~ ~ ~

Continued from (suggest read first): 4th Quarter 2016 Review Part 1, of Who’s Pushing Things “First 5” (and K12) Public School “Transformation” (Sticky, published 12-13-2016)(short-link ends “-536” approx. 16,300 words)

Link to THIS post, Part 2 (published same day) (short-link ends “-5d8” about 16,300 words w/ intro).

First Five Years Fund also names an LLC which shows up on the Ounce of Prevention Fund (IL domicile) tax returns as a “related organization.”  Why wouldn’t the website FFYF.org, which is so interested in educating the public (and particularly its young children) be more forthcoming about the real ownership, international relationships of nonprofit to controlled entities, and the associated trademarks (held in the private sector) to be sponsored with public funding for private profit?

Even where (off-site) it’s related to fellow philanthropists (shown in Part 1 post) that the organization “First Five Years Fund” is organizing or spearheading the campaign (to increase ECE, that’s “Early Childhood Education”), notice the suffix “LLC” is NOT appended.  However, First Five Years Fund IS an LLC (and the sole member is actually “Ounce of Prevention Fund” the nonprofit organization.  That information is available searching Illinois Business Entities Search site.

Remember, it’s on the public to dig out the information about who is taking public funding from various federal agencies, and what is being done with those funds — by whom, and for whom.  A basic vocabulary of how nonprofits and tax-exempt foundations (i.e., private and/or public) are put together would certainly help — and be a good place to start.  Anyhow, “enjoy.”

Towards the bottom of this post (but written much earlier) I also quote Discover the Networks and the “Center for Media and Democracy” (i.e., Right watching Left, and Left watching Right) around a central organization, “Center for Community Change” (and a person involved) — which I came across following through with “Alliance for Excellent Education” (see my last post in November for more on that).  These are, after all, NETWORKS, and how they network is sometimes revealed in tax returns, including older tax returns.  It sure gets interesting, too….

Again, this post of about 16,000 words follows one of about 7,000 words, both published on the same day.
Continued from: 4th Quarter 2016 Review Part 1, of Who’s Pushing Things “First 5” (and K12) Public School “Transformation” (Sticky, published 12-13-2016)

Link to THIS post, Part 2 (published same day).

An “OUNCE OF  PREVENTION” (Fund):

A word-search of “Ounce of Prevention Fund” (without specifying any state) Form 990s shows a nicely increasing “total assets” figure in Illinois, and another in Florida.  This search is so easy to do, I’ll just post the image here and not tables with active links.  “Search Again”  Can you see in 2013 $51.6M becomes by 2015 $65.1M, that’s Total Gross Assets?

Wonder what those balance sheets and Schedule B of Contributors have to say, or any independent investment managers (subcontractors) might reveal, relative to any grants:

It should probably be mentioned here, that as to early childhood education, those grants to “programs” are now able to go under some circumstances to for-profits, and while federal funding can’t go to the afterschool (after-hours components), it would seem that state money can.  Or, vice versa (look up JumpStart and Acelero, Inc. and their (same person) founder for more details on how the public should pay more than half of the investment into for-profit early childhood development / Head Start operations and just how many umbrella nonprofits and “technical training and assistance” this might involve.

I see (clicking on top link) that this is heavily into “Educare Schools” (which the Inside Philanthropy article didn’t see fit to mention), and that a Fiscal Year 2014 tax return reports (on Part III, Line 4a, Program Service Accomplishments) what was done in Fiscal Year 2015.  Interesting…..

From “EducareSchools.org” we see that from the start, the purpose was to form a national network of public/private partnerships running the “Educare Model” as based on “early childhood development” research — which I hope explains in part why also this is so relevant to any blog dealing with the family courts and custody issues (populated also by specialists in similar fields, and dealing with the custody of minor children for their best interests…..):

http://www.educareschools.org/about/educare-history/

Educare grew from one school in Chicago to a powerful network serving thousands of children in schools across the country.

In 2000, the Ounce of Prevention Fund and the Irving Harris Foundation worked together to create Educare Chicago, an early childhood school serving around 150 children.

And the timeline (same webpage, lower down) shows that an “Educare Icon” was in place by 2001:

I looked under TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System under USPatent and Trademark Office (USPTO.gov) (CLICK HERE to do a basic word search) for the LIVE Educare trademarks (Live & Dead both were 31 total)

Pausing the organization’s explanation of itself to look for the logo’s registration at USPTO.gov….

Serial Number	Reg. Number	Word Mark	Check Status	Live/Dead
1	85503240	4205052	EDUCARE LEARNING NETWORK	TSDR	LIVE
2	76403859	2868355	EDUCARE CENTER	TSDR	LIVE
3	76142200	2626197	EDUCARE IN AMERICA	TSDR	LIVE
4	75582760	2392698	EDUCARE	TSDR	LIVE

(This USPTO-generated table above, if the links remain active (if not, repeat search to generate it again) tells me that the current owners of the top to rows (not the bottom two), which date to 2011 (row one) and ca. 2002 (row two) are, at least now, an LLC at the Chicago Address called, it says, “EDUCARE FOUNDERS LLC,” although the Educare Center one was originally registered by the nonprofit “Ounce of Prevention Fund.”  Look at the Goods and Services described under each.

I found none still live with any logo resembling the one found above, however, an abandoned one formed in 2005 (abandoned within the year) by an Omaha “Bounce Mark LLC did show up under the category “Dead” as to registered marks:

Row 4, above, the simple word “Educare” referred to classes and seminars showing nurses how to dress wounds.  Interesting.

---

CONTINUING the EDUCARESCHOOLS.org (Model) quote:

 

Three years later, the Buffett Early Childhood Fund and the Ounce joined forces to expand Educare and help narrow the achievement gap for more children living in poverty by building more schools and creating a network of early learning champions around the country.

