit organizations that work on closely related criminal justice and juvenile justice issues. Recently we have added a new dimension to these efforts through proactive engagement with philanthropic and non-profit organizations. We conferred with a number of foundations and philanthropies about how OJP can work more effectively with private sector groups that share similar goals, and how to use creative collaborative approaches to criminal and juvenile justice matters.

Partnering with these institutions makes sense for OJP and better harnesses the power of private organizations to maximize our collective resources to improve our communities. For example, the MacArthur Foundation and OJP jointly awarded $2 million to support juvenile justice reforms. We’ve also partnered with the Atlantic Philanthropies, MacArthur, and others on a school discipline initiative. In a joint effort with the Department of Education, we’re working to promote policies and practices that aim to reduce the number of children involved in the juvenile and adult court systems and help them succeed in school. The Pew Charitable Trusts have been a leader in advancing our Justice Reinvestment efforts. We’re now working together to support efforts in 32 sites, with more to come. And our partners at Casey Family Programs have helped guide our efforts under the National Forum on Youth Violence Prevention. Additionally, we have created the Partnership Resource Network to provide external support for highly-rated unfunded applicants for OJP grant programs.

I have no idea what this Greenbook Initiative cost in terms of either public or private partner contributions (let alone overall, over the timespan it was in effect).  However, probably only a pittance of what types of government grants EDC (which is totally dependent on the same) gets per year.

Here are the EDC tax returns, and if you are a thinking, observant, and intelligent person, ask What’s going on with EDC, and why would a board of 10 controlling nearly 1,000 employees and managing $154M of contributions (government)/year with a primary focus of International Development, and more than twice its grants load (top year, $20M) going overseas as staying within the US, be doing this project?  How was this situation set up, and as this is primarily public-funded (per the tax return), why is there not more transparency?

Regardless of your conclusions, this organization as dealing so much with USAID and the State Department, and internationally, is one to stay aware of.

Concluding the extended section about (1) “EDC” and (2) Greenbook Initiative (webmasters?) inability to properly label parts of two federal agencies, and now beginning the drill-down on EMCF:

(1) EDC split-off continuation post, again: Do You Know Your EDC (EIN#04-2241718 in Massachusetts)?  Or Why It Became a Greenbook Initiative ~Evaluation Partner~ Alongside ICF International and the NCSC? If Not, Pls. Look Now! (<==Link will lead to this post when it is published; before then WordPress may make a “best guess” redirect)

(2) Further relevant information on the Federal Agency weird nomenclature used by Greenbook Initiative webmasters (or whoever put together information for the “partners” page), again, continued because, as I said above, Too much detail for this post, subsidiary to my other points, I’ll stow it on a separate post, called The Greenbook Initiative Federal Partner HHS/CDC/==>NCIPC<== (established ca. 1993, its New Director’s IVAT-dispensed Linda Saltzman Memorial Award, + SAVIR+ The Safe States Alliance.

Prepare yourself to break new ground in basic understandings, and to be looking at images of tax returns with the idea you also put your face in front of the same information, full-sized, and think seriously about what it is telling you!  I also look at collaborators with EMCF and at least one of its subcontractors, as I recall, below.  This is still part of “Section (1)” of this post…. and a very interesting one, I believe.

---

Filename reflecting image title also contains the URL (substitute “.” for “|” before final “html”):  Edna McConnell Clark NYT Obit (1982, she was 96!) Avon Heiress (http-//www.nytimes.com/1982/04/22/obituaries/edna-clark-96-avon-heiress-and-developer-of-foundation|html).png

(also from this article): Mrs. Clark was born in Atlanta on Feb. 6, 1886, the year her father, David Hall McConnell, founded a perfume company in California that was to grow into the Avon Products empire, the largest cosmetic company in the world. The name was changed to Avon Products in 1950.

Her husband, W. Van Alan Clark, was associated with the company for 55 years and served as chairman of its board of directors. He died in 1976.

Mrs. Clark was a graduate of Smith College…

Total results: 3. Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

<==$555M in Corporate Stock; $23M in US/state gov’t debt (“obligations”) and (line 13, Statemt 11) $355M, Line 13, Investments – Other.