Well, there’s the organization purpose — expand “EDUCARE” by building more schools and creating a network … sound like a franchise system yet? ???  Another source of trademark lookups, for what it’s worth (viewed today 11/29/2016) “Justia Trademarks” shows this Delaware LLC owning just two (as above) of the trademarks:

The Educare Model (from website) is obviously a sale and marketing model, making sure the proprietary branding permeates the field:

[“Let’s Get Honest” decided to narrate the above image:] This image shows (left square, for tan interior squares) the “Four Core Features” and like any good manufacturing process, will have outcomes inside living human beings (see purple circle) which are somehow segregated in output to two tan squares at the right, at top “Increased Student Achievement and Kindergarten readiness” (for the little ones) and, without descriptive adjectives, but obviously a whole different sector, Parent and family OUTCOMES. So, the parent and family are being operated upon by the Educare Model, or its implementation that is, while (not on the chart) this all being in implementation hooked up with Public/Private Partnerships, the same parents and family will be propping up the “Public” partnership up front, by reduced net income, i.e., by being taxed — that is where families actually have a living wage in the first place. ….

The model as paraphrased on organization website:

The Educare model is based on research from early childhood development, education, social work and other allied fields. Four core features compose the Educare model: data utilization, embedded professional development, high-quality teaching practices and intensive family engagement.

Strong leadership at Educare schools supports the implementation of the model and develops the culture for high-quality early childhood education and family support services. We also connect with community-based programs that help children and families access additional resources, such as health and mental health services.

Our four core features work together in a comprehensive and intentional way to achieve a high-quality early childhood program that helps children from birth to age 5 grow up safe, healthy and eager to learn. Educare prepares children for success in school and life, and helps parents develop the skills they need to champion their child’s education.

It being assumed that without Educare (or similar) intervention, most parents wouldn’t have the skills to raise their own children or prepare them for the failing public school systems they WILL, someday, enter, unless by the time they turn 5, alternatives become available as they are to the wealthy, and to some others who opt for religious schools, homeschooling apart from the charter school system (which is still categorized as public school, although chartered and run differently), etc.

Getting back now to the nonprofit, OUNCE OF PREVENTION FUND (IL) and its $65M of assets and Fiscal Year 2014 (ending in 2015) tax return, as to evidence of competence, and ethics, in — filling out tax returns.

Gross receipts $ 70,647,347 — of that, $68M is direct contributions.  Of the $68M direct contributions, Part VIII says that $33+M is government and $34+M not government but private (plus a minor amount, fund-raising event, and a minor amount “training.” So it’s barely majority privately funded.  This high government amount is probably because of the involvement of Head Start (originated in the 1960s) funding streams in large part.  Their “Key Personnel” and officers list is paid over $2M, and the subcontractors are significant (see Parts VIIA and VIIB, respectively).  $22M total was spent on salaries, with over 300 employees reported.

Actually another trip through just one tax return (including showing that its gross receipts are somehow listed as $4M lower than its “Total Revenues” which is technically impossible.  Revenues (Top section of any Form 990 – 2008 or after, different line#s, but still top part prior years), Lines 8-12 are so-labeled) are totaled on Line 12; and part of them is NET (not Gross) , and when Gross receipts (Blank labeled “G” in the header section) are sometimes MUCH higher than Revenues, the reason usually is some assets were sold, and the cost of selling them is the big difference between the two.

Here’s Year Fiscal Year 2014 for “Ounce of Prevention Fund, EIN# 363186328” in Chicago (whole return posted at 990finder) <== please look at Page 1 Header Line G $70M, versus Part I, Line 12, Total Revenues, $74M. ALSO, somehow Line 10, investment income” was literally 4 times higher than the prior year.  ($1.4M vs. $5.6M).  That alone should’ve alerted someone connected with the organization that unless their investments had undergone some REAL significant alterations within a single year, something was off on, specifically, Line 10.  But, nope…

Couldn’t you figure out what’s wrong if the rules (IRS Form 990 instructions) were (and, they are):

• A + B + C + D (for Lines 8,9,10 & 11) = E  (for Line 12, Total revenues) and
• G (for gross) is always greater than E

And the application of those rules to the FY2014 form produces this outcome:

• G = $70M and E = $74M, therefore here, G is NOT greater than E. (it’s roughly 95% of E).

Before actually submitting the return, the G =/= greater than E result should produced a checkup on the figures, and corrections. But, it didn’t.

In the IRS form instructions, components of “D” line 10 refer to the Statement of Revenues (Pt. VIII) page, which gives details to be added to enter the summary page total; and they clearly include a “net” figure, not the gross on that details page).

SIGNIFICANCE OF THIS TYPE OF ERROR (ONE AMONG MANY): Logically speaking, for a group featuring, of all things producing little children ready to learn “outcomes,” that scenario shows there is a mistake on the filling out of the form.  But “when about half or more (in prior years, it was much more) of contributions are only government money anyhow — who cares?” apparently is the real rule in effect.

(Here’s probably why the $4M error on page 1): ounce-of-prevention-il-ein363186328-form-990-pt-viii-lines-7abc-show-3-7m-cost-to-sell-929k-assets=a-4-6m-profit-huh-fyr-2014-ye2015-png

click HERE to see it full-sized (from Part VIII, Line 7 of 2014 Return)

And that’s just the beginning of the craziness, incompetency, or “who gives a damn?” symptoms even a first glance at this tax return (by me at least) showed up.

Click HERE to see (full-sized) this Sched R excerpt showing FFYF and BOUNCE LLCs and a single “DC” nonprofit with a Chicago mailing address (FY2014 Ounce of Prevention Fund Form 990)

Both showed me FFYF as an LLC (not a nonprofit) with $8M income (that year) at the same street address  in Chicago as a Related Organization.

The year before, it had $4M income.

and several serious MATH and FOLLOWING IRS INSTRUC-TIONS — as well as SORT, LABEL and CATEGORIZE — dysfunctions among whoever (among its 99% volunteer, 1 hour a week board of directors) signed off on the return.  Board (Pt VIIA X-marks) show only a single paid officer (the COO)=.  As well as failure to report $19M of expenses claimed under Program Service Accomplishment 4d (while reporting — split across several pages) on Program Service Accomplishment 4c and typing in “See Additional Data” — but the total at the top of Program Area 4c on the form is far lower than the actual total represented under “4c” accomplishments.

Prior year’s returns, (FY2013 complete return here) they didn’t play the Line 4d / 4c “switcheroo,” simply claimed expenses, grants, and revenues under “4d” which is labeled “explain on Schedule O” — and at least on this database, no explanation appears on its one-page Schedule O. So, $16M out of $49M total expenses (about one-third) remain completely unexplained on the tax return!

Text for 2013 Pt. III, (P2 bottom), Lines 4c, 4d, and page Total for “Ounce of Prevention Fund” (IL)

4c (Code)  (Expenses $ 5,075,395 including grants of $ 1,000,001 ) (Revenue $

The National Policy Team and Educare Learning Network (ELN) extend the impact of the Ounce’s extensive early childhood knowledge and expertise in states across the country through consultation and technical assistance on program, public policy and systems work, research and evaluation, organizational capacity building, and philanthropic engagement strategies The ELN is a multi-state collective of Educare schools that provides and promotes high-quality, outcomes-based learning environments for vulnerable children, birth to five, and their families The ELN also assists in the cultivation of key stakeholder relationships in communities nationwide that are interested in developing and operating Educare schools that best serve the needs of at-risk children and families

4d Other program services (Describe in Schedule 0 )
(Expenses $ 16,216,994 including grants of $ 417,219 )(Revenue $ 49,918

Total Program Expenses:   <span style=”background-color: yellow;”>

Image for the above quote (bottom of page 2, part of page 3 identifying at least the year; note: header doesn’t even name the organization or include its EIN#. )..Click here to read my annotations and image full-size (also represented by the above quote, but in context): annotated-yr2013-990-oz-of-prevntn-il-pt-iii-lines-4cd-16m-expenses-unaccounted-for-on-sched-o-top-of-p3-ll1-2-image-2016-11-30-at-1-28pmpdf

The above image (and link to see it in pdf form full-size) as the form header (to p3 top) shows is for Year 2013, not 2014. It is for comparison of whether the organization is following IRS instructions to fully identify program activities labeled “Other” which — in this year (expenses $16M) or in year 2014 (similarly high) it did NOT. The image immediately below, (Addit’l Info for Program Service Accomplishments Line 4c) however, is for Year 2014. It is also one of several “Addit’l Info” pages for Pt. III, Line 4c, Year 2014, for no particular reason not listed all on one page.

RE: Fiscal Year 2014 Tax Return Part of the “Additional Data” is also labeled “Five Years Fund” and with it, expenses of over $5M:

PART of details of Progr Service Accomplishment 4c, under “See additional Data” instruction (misplaced under 4c; 4d exists for that purpose, which then says “put it on Schedule O) — this is where FFYF shows up as a program. BUT — above — it’s also an owned Disregarded LLC (with over $5M income that year) with a mailing address matching Ounce of Prevention/Chicago (although as a Delaware Org)

All of which are skills that SOMEONE ought to have learned (and continued to apply as adults) by, say, 5th grade maximum (I.e., what is the difference between a negative and a positive, and when recording an “expense” or cost — in what world, could this be somehow a negative?  Also, who is simply signing tax returns without filing them — or does this one we are looking at here represent the one the IRS got, in its latest revision, if any revision or correction exists?

Good Grief this should be its own, stunned, post about An Ounce of Prevention – Practice What You Preach, please!

Photo appears to have been uploaded Jan 2016 to Linchpin Strategies site

…Catriona’s experience on Capitol Hill includes working for Senator Edward Kennedy on the Senate Labor Committee; staffing domestic social issues and appropriations for Congressman Steny Hoyer, the current House Minority Whip; and serving as the Legislative Director for Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro,the current Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education. Her experience in the executive branch includes working as a budget and policy analyst in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Management and Budget at the US Department of Health and Human Services.

She received her B.S. in Foreign Service from Georgetown University, and a Master’s in Public Policy from the Harvard University Kennedy School of Government.

(from Inside Philanthropy December 2014, we see an idea in part from Chicago — former Senatorial home of current (as of this writing) US President Barack Obama):

Meet the Funders Behind the First Five Years’ Fund by L.S. Hall

…Earlier this year, there was My Brother’s Keeper, a $200 million initiative to provide greater support to boys and young men of color. This week brought news of a much larger partnership focused on early childhood education. President Obama announced a new $1 billion public-private campaign to expand the availability of preschool programs for children across the country.

The proportion of Public to Private was $700 million (“Washington”) to $300 million (philanthropists), remember? In other words, public was about 70%.  While the private gets to build relationships with the subcontractors (sometimes ex-Capitol Hill employees) and vice versa.

Where’s does the money coming from for this oufit?## We’re glad you asked, because it’s a good window into the funding terrain for ECE, which is evolving fast, but where several long-time players remain pretty dominant players.

A Who’s Who of early childhood education funders comprise the biggest partners of FFYF. Partners listed on the FFYF website include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Buffett Early Childhood Fund, the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, the Irving Harris Foundation, the Packard Foundation, the George Kaiser Family Foundation, and Heising-Simons Foundation.**

Another supporter, who we’ve recently written about is J.B. Pritzker, the Chicago philanthropist who’s kicking in $25 million to support the White House push

##re: “Where’s does the money coming from for this outfit?” I’m not sure I would have phrased it that way (sounds like a simple copyediting oversight — the word “does” removed would correct the grammar.  I make similar mistakes — but I’m not paid to write, nor is this blog anything close to Inside Philanthropy), but make up your mind — is FFYF an entity or an effort, an organization, or an “outfit”?  