Here’s actually an annotated (by me, just some colorful pointers) Page 1 of the same return, showing somewhat high operating expenses (total $16M seems high) and $53M of grants — but still $9M to spare for the year, somehow.  Look also where the revenues are being earned (top part) and where the expenses disbursed (bottom part):

the-emcf-990pf-982m-assets-ein-23-7047034-in-ny-yr2014-page-1-only (Click for full-size, annotated image of Page 1.  Or, for plain version, see the table above…)

For some more excerpts from this tax return, scroll down.  First, let me reference its other involvements with CNCS (Federal government), the BAIN-related “Bridgespan Group” (separate organization, but Bain & Company started it up, primarily.  I’ll document so there are no questions.   After seeing what its practices and interests are, and with whom, a closer look at the “books” I think is quite relevant.

EMCF (the foundation) is just so huge, it collaborates with other equally huge organizations, and, as I already had observed separately, has become involved in the “Social Innovation Fund” Pooled investments concept. Here’s its page on “CNCS” aka “National Service.gov” in that regard.  This time you can also click the logo to get to the EMCF page:

Over the last decade, EMCF has implemented a grant making approach that identifies highly-promising nonprofits serving disadvantaged youth from low-income communities and makes large, long-term investments to strengthen their evidence base and replicate and expand them so they can serve more young people. At the heart of this approach is a multi-year business plan that guides an organization’s development. EMCF will donate the cost of formulating such business plans. To help facilitate expansion into new target geographies, co-investors will assist with the identification and selection of nonprofit organizations.

Track Record before Social Innovation Fund Grant:

Over the last 10 years, EMCF has invested over $220 million in 33 nonprofits that directly serve youth in all 50 states and Washington D.C. The average grant has increased from $90,000 in 2000 to $2 million today.

EMCF has worked with 19 other investors to create a $120 million Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot [next reference describes this in part] designed to help three effective nonprofit organizations – Citizen Schools, Nurse-Family Partnerships and Youth Villages – grow to serve 55,000 youth.

Other signature investments include the Harlem Children’s Zone, which provides a comprehensive network of programs in New York’s Harlem community that extends from birth through college. One of EMCF’s first partners in youth development, HCZ has expanded from 24 blocks to 100 blocks in Central Harlem and serves over 10,000 youth and individuals annually. An independent evaluation by Harvard University economists found that HCZ’s Promise Academy charter schools significantly reduced the black-white achievement gap in mathematics and English/Language Arts.

A reference quoted below was found at The Bridgespan Group which is a specific consulting organization I’ve had in my blogging “cross-hairs” as the child of Bain & Capital, and will blog — soon (post in draft).  Next quote with links is from one of my posts in draft on “ConnectED, WestED… and the US Department of Ed…”  as are the two “white-on-black” quotes from showing their mission, logo, and trademarks.

Harlem Children’s Zone as a model of taking over an entire neighborhood for reformation and redevelopment based on how poorly the neighborhood is doing currently, has been duplicated or set for duplication in other metropolitan areas, such as Minneapolis/St. Paul.  All of these situations are better understood the more tax returns and “history” documents are read. They are private control of public/private partnerships often involving hedge funds (investment platforms) and/or moving a good chunk of the retained assets overseas.

In using “Communities in Schools” (a different nonprofit) to make a certain point, I looked at some of its expensive contractors, and found “Bridgespan” was a plan for a nonprofit to do exactly what BAIN & CAPITAL does, only cheaper, and of course, for the nonprofit sector.  As a nonprofit, its latest returns shows Bridgespan has accumulated $73M assets (an increase of about $50M in two short years — however, a closer look at their 990 shows most of the $73M is actually in the form of “Pledges.”)

Articles of Incorporation (from “Foreign” registration, that is, Delaware) showing: Jeffrey Bradach, Paul Carttar & David Bechhofer, Thomas J. Tierney (head of Bain in SF), Phyllis Yale, and John Donahue (in SF).

Next link explains plenty: As explained Year (Nov) 2000, “Harvard Business School,” (21pp, clean print, clear language) website domain is “BAIN.com,” this takes something of a history of the group, how Bain Consulting figured this might help their image, and how they not only helped with startup capital

(Read that year 2000 Harvard Business School explanation — it’s not that long — and learn, a lot!)

This is how “the big ones” collaborate — and in general, they will always be seeking to influence, and involved, public receipts for restructuring or improvements (always, it’s assumed) of public institutions — schools, jails, courts, childcare, you name it….  Meanwhile, the investing platforms are still PRIVATELY controlled and pooled.