The following paragraph does provide some more homework for anyone who actually wants to find the money (wouldn’t a simple list of foundation names AND their granting EIN#s, amounts and over which years have been a nice write-up?  But journalists for on-lines promoting an entire sector aren’t about to do that kind of write-up, which would show the public’s “right to know” foremost, and not the sector’s “we’re the good guys” slant foremots.

**About that next “Who’s Who of ECE comprises the FFYF funders” listed as “partners” from their website (showing that perhaps this writer hasn’t finished the tracking it down homework, either…)

The next paragraph from the article (which I didn’t quote, but can be read here: Meet the Funders Behind the First Five Years’ Fund by L.S. Hall) systematically identifies each foundation in the list, identifying key interest areas or geographic location EXCEPT the Heising-Simons Foundation, which turns out to be in Northern California, specifically only two counties, one of which entails Silicon Valley, and it was only formed in 2007.  (that link describes):

Heising-Simons is a young foundation, established in 2007 by the husband-and-wife team of Mark Heising and Liz Simons, who serve as trustees. It is headquartered in Los Altos Hills, California.

The foundation’s early childhood education grantmaking has three primary interests: transition to kindergarten, early math, and family engagement, as well as a general “other interests” category. Activities funded within the foundation’s areas of interest include research and evaluation, policy development, advocacy, teacher preparation and development, and direct services. Funding for direct services, however, occurs within geographic limits. An organization must serve Santa Clara or San Mateo county to receive such funding. Organizations across the state and nation can apply for funding for other activities, such as research, evaluation, and policy advocacy.

Well my curiosity tells me that this couple is second-generation hedge fund wealth, and with (her) Daddy James Simon (retired hedge fund mogul) have made Forbes “Top 50 Givers List” as noted Oct. 5, 2016 by Katia Savchuk (Forbes Staff).  It also shows how Liz Simons’ siblings also got their own foundations for other (sounds like progressive) causes.  His wealth, it turns out, in a 2016 article, is about $16 billion — why would the other article “forget’ to then identify that Heising-Simons foundation?

Two Generations of Givers:  How the Simons Family Passed on the Philanthropy Gene

james Simons and daughter Liz among Top 50 Givers of 2015, photo courtesy Liz Simons

The family patriarch, who retired from his hedge fund firm, Renaissance Technologies, six years ago, is humble about his role in passing on his zeal for philanthropy. “I’m just lucky to have great children,” he says.

---

Liz says her father did a lot more than that, serving as an example and encouraging his children to engage with societal issues. She remembers going on a trip to Colombia with him when she was 12 years old. It was the first time she had seen extreme poverty. “I talked a lot with my dad about the inequities in the world and how we really need to give back,” she recalls. “My parents inculcated a feeling of warmth and connection in the family, but they also did a wonderful job of helping us see what was going on in the larger world.” …

---

His mother was a homemaker, and his father, who didn’t attend high school, worked as a film salesman and shoemaker. Simons graduated from MIT and later got a Ph.D. in math at UC Berkeley. He worked as a codebreaker during the Vietnam War but later spoke out against the conflict…Simons started giving to charity after the success of his firm, Renaissance Technologies, a quantitative trading pioneer that he founded in 1978. …  Finally, in 1994, he launched the James & Marilyn Simons Foundation with his wife, and nearly a decade later they decided to focus primarily on supporting basic science. […and autism, it says…]

…Through the foundation and other charitable vehicles, James and Marilyn Simons have given away $2.1 billion through 2015. FORBES estimates that Simons’ net worth is $16.5 billion. … 

Liz was in her early thirties when her dad and stepmother started their foundation. From the get-go, Simons created what he called “carve outs,” giving his older children a few thousand dollars to give as they pleased through the foundation (Liz opted for the Nature Conservancy and educational charities). …

In 2007, largely with funding from trusts her father had created for her, Liz launched the Heising-Simons Foundation with her husband, the founder of Medley Partners, an investment firm. … Liz’s interest in early childhood education dates back to the five years she spent working as a teacher in inner-city public schools in California. “I started to see that the children who’d had positive early childhood education experiences came to me more prepared. If we help children when they’re young, we have the chance to see a better world,” she says. She adds that she sought her dad’s advice along the way, and she sits on the board of Math for America.

…Her daughter, Caitlin Heising, who is 26, is on the board of her parents’ foundation and has started building up a human rights program focused on criminal justice.

Why doesn’t that last topic surprise me, from this crowd?

Apparently the road to redemption for the rich is paved along “Foundation Way,” with trips abroad  to understand extreme poverty in South America (there not being enough in the USA to see anymore?) and some SHORT stints in inner city public schools as trust fund babies suffices to understand the public school system, versus private, and why the right solution is just investing more in it, and obtaining philanthropic leverage for transformation.

Seems to me I heard the same overall “foundations and their local nonprofits can fix it” rationale regarding the family court system — it’s a good, decent system, just “flawed” and broken, so setting up and then continuing to “enhance“…

(Family Court Enhancement Project, ca. 2008, right after the Greenbook Initiative concluded and another S.C. Johnson (family empire) Wingspread Conference in Racine, WI, was held by NCJFCJ and AFCC, right?)(<==all searchable terms or phrases, I have blogged in part, not stopping to plug in the links this time) 

the existing superstructure of nonprofit organizations (which ‘certainly’ were not a key part of the original “flaw”) to steer it in the direction it should go, will solve the problems that have surfaced, continually.

This approach ensures no genuine, informed and ongoing discussion of whether or not the actual design may have been intentional, and itself corrupted and encouraging further corruption of the legal process, as the public school system sure does seem to perpetuate the “separate but unequal” platform (when compared to the private system) caste and class divisions.  Better to ameliorate the bottom end of the lower-caste system than actually break that system for genuine competition with inherited wealth already in place by the mid- to late-1900s)…

This moved material is now in the middle of this new post, labeled:  “FIRST 5 MATERIAL, FROM 2016 TOC” followed by this title in red and this size font:

“First 5” lookup led to the “First Five Years Fund.”  