In essence, if some nonprofits are favored by the coordinated large foundations (or, align their priorities with what the same foundations have already indicated they want), they are more likely to be benefactors.  The goal is to dramatically expand the size, power and influence of the nonprofit (philanthropic) sector upon society as a whole.  Bridgespan as much as says so in its organizational mission:

Bridgespan Group web page in very large letters (not duplicated here) explains their “raison d’etre“(my color scheme, not theirs also):

Collaborating with leaders to solve society’s most important challenges

Bridgespan helps mission-driven organizations and philanthropists to advance their learning and accelerate their impact

---

The key phrases there other than the obvious, collaborating include “Society’s most important challenges” (as determined by “leaders”), would seem to be “accelerate.”

[and at bottom of the page, footer info, and just above:]

 

We work to build a better world by strengthening the ability of mission-driven organizations and philanthropists to achieve breakthrough results in addressing society’s most important challenges and opportunities.

Collaborating to Accelerate Social Impact

Bridgespan® and Leading for Impact® are registered trademarks of The Bridgespan Group
The Bridgespan Group is a 501(c)(3) organization.

To put a little perspective on the word “nonprofit” when it comes to a consulting group TO nonprofits which has already made it clear by the logo — it wants to work with leaders, not losers — it appears to me that this group is a fine example of how philanthropy, in general, is engineered to keep the current leadership on top, in part by the ability to raise major capital and revenue — store it tax-exempt, and move fast in whatever it tackles.   [Bridgespan Group EIN# is 311425467.  I think.  It’s in Massachusetts; You can Search Here].

That’s nice — but what about “the voice of the people”??  We cannot simultaneously be at work, at home, as it develops, sometimes in courts, other times in child support offices trying to make sense of some decision or track some “lost-in-transit” funds (been there, done that) — and monitor the why the local nonprofits “just don’t hear” our feedback — because of their larger feeders, who are utilizing these local nonprofits as spokespersons and for leverage in the overall grand-design which, it would seem, said coordinated foundations (the largest ones) have in common with each other (typically in partisan lines, i.e., progressive | conservative may not agree, but within their causes, they sure do!!).

Key term in this next excerpt:  GCAP (Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot) after which you can see SIF (Social Innnovation Fund) and a True North Fund, etc.

https://www.bridgespan.org/insights/blog/give-smart/edna-mcconnell-clark-foundation-nancy-roob-gcap

Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot tests new donor collaboration

In the nonprofit sector—where big grants that provide unrestricted support for true growth can be virtually impossible to come by—the strategic philanthropy of Nancy Roob and EMCF is like food during a famine. And it’s just as nourishing. Through EMCF’s Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot, Roob and EMCF have attracted large funds from private donors and other foundations to help grow youth-focused organizations with proven models of effectiveness. In so doing EMCF has dramatically strengthened three nonprofits—Citizen Schools, the Nurse-Family Partnership, and Youth Villages. Today these three nonprofits earn more annual revenue, enabling them to reach many, many more youth and their families. In addition, with their proven programs, they have the potential to benefit from new federal funding opportunities.

Each of the above is designed as a model for application in more than one state, i.e., basic corporate replication — only this time, using the public sector for the canvas.

Yet perhaps more should consider it. In a recent independent analysis EMCF commissioned—An Experiment in Scaling Impact: Assessing the Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot—researchers Bill Ryan and Barbara Taylor found that from 2007 to 2011 the number of young people served by the three organizations grew an average of 69 percent. According to the EMCF website, the number of disadvantaged young people who are served annually by the three GCAP grantees grew from 25,047 in 2006 to 45,450 in 2011. Moreover, the GCAP grantees’ annual revenues grew from $89.5 million in 2006 to $187.3 million in 2011.

In a true show of adaptive strategy, EMCF has looked to build on the success of the Growth Capital Aggregation Pilot with a next generation of pooled investing it has named the True North Fund. In 2010, EMCF was named a Social Innovation Fund intermediary and received funds to expand community-based nonprofits with evidence of strong results, and used that grant to establish the True North Fund in 2011 to grow capital. Unlike the GCAP, the True North Fund funders don’t necessarily invest individually in nonprofits, but rather in a pooled fund that can go either to a general fund, have a regional focus, or be targeted to one or more specific grantees. “We see it as a step forward from the perspective of trying to create more efficiency in terms of the capitalization strategy,” says Roob. “The irony of this is that it is entirely subscale in terms of what the need is in the sector and what really the opportunity is in terms of the wealth that exists in the sector.”