Organizationally and Geographically, they are different, but Politically and Economically, they are related:  

I added some commentary at the top, but more at the bottom of the post under “INTRO, Cont’d.”.

“INTRO., cont’d.”

All told, the moved material should be about 6,000 – 8,000 words max. … but does not including an arbitrary “Drill-down” on a recent organization (actually, network of organizations) I was just looking at…so marked under this Section Title “INTRO., cont’d.”

MORE DRILL-DOWN, WHAT LOOKING AT ONE ENTITY’S TAX RETURN CAN SHOW,

WITH FOLLOW-THROUGH (LIKE OTHER PARTS OF THE SAME NETWORK, AND FROM THERE, AN OVERVIEW OF THEIR PRACTICES….).**

(**most of which has become a continuation post from this one).

It’s all really introduction, but because mine tend to get a little “over-enthusiastic,” using long sentences to make all the summary points possible, I made a tactic decision (sic) that it goes last, not first.  At the end of the day (see bottom of this post) further “drill-down” on the same basic entities got moved “offsides,” link provided at the bottom.

INTRO.,

The drill-down section got a little out of hand, as a board member in common with one of the shape-shifter nonprofits back in 2006 turned out to be (at least in 2016) earning a nice salary at a much larger and older progressive 501©3 called “Center for Community Change” formed back in 1968 (the era of CDBGs — Community Development Block Grants, the Great Society, and Civil Rights Movements taking back neighborhood control, or so it was said).

(BillMoyers.com, Oct. 2013, “Activists to Watch“).  In showing and talking about this, a lot of “drill-down” (tax return imagery) and website (organizational, or reporting on the organizations and their leaders) is required.

It gets messy, but one type of drill-down allows one to understand* the difference between reality and purpose-related propaganda. (*Without hearsay or argumentation — once you’ve seen it and can establish what was told the IRS as at least, facts on the organization reported to the IRS).

So, How Soros-Savvy Are You?  What are the Open Society / Soros those foundations positioning themselves for next?

Is the intention really that different from the conservative right-wing networks also allegedly concerned with fixing (transforming, privatizing) so many public institutions in networked foundation?

What would you say if I could show you related foundations with overlapping personnel we are supposed to believe are on the opposite political side from each other?  For an example, notice how the same supposedly opposing political sides of the aisle (USA) voted together when it came to welfare reform and promoting marriage/fatherhood, with some quid pro quo silence from the already paid-for- DV cartel feminists* on what was actually taking place.  This also applies to the theme of transforming the (public) schools for success for all children. (*Not to be confused with all feminists.)

I saw another example yesterday. One had on it Betsy Devos, Republican through and through, and another, related, was absolutely identified with the progressive Open Societies Institute causes.  Both featured fixing the schools, redeeming the schools, closing the achievement gap, themes.

Until you’ve looked at the network, including closely at individual pieces of it, and how they interact (are interlaced), you still don’t know “squat.”  I’ve been looking seven years and am still shocked to see the collaborations of supposedly (if mainstream media were the most insightful source of truth) antagonistic political parties.  Perhaps a closer look will reveal what’s theater of the “bread and circuses” type, and what’s brewing underneath, and among the collaborating networks of nonprofits and their respective investment platforms, poised to act in unison at command of those controlling if necessary and when necessary.

This has already been witnessed a number of times in recent history; you’d think we’d learn more from the examples.  Unfortunately, it’s hard to learn if one is easily distracted.

The next link to “A Closer Look” post is integral part of this one; it was written first, then moved.

A Closer Look at “The Trade of the [previous] Century,” and some of the related Soros/Open Society Foundations, Their Ownership, Investments, and Activities (per Forms 990/990PF)

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

Same individual Deepak Bhargava as profiled on the right-leaning “Discover the Networks” “individual digital profile”). (NOTE:  the link is still good, the DTN website page has just been updated //LGH during Fri. Sept. 27, 2019 quick review, thinking of re-tweeting or posting).

For who’s behind “Discover the Networks,” when in doubt, I click on “Donate Button” which shows an on-line service with notation “David Horowitz” not to mention reference The David Horowitz Freedom Center, a 501©3 at the bottom.

Formed in 1984, a California Corporation, two board members are married, and (the year I looked) two family members were also hired to work.  Mostly privately funding, and it apparently takes officers /board paid a total of $1.4M and several (direct-mail type) independent contractors paid over $100K, including a campaign strategy planner from Virginia, to keep all this going:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

1 Briefly describe the organization ‘s mission

THE DEFENSE OF FREE SOCIETIES WHOSE MORAL, CULTURAL AND ECONOMIC FOUNDATIONS ARE UNDER ATTACK BY ENEMIES BOTH SECULAR AND RELIGIOUS, AT HOME AND ABROAD

And that’s only the start of their projects….more of which are fed the viewers only two per page on un-dated, unlabeled “Schedule O,” like this (It has the EIN# but not the Year)

David Horowitz Freedom Center (runs ‘Discover the Networks’ which I was quoting) projects list on Sched O (EIN#954194642, Yr. 2014) #1 of sev’l images

EIN#954194642, Yr 2014, Sched O (image 2 of sevl in re: Discover the Networks) = David H’witz Freedom Ctr

EIN#954194642 (DH Freedom Center, a CA Org since 1984) Sched O, Yr 2014, describes “Discover the Networks” as a Sched-O project

EIN#954194642, DH FreedomCentr Sched O (last detail) 2014, “The Indiv Rights Foundatn” ($50K for a network of lawyers re PC language on College campuses)

The images detail, 2 each:  

• FrontpageMage.com & The West Coast Retreat;
• JihadWatch.com (Rob’t Spencer) and Caroline Glick (this page didn’t include the EIN#, or year as image shows)
• Texas Weekend (shortened “West Coast Weekend) and Freedom Center’s Wednesday Morning (where conservatives can meet Hollywood figures/Entertnmt industry)
• Discover the Networks (expenses: $121K) and “Students for Academic Freedom”
• Individual Rights Foundation (A network of lawyers who “helped defend the Boy Scouts against the ACLU”

At the end of my last session working on this post, I was attempting to track $476,700 donated to an organization “Young Invincibles” which is still (on its website) claiming to be using the Center for Community Change as a fiscal agent, but on checking up on that, was registered three years ago in DC, and one year ago with a related (?) nonprofit labeled “Young Invincibles Action,” while also claiming to be itself acting as a fiscal agent for a third group, “National Leadership Policy Council” — targeting millennials.