VERY NICE.  NOW HERE ARE SOME MORE EMCF TAX RETURN IMAGES; I’LL BRING DOWN PAGE 1 FOR REFERENCE ALSO. Links available as provided here, or from the intact (no colorful annotations by yours truly) in the Foundation Center 3-row table provided above.

To repeat (I’ll start with page 2, not 2, this time):  Here’s actually an annotated (by me, just some colorful pointers) Page 1 of the same return, showing somewhat high operating expenses (total $16M seems high) and $53M of grants — but still $9M to spare for the year, somehow.  Look also where the revenues are being earned (top part) and where the expenses disbursed (bottom part):

the-emcf-990pf-982m-assets-ein-23-7047034-in-ny-yr2014-page-1-only (<==Click for full-size, annotated image of Page 1.  Or, for plain version, see the table above…)

I starred and highlit yellow the total assets ($982 million) at top, showed the nice earnings (green arrows) from interest (over $5M) and net profit from sale of assets ($67M), and then you can see a red rectangle around the lower part of the page for, “Expenses” (just up to the grants and contributions disbursed line, red arrow).

Having looked at so many Form 990PFs, including some for very well-stacked foundations, the total operating expenses of $16M seemed pretty high to me.  In addition to the $53M of grants (which I haven’t even gotten to yet)…for a total distribution of $70M this year — still leaving $9M to spare (blue arrow).

Next image shows that the two biggest chunks of assets are being held in Corporate Stocks ($555.8M End of Yr, See Statemt 10) and “Investments- Other” $355.2M End of yr, Line 13, See Statemt 11).  Plus I see some “Other assets (Line 15) were apparently disposed of from $2.4M to $0.29M ($293K End of yr). And so few real liabilities compared to assets.  How many individual households could say as much?

So, regarding those $16M operating expenses, let’s take a look:

Investure in Virginia

MDRC in NY

LWP, LLC in Boston

Bridgespan Group in Boston

Social Finance, Inc. in Boston

Total of just those five (5) is over $9M, but there are a dozen more, unidentified subcontractors, paid over $50K each (which is the cutoff limit). So who is ever told who they are?  The IRS?  Anyhow, out of $16M operating expenses, we are seeing $9M plus-some going to certain subcontractors, and $3.7M for Investment Management (!!) and then MDRC got over $2M for “Grantee Evaluation” and the other three for Grantee Consulting.  Hmm.

So — Social Finance, Inc. on 77 Sumner Street Boston is operating as a nonprofit and clearly the Pay for Success model has been good to it (this 501©3 only formed in 2011, as a Delaware Corporation).  Mission statement, page 1 – they just wanna help improve the lives of those in need (and do it tax-exempt with handouts)

SOCIAL FINANCE’S MISSION IS TO MOBILIZE CAPITAL TO DRIVE SOCIAL PROGRESS WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE DESERVES THE OPPORTUNITY TO THRIVE, AND THAT IMPACT INVESTMENTS CAN CATALYZE THESE OPPORTUNITIES CORE TO OUR WORK IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL IMPACT BOND, A MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PARTNERSHIP THAT AIMS TO ALIGN INTERESTS OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES, INVESTORS, AND NONPROFIT SERVICE PROVIDERS, AROUND SPECIFIC SOCIAL OUTCOMES TO IMPROVE THE LIVES OF THOSE IN NEED

Its President and CEO Tracy Palandjian gets a nice upper-middle-income salary (over $220K with benefits), and the tax returns look like this:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

The organization is totally (almost) dependent on contributions, and the doubling of assets seems to have been because of a substantial increase in contributions from one year over the prior one.  Part VIII (Revenues) shows NO government grants — over $6M of private contributions, some “fiscal agent” fees and some management fees.  Of course in Year 2014, $655K of this came from Edna McConnell Clark for which it was subcontracting, as above.

And one thing Page 1, Part I Summary also makes clear – this organization isn’t into grant-making, but is spending most of the revenues on program-related expenses, that is to say, Pt. I Line 15?, “Other Expenses” and/or salaries.