The drilldowns take time, follow-through and sometimes are exhausting as you are taking ONE entity and tracking the relationships among several entities, and tracking change over time.  By the time you’ve been wading in the muddy swamp/ maze of related organizations with shifting names, addresses, and status (active or revoked), plus the related websites, and making sense of it, the primary color, photo-filled of friendly faces and repeated declarations using the words “we,” “us” and “ours” to describe issues for which a natural human empathy would and should be proper (racism, sexism, poverty, failing schools, etc.) definitely lose their impact and are shown to be, in effect, simply dishonest.

Introducing this post, with the perspective of having come to “Center from Community Change” through the back door, so to speak (I was looking at a different organization, and noticed he was added to the board on it second year of operation — will show below or in related/spinoff post), I see this “CIS” (Center for Immigration Studies — I’d peg this one on the outset as somewhat conservative, but I just now found it) talks about the CCC backing foundations:

CIS.org is the main website

Meet Deepak Bhargava: Well-Connected, Well-Funded Immigration Activist by Jerry Kammer, 2012

 . . . .Bhargava is well connected with the Obama administration. One of his former CCC board members is Cecilia Munoz; once a top official of the National Council of La Raza, she is now in charge of domestic policy issues for the White House.

[[this author then notes he’s in favor of letting the “Dream Children” stay, after all, they grew up here — before going on to talk about CCC funding]]

According to the group’s 2010 filing to the IRS as a public charity, CCC received $65.9 million in funding over the previous five years. It has distributed a significant amount of that money to grassroots organizations around the country, many of which advocate for comprehensive immigration reform. In recent years, CCC has also directed the Fair Immigration Reform Movement (FIRM) “to establish communication and alliances across cultural, ethnic, racial, and social divides.”

According to the Source Watch project at the liberal Center for Media and Democracy, CCC has had several dozen institutional funders, including such powerhouse foundations as the Atlantic Philanthropies, the Carnegie Foundation, the Annie E. Casey Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Four Freedoms Fund, the William Randolph Hearst Foundation, the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, the Open Society Institute, and the Tides Foundation.

(This is the list at “SourceWatch” on CCC as of today):

• Arca Foundation, Arkay Foundation, Atlantic Philanthropies, Bauman Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Annie E. Casey Foundation, Nathan Cummings Foundation, Ford Foundation, Four Freedoms Fund, Frances Fund of the Solidago Foundation, Evelyn & Walter Haas, Jr. Foundation, William Randolph Hearst Foundation, Hill-Snowdon Foundation, HKH Foundation, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Marguerite Casey Foundation, Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Moriah Fund, Open Society Institute, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Peninsula Community Foundation, Public Welfare Foundation, Rockefeller Foundation, Rosenberg Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Tides Foundation, Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock, Women Donors Network[2]

Backed by such big bucks, Bhargava, a former legislative director at ACORN and a current member of the national advisory board of the Open Society Institute, has done well for himself. According to CCC’s 2010 IRS filing, his annual compensation package totaled $194,000.

Since 2005, CCC has received more than $3 million from Carnegie alone, including a $1 million grant in 2010 that — according to Carnegie — would “help immigrants advocate for their needs and participate effectively in civic life.” Another $1 million grant from Carnegie this year hailed the organization’s history of “forging partnerships between immigrant communities and African-American, faith-based, low-income white, unions, and other groups.”

So, who backs the CIS?  Well, they are a DC organization, it says, since 1985, and I see taking collections through PayPal, as well as CFC (Combined Federal Contributions — they can get listed on federal employees options to automatically (?) donate from their wages, a definite advantage for groups), state their position and solicit interns for free research help.  They also say “we are a 501©3 but decline to provide a number or post any Form 990s…  The website lists board of directors (take a look– some links are active and there’s retired military, people with US Treasury background, and more):

The Center for Immigration Studies is the nation’s only think tank devoted exclusively to the research of U.S. immigration policy and is a leading voice in the drive to inform policymakers and the public about immigration’s far-reaching impact. The Center is animated by a unique pro-immigrant, low-immigration vision which seeks fewer immigrants but a warmer welcome for those admitted.

Undergraduate interns are accepted for all semesters. Work hours, typically 20-35 hours per week, are flexible and unpaid. Interns assist the Center’s staff with a variety of research, media relations, and administrative tasks. Also, interns will likely attend and summarize into blog postings the Center’s events, Congressional hearings, and other immigration related events.

It’s nice to know what animates any nonprofit, but I also like to see who funds it and how it spends its funds.  This nonprofit, while reporting on other nonprofits and their funders and their (case in point here) executive directors, certainly hasn’t made it that easy, although there’s no problem facilitation donations by providing links on their contact form:

Center for Immigration Studies
1629 K Street N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20006
Phone: (202) 466-8185
Fax: (202) 466-8076
Support the Center

Prod the surface a little further, and I find a small organization (about the size of “The David Horowitz Freedom Center” as far as assets, although not getting quite the support) — NONE of the board work more than 1 hour a week, no other officers are identified other than the Board Chairman (Peter Nunez) and an Executive Officer, the only paid officer — and he’s paid $164K, so complaints (on the site) about someone else’s Executive Officer having gotten $30K more in 2010 seems a little “sour grapes,” or hypocritical.  The organization also admits that it’s getting most of its support from “several foundations” (unnamed) and does not even meet the 33% level qualifying for charity status — but it deserves it anyhow under “Facts and Circumstances Text” because it does get 22% and has a diverse governing, and is seeking public support, and incurring considerable expenses doing so (Image may be seen at back of the “2014” tax return on the link provided in table below:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Center for Immigration Studies	DC	2014	990	29	$3,182,063.00	52-1449368
Center for Immigration Studies	DC	2013	990	27	$2,707,614.00	52-1449368
Center for Immigration Studies	DC	2012	990	26	$2,649,757.00	52-1449368

It’s not giving grants to anyone; the money is going mostly to employees.

As CIS was just above quoting “SourceWatch,” which is a project of The Center for Media and Democracy (“CMD” for short), notice its self-description as watching the big bad corporations on the right side of the aisle (found at “PRWatch/What We Do,” another of their projects):

The Center for Media and Democracy is a national watchdog group that conducts in-depth investigations into corruption and the undue influence of corporations on media and democracy.  

It should be noted that “corporations” and their undue influence apparently only exist on the other side of the political spectrum, no matter which side is reporting. … see next few paragraphs:

The findings of CMD’s investigative journalism are regularly cited by the leading national and state newspapers in the U.S.,

…CMD is led by Lisa Graves, who formerly served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General at the U.S. Department of Justice and Chief Counsel for Nominations for the chair of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, among other strategic research and analysis roles in Washington, DC. Her vision and determination help drive CMD’s substantive focus and the power of its credible story-telling. These exposés reveal how some of the most powerful corporations in the world manipulate public policy, elections, and some in the media in ways that undermine real democracy.

What kind of citation to such a high post as “Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the US” wouldn’t continue the phrase “under the ___ Administration” or reference a year?  As it turns out, the answer is Clinton Administration — but that could’ve easily mentioned by the organization.  Her own LinkedIn (public page) reiterates that she’s exposing the bad guys, and drops hints, but still doesn’t fess up:  “…I’m an investigative researcher and writer working to pierce through clouds of disinformation by publishing compelling stories that expose the bad guys corrupting our democracy. I paint joyous paintings in my free time.”

A short Wikipedia also on Ms. Graves shows she was Cornell J.D. among the footnotes has a 2013 article on an anonymous donor to the CMD, i.e., a “right” watchdog organization watching this progressive one…. “Progressive Watchdog Group gets Two Big Anonymous Donations” (Jack Craver, the Capital Times, 12/7/2013):

Linda Graves of CMD, shown in a Dec. 2013 “Capital Times” article — from Wikipedia footnotes on Ms. Graves

“Right-wingers have been chortling over an article by the conservative Wisconsin Reporter — part of the national Watchdog.org network — that accuses the Center for Media and Democracy, a progressive group that seeks to expose “dark money” in politics, of engaging in the very behavior that it denounces.

“Wisconsin Reporter noted that in recent years CMD has received $520,000 from the Schwab Charitable Fund, a “donor-advised fund” that contributors use to keep their donations to nonprofits anonymous. Other CMD donors are listed on the group’s website.

“WR suggested CMD is playing by different rules than the ones it wishes to impose on conservative group (etc….)

(Quote, continued from PRWatch, “What we do” above)
CMD’s breakthrough investi-gations of the Koch Brothers, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and its American City County Exchange (ACCE), the State Policy Network (SPN), and numerous corporations and corporate-front groups have sparked national debate and ignited waves of related reporting by other journalists in numerous outlets and in leading national magazines. CMD’s reporting has also built on excellent investigative reports in magazines like the New Yorker, Mother Jones, and more.

CMD also publishes the online news journal, PRWatch; a specialized encyclopedia about corporations, their CEOs, and corporate-funded front groups, SourceWatch; a clearinghouse for news about ALEC and its award-winning investigation, ALECexposed.org; and other specialized investigative websites, like ALECclimatedenial.org.

OK, so here’s another Form 990 for CMD showing it for the SMALL organization it actually is — with 7 board of directors, only 2 officers (one President, unpaid, and Lisa Graves Exec Director, paid only $67K).  The top year, it got about $1M donations (a little higher than average), and spent most of it, including a $10K grant (the only grant) to “The Progressive,” also in Madison, Wisconsin — and which she apparently publishes  The Progressive, with more assets, still seems to be spending them down:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Center for Media and Democracy	WI	2014	990	32	$402,123.00	39-1777402
Center for Media and Democracy	WI	2013	990	26	$201,223.00	39-1777402
Center for Media and Democracy	WI	2012	990	24	$393,453.00	39-1777402

($10K grant was given to this organization in 2014, per top return above):

center-mediademocracy-cmd-ein391777402-small-does-sourcewatch-in-wilisa-graves-10k-grant-to-theprogressive-ein390773233-where-shes-also-execdir.png
November 23, 2016

Total results: 3. Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME	ST	YR	FORM	PP	TOTAL ASSETS	EIN
Progressive, Inc.	WI	2014	990	27	$964,160.00	39-0773233
Progressive, Inc.	WI	2013	990	22	$893,242.00	39-0773233
Progressive, Inc.	WI	2012	990	21	$1,061,230.00	39-0773233

The Progressive, unlike “CMD” has some program service revenue — (subscriptions) and larger donations.  It has only 4 independently voting members of the governing board (!) and Lisa Graves of CMD gets also $37K here (putting her total salary at $104K + benefits), and President Matthew I. Rothschild is also paid.  They have 30 employees, and a high percentage of “Other Expenses” compared to total (Part IX, Line 11g) as does CMD.  Claims origins are since 1909.

THE PROGRESSIVE, INC PUBLISHES THE PROGRESSIVE MAGAZINE, PRODUCES EDUCATIONAL TELEVISION AND RADIO PROGRAMS, AND DISTRIBUTES EDITORIAL MATERIAL TO LOCAL AND NATIONAL NEWSPAPERS.

Here’s another critique of CMD posting more (than I did above) of its tax returns, but meanwhile, couldn’t the same amount of focus be spent on the huge foundations, instead?