Page 2, Part III, “Program Service Accomplishments” boilerplate, with some $$ plugged in:

4a (Code ) (Expenses $ 2,520,605 including grants of $ 894,745 ) (Revenue $ 291,900

SOCIAL IMPACT BOND DEVELOPMENT AND PAY FOR SUCCESS FINANCING – SOCIAL FINANCE IS DEDICATED TO DESIGNING PUBLIC-PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS THAT TACKLE COMPLEX SOCIAL CHALLENGES, SUCH AS PRISON RECIDIVISM, HEALTH DISPARITIES, AND ACHIEVEMENT GAPS AS A MARKET INTERMEDIARY, WE STRUCTURE AND MANAGE PARTNERSHIPS BY ALIGNING THE UNIQUE INTERESTS OF STAKEHOLDERS CENTRAL TO OUR WORK IS THE SOCIAL IMPACT BOND, ALSO KNOWN AS PAY FOR SUCCESS (PFS) FINANCING, AN INNOVATIVE FUNDING MODEL THAT DRIVES GOVERNMENT RESOURCES TOWARD BETTER, MORE EFFECTIVE SOCIAL PROGRAMS TO THOSE IN NEED IN 2014, SOCIAL FINANCE MANAGED A $13 5 MILLION PFS PROJECT TO IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT AND RECIDIVISM OUTCOMES IN NEW YORK STATE, AND BEGAN THE DEVELOPMENT OF AN ADDITIONAL PFS PROJECT FOCUSED ON EARLY CHILDHOOD IN NEW YORK STATE SOCIAL FINANCE WAS ALSO PROCURED TO DEVELOP PFS PROJECTS IN CONNECTICUT, MASSACHUSETTS, AND SOUTH CAROLINA IN ADDITION, SOCIAL FINANCE BEGAN EXPLORING A PFS PROJECT TO BENEFIT VETERANS, AND ENGAGED WITH PARTNERS IN THE PHILANTHROPIC, GOVERNMENT, AND SERVICE PROVIDER COMMUNITIES TO CONDUCT A NUMBER OF PFS FEASIBILITY STUDIES IN VARIOUS STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY

4b (Code ) (Expenses $ 460,305 including grants of $ ) (Revenue $ 0

MARKET EDUCATION –SOCIAL FINANCE DEVOTES SUBSTANTIAL EFFORTS TO BUILDING MARKET EDUCATION AROUND PAY FOR SUCCESS IN 2014, WE RELEASED A WHITEPAPER ENTITLED “FOUNDATIONS FOR SOCIAL IMPACT BONDS HOW AND WHY PHILANTHROPY IS CATALYZING THE DEVELOPMENT OF A NEWMARKET” THAT ASSESSED PHILANTHROPY’S ROLE IN BUILDING THE PFS MARKET IN THE UNITED STATES IN ADDITION, WE AUTHORED AN ARTICLE THAT APPEARED IN THE STANFORD SOCIAL INNOVATION REVIEW,** AND RELEASED A DETAILED SUMMARY OF THE PFS PROJECT IN NEW YORK STATE WITH OUR PARTNERS OVER THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, SOCIAL FINANCE PARTICIPATED IN KEY CONFERENCES, INCLUDING EVENTS HOSTED BY THE WHITE HOUSE, CLINTON GLOBAL INITIATIVE, THE MILKEN INSTITUTE, THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, RESULTS FOR AMERICA, AMONG OTHERS OUR EFFORT TO CONNECT THE SOCIAL SECTOR TO THE CAPITAL MARKETS FOR THE BENEFIT OF PEOPLE IN NEED WAS COVERED BY LEADING MEDIA OUTLETS, SUCH AS THE ATLANTIC, NEW YORK TIMES, REUTERS, BARRONS, AND THE NATIONAL JOURNAL

About that $6M — an “Adjustment / Reconciliation” was made because about half $3.1M + $50K apparently related to two of Social Finance’s “Related” organizations reported on Schedule R, both of them dealing with helping formerly incarcerated get work; one as an LLC controlled by the other, which is a Partnership (both taxable), and their names read “NY State ……”.  This image is quite small, but what I’m referring to (in addition to the Schedule page showing “Reconciliation”)

Key  Understandings  re: “The Greenbook”  and  “The Greenbook Initiative:”

Among the KEY understandings about (a) that publication and (b) the resulting initiative are who published it (NCJFCJ) who were its authors (representing what fields of practice and why were these fields of practice being joined together at this time).  Also, what was a more likely explanation for why, among the professionals who would be sharing this information as to recommended “Policy and Practice” when it came to Domestic Violence and Child Abuse (or “Maltreatment”) it was called “Greenbook.” Some of this I believe I already posted on in Year 2016.

WHY, for example, has it been deemed so important to re-classify criminal activity (such as both those categories of harm are) as a social pathology to be treated, with the leading-edge proponent (the other author, a Susan Schechter, a lawyer, having died since, in 2004) being Jeffrey L. Edleson formerly of UMN School of Social Work, and now not just back at UCBerkeley, but actually Dean of the School of Social Work over (from my perspective living in this metro nine-county area) “here”?

(Note:  there is a different Susan Schechter currently at UCBerkeley School of Law than the co-author of “The Greenbook.”  I DNK if there is a family relationship, but the current Ms. Schechter I see is Lecturer-in-Residence and Director of Field Placements and Co-Director, Student-Initiated Field Placements.  She has a 1982 BA from Washington U School of Law and 1988 J.D. from the Univ. of Pittsburgh.

This link is a 2006 publication, “Past and Present| A  Tribute to Susan Schechter: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement” by Fran S. Danis, U Missouri-Columbia, as shown at NCDSV.org. Footer reads

While colleagues and others often take a near-worshipful attitude to founders of the battered women’s or shelter movement, as can be seen by tributes to this person, or to the late (as of 2012) Ellen Pence, who is to take up the silence of the same movements, that is the feminist, anti-DV, and battered women’s/shelter movement on the impact of welfare reform and the insistence on “treating” abusers and victims, while maintaining a collective and near-total silence on the federal incentives at work in the family court system to force women to interact — protectionless, often, after separation — with ex-batterer parents, and eventually losing either their economic viability (i.e., work lives), or children, or lives, physical, period?  I was listening and readin in on this field for years as a recent DV survivor before running across less “DV Professional” material who actually pointed out the PRWORA effect and the conflicts of interest within the DV field due to their taking grants from the same trough (HHS) as the marriage/fatherhood promoters, sharing positions of power (on the boards of well-known nonprofits representing both women’s rights to NOT be battered, or treated like second-class systems after insisting it stop  –or so we thought — and men’s rights to children as property afterwards)?  I say this having just read from the above resource on where Ms. Schechter stood back in the late 1990s, trying to bring together different fields as one, and then add in the fields of “early childhood education” and “Poverty.”  At the end of the day, despite her JD, it seems the MSW side won out philosophically.

As a member of the vanguard of the battered women’s movement, Schechter was both its historian and visionary, documenting the feminist roots of the antiviolence movement in her book, Women and Male Violence: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement (1982) and extolling advocates to do more. She helped establish the first domes- tic violence shelter in Chicago and then created AWAKE (Advocacy for Women and Kids in Emergencies), the nation’s first domestic violence program in a children’s hospital in Boston. Her experiences in Boston solidified her resolve to bring the child protective and domestic violence systems together to address the co-occurrence of child maltreatment and domestic violence (Ganley & Schechter, 1996; Schechter & Edleson, 1995, 1999). Her  [page break here] most recent work investigated the intersections of domestic violence, early childhood edu- cation, and poverty (Schechter & Knitzer, 2004).

---

Along the way, Susan received her MSW from the University of Illinois at Chicago. She was appointed to the National Advisory Council on Violence Against Women by former Attorney General Janet Reno and former U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and she served on the board of the Family Violence Prevention Fund. Schechter was honored with a National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators’ Leadership in Public Child Welfare Award. At the time of her death she held the position of clinical professor at the School of Social Work at the University of Iowa.

Susan was particularly good at giving voice to the women, adolescents, and children with whom she worked. It seems fitting to use this tribute as a way to share her voice with the feminist social work community and to start with the story of the first days of the battered women’s movement, filled with passion, purpose, and commitment, and ending with a glimpse into her vision for the future.

Train the judges, Train the service providers, Train the Child Support Evaluators, Train the practitioners of the following arenas:

Batterers Intervention Programs (already in place that early, in the 1980s) for behavioral modification as a solution.  Tailoring this for women, or for men, or culturally.

Supervised Visitation Services, prioritizing batterer/ child contact — so long as it was supervised (a concept borrowed, incidentally, from the child protective services arena), which profession has now been a sand trap, a peat bog, and a potent tool for extortion of the NON-offending parent, with the ability to see one’s own children as the reward, and payoffs as the cost of the reward.  Basically, that is extortion.

Coordinated Community Response — all systems need to be reconfigured to accommodate this priority (of course, that they will also be reconfigured, “simultaneously” to accommodate opposite, and conflicting priorities, is not publicized. This CONTINUAL conflict is good for business.

Further on in the same 2006 tribute are some notations about the hierarchy and professionalizing of the fields, and compromising the voice of battered women:

Susan captured the internal and external struggles that were involved in establishing safe places for battered women. Internally, our struggles included the struggle between creating social services or vehicles for social change. Should our services mimic the mainstream, or should we develop something new and different? We struggled not only with how best to deliver services but also with how best to develop our organizations. Even in 1980, when Susan was writing her book, the struggle between grassroots collectives and hierarchical professionalism had already been lost. Today, few shelter programs in this country are run according to a feminist collective model.

Susan also feared that as shelters became more professionalized, the voices of battered women would not be heard except in specifically defined situations. Sad to say, she was correct about that one as well. Today, the voices of battered women are often confined to one or two seats on a board of directors that are reserved for formerly battered women. Arbitrary rules about when former residents may be eligible for volunteering may be even more common.

Again, IF these battered women who fled to shelters at the time knew next to nothing — they were resorting to help from professionals who just were not talking about it, at least to them! —  about the emerging fathers’ rights movement, about the collaborations, when they began to occur pretty darned early, with organizations on the other side of the gender divide, particularly in the context of post-Moynihan Report of 1965 and the powerful resonance of this theme among certain male — and female — professionals later to rise to the forefront of welfare-reform (perpetuated) circles, such as Ron Haskins, Isabel Sawhill (Brookings, the Urban Institute, Board of Directors MDRC (presently), Sara McLanahan (Princeton), Daniel Levy (Children’s Rights Council, formed in the 1980s?), and of course plenty of the powerful women judges involved in the AFCC promoting the “parental alienation” theme as a great legal strategy to counter claims of domestic violence or child abuse)…. then how could they speak about it?

From this same 2006 publication by an assistant professor at University of Missouri-Columbia IN social work:

Susan, along with Jeff Edleson, had the courage to wade into the contentious relationship between the domestic violence and child abuse systems to help each identify new ways of col- laborating to keep both mothers and their children safe while holding abusers accountable for their violence (Schechter & Edleson, 1995). The guiding principles and recommendations of this work, undertaken on behalf of the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and referred to as “the Greenbook,” is a model for multiagency coordination and represents one of the most important contributions of a social work perspective to the movement (Schechter & Edleson, 1999). Unlike other models that collect dust on a bookshelf, the Greenbook Initiative is tracking the outcomes of the implementation of these recommenda- tions across six county demonstration sites throughout the United States (National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence Department, 2006).

A Vision for the Future of the Movement

At the time of her death at age 57, Susan’s vision for the future of the battered women’s movement continued to be centered on the needs of children for the emotional and physical support of mothers who are free to keep their children safe and secure. Building on the success of the Greenbook Initiative, she focused on creating collaborations among domestic violence programs and agencies and organizations that address child welfare, early childhood education, and poverty.

Whether or not the Greenbook was a “success” depends on one’s point of view.  I will say that if the goal was increasingly coordinated, centralized control of two entire fields (as the title implies) under the auspices of two very powerful nonprofits, one of them (NCJFCJ) comprised of in large part, family court judges and at least once sending a family court judge to direct the USDOJ/OVW (referring to Susan B. Carbon, who came from judgeship in New Hampshire — and returned to it afterwards, I believe) and the other one (Family Violence Prevention Fund, now grandiosely titled and international in scope “Futures without Violence”) having been one of the chosen few to grow very big and very fat on VAWA-based, USDOJ/OVW-administered grants (not to mention also grants under Family Violence Prevention and Services Act, that is FVPSA, earlier in time than VAWA, and  as an HHS initiative — that is, AS I RECALL the basis of FVPF’s HHS grants (I did blog it in 2016, and this can be researched easily enough from the grants database itself) … …. and with partners representing the two respective federal agencies HHS and DOJ — and “Evaluation” and “Technical Assistance Partners” taking grants and/or contracts around the whole deal (link below, or simply look up who were the Greenbook Initiative Partners) — then this was a resounding success.

On the other hand, if one is still of the archaic opinion that just perhaps, it’s better to keep the three branches of federal government better separated, and the Executive Branch a little more responsive to the Legislative, rather than vice versa, and if you still believe there is a purpose in representative government as run within jurisdictions, at least at the state level, and not run instead by public/private partnerships accountable only to their own mutual contracts — then one (and I  am certainly “one” of that category) might not think it was such a great idea.

How is it that as far down the road as 2004, a 57-year old woman among the leaders of the shelter movement was not aware of the involvement of fathers’ rights groups in the movement, or of the centralization of it by virtue of the giant-sized grants being focused on “Special Issue Resource Centers” as early as the 1990s?  I figured that out on my own by looking at the HHS grants database which goes back to 1995 and, so far as I know, may have been up and available that far back as well.  However, if it was not, PRWORA was discussed PLENTY among leading feminist organizations at the time of passage and right after (typically those with a more progressive stance seeking more money for welfare-dependent families, including women and children).  How hard, really, would it have been “to put two and two together” and recognize that the access and visitation grants, as promoted heavily by CRC and friends (not to mention Pearson & Thoennes via “Center for Policy Research” in Denver), would be supporting the very “community coordinated response” (CCR) practices being pushed via Ellen Pence et al. up in Duluth, MN (not that plenty of conference circuits were not also taking place also throughout)? As far back as 1992, 1993, Jack Straton PhD was presenting up at Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs (DAIP) questioning the practice of Supervised Visitation; NOMAS (National Organization of Men Against Sexism) was also involved, and this material was very well-circulated, from what I can tell, by the time I separated (not that long after PRWORA passed).  Straton said next to nothing about the funding, however, as I recall.

For what just may have happened to tie Ms. Schechter’s tongue on some of the above might have been who were her publishers, and how early on Mr. Edleson, obviously in a powerful position of influence (presumably back then, from Minnesota) became a major collaborator – take a look at the references from this 2006 Tribute which STILL says nothing about the issues I just raised.

Please look at the years (there is one from 1992, the rest are 1990s forward).  All but two are from nonprofits, and one in 2005, apparently a retrospective, stands alongside the 1982 publication, as being from a Boston location:

References

Ganley, A. L., & Schechter, S. (1996). Domestic violence: A national curriculum for child protective services. San Francisco: Family Violence Prevention Fund.

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, Family Violence Department. (2006). The Greenbook Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.thegreenbook.info/index.htm

Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. Boston: South End.

Schechter, S. (1999). New challenges for the battered women’s movement: Building collaborations and improving public policy for poor women. National Resource Center on Domestic Violence. Retrieved from http://www .NRCDVPublications/BCSDV/Papers/BCS1_col.pdf

Schechter, S. (2000). Expanding solutions for domestic violence and poverty: What battered women with abused children need from their advocates. Harrisburg, PA: National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

Schechter, S. (2005). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered women’s movement. InR. L. Kennedy Bergen, J. L. Edleson, & C. M. Renzetti (Eds.), Violence against women: Classic papers (pp. 198-219). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schechter, S., & Edleson, J. L. (1995). In the best interest of women and children: A call for collaboration between child welfare and domestic violence constituencies. Protecting Children, 11(3), 6-11.

Schechter, S., & Edleson, J. L. (1999). Effective intervention in domestic violence and child maltreatment cases: Guidelines for policy and practice [The Greenbook]. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.

Schechter, S., & Knitzer, J. (2004). Early childhood, domestic violence, and poverty: Helping young children and their families. Ames: University of Iowa, School of Social Work. Retrieved from http://www.uiowa/~socialwk/ publications.html

[Fran S. Danis, PhD, is an assistant professor at the School of Social Work, University of Missouri–Columbia, 720 Clark Hall, Columbia, MO 65211-4470; e-mail: danisf@missouri.edu.]–>>refers to the author of this Tribute I have been quoting here

Surely someone among all these well-read movement-builders, and including I should add, not a few attorneys, was aware that there were “access and visitation” grants of $10M a year being run through the child support systems, affecting custody outcomes; some were also aware that there was (some indicate this only started at $150M/year officially in the year 2006, but I have also references and of course TAGGS.HHS.GOV shows, plenty of marriage/fatherhood promo money, was being administered via Title IV-A of the Social Security Act, that is, under PRWORA, aka 1996 Welfare Reform.