Anyhow…

I have just seen through reading so many tax returns (and websites) in one family line involved in multiple nonprofits on this post (the Leeds, and Jobin-Leeds heirs / trust babies) even just within one married couple, campaigns playing both sides of the gender divide.  The wife’s part is featured for its feminism, and the husband’s under the label of adjusting for racism, sponsors studies featuring “men and boys” which is a direct play along (for those aware of the situation) the federal responsible fatherhood policy which foundations BOTH progressive and conservative have bought in, eagerly.

At a certain point, my gut response to seeing all this is simply disgust.  There is no sense of accountability towards the public, or the common good when it comes to telling the truth about the organizations themselves. And we, the public, have let this go on year after year (decade after decade), being dragged into arguments about causes without understanding of basic operations.

So, I am hoping, exhorting, call if begging if you want, that other people will start doing some look-ups on foundations all excited about sponsoring standardizing the education system (early childhood, whether preK or Zero to 5) as well as all other levels, and scrutinize just who is involved and how their corporate holdings are related, as well as how honorably are the many nonprofits associated with the same behaving.  

One thing I am not doing is relying on “hoping” that this will occur anytime soon.  My post is here if nothing else for a witness in time, and a message to those involved in using nonprofit status for private gain and to bastardize the basic government of the United States into a private utopian vision (whether progressive or “right-wing regressive” when it comes to the same categories the progressives pride themselves on protecting) using others troubles (society’s problems) as a personal ATM machine, or ‘Cash cow” — you have been flagged, and at least some people are watching.

There will be consequences for having continued to fail to investigate and report on NONPROFIT activity and failure to, as a whole and as “the public,” read and discuss not just government Budgets but government FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

See post published 11/18/2016 evening.  Some material and recent insights in this Intro and later Drill-Down section comes from it and if read, gives the background  ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation

I just spent “too much time” on that post, on DC-based “Alliance for Excellent Education” in part because it was associated with a group “ConnectEd:  The California Center for Career and College” and the latter was behaving dishonorably and out of compliance with state codes requiring registration of charities while the startup foundation — The James Irvine Foundation, also a powerful player in California  — had no problem forwarding a few million, and the year it finally registered (after 3 notices x 2, that is there are literally six notices to “ConnectEd” to register within the state on the website) to show its stuff — ConnectEd was rewarded with over $9 million (according to the filer) by James Irvine Foundation.   The notices are showing now that they are registered.

In that post I also looked at Communities in Schools (the umbrella organization), and because of the fees involved, one of the subcontractors, “The Bridgespan Group, Inc.”  By the time I got through reading about “Bridgespan and some of its featured products (and collaborations), I had written confirmation of what had already been picking up on, elsewhere and earlier:   The nonprofit sector is operating just like the corporate sector — only tax-exempt.  The word “Charitable” or “Philanthropic” on the label outside doesn’t significantly change the contents.**

They will without a conscience send a nonprofit belly-up, move the money into another nonprofit (controlled by the same person), doing this operating illegally (I refer to “Status Revoked” in DC, per DCRA.gov last time I looked, of “Alliance for Education, Inc.”), soliciting funds therefore illegally — apparently without batting an eyelid.  Same place, same board of directors, different company name and different EIN# (which would facilitate — think about it — different bank accounts or other accounts associated).  Then on other websites, positive, glowing reference to the whole series of organizational names is made for the contributions to society and being some how the democratic process in action for the betterment of the poor and outcast, the vulnerable and the “underserved.”   Which, like marketing any product (cigarettes –among the origins of the public relations/propaganda field in the USA, see Edward L. Bernays bio; or lawsuits against cigarettes which are pouring funds into more 0 to 5 early childhood education (Universal Pre-K especially for the poor).

The word “Charitable” or “Philanthropic” on the label outside  does however change the business entities into which contents are poured, by facilitating increased privacy of operations, making it easier to corner market share when a new field of service, or nonprofit practice, is declared.

The proliferation of nonprofits, one incubating more, smaller ones merging into the larger (as encouraged by — it turns out — hired consultant subcontractors —  has been accelerating into the 21st century, fueled by corporations which already made their millions (sometimes billions) decades earlier — sometimes by stealing and cheating their investors, or causing job losses while making off with restructuring fees.  It is a huge shell game, with PR attached and operating across several media — but especially on-line.

We are in the world of Bain & Company (and the Bain Capital, Ltd. of Mitt Romney fame) in dealing with Bridgespan — and it’s not the only such company.  

Terms like “leveraged buyouts” (LBOs), hedge funds, junk bonds (Milliken formerly of Drexel, Burnham & Lambert), and as it turns out, the move into for-profit education (including at the Head Start Level — see “Accelero Learning, Inc.” and its founder, plus the prior nonprofit associated, “Jumpstart for Young Children” gain popularity by decade.  

To see this whole apparatus in motion over time requires comprehending at least the basics in: what is a public entity, what is a private entity and among the private entities, for-profit & not for profit.  Among the not-for-profit (which is an oxymoron — it literally refers to its relationship to the IRS and state tax boards; these groups make plenty of profit when they choose to) Among the for-profit entities also, they come in public-traded or not (which status can alter for profit purposes over time, and often does).

By definition also, nonprofit organizations as privately controlled, non-stock entities, typically with certain backing (i.e., they come in different sizes) and in the fields overlapping with government service, they also typically come with their 501©3 AND their related political action 501©4s.

Bigger ones are famous, if not even intimidating historically (Carnegie, Rockefeller, Ford, MacArthur — but there are many others also less common household names)  and citing their backing is a sort of quality-validation for the public, while smaller ones are more flexible and can dart in and out of legitimate status (with cashflow between them) — or disburse solicitation sites over three or four different organization names in reality referencing the same basic small set of individuals running them.

Also big among the nonprofits, by metro area or region, are the “community foundations.”  I have posted on some of the large ones in both Connecticut (Greater New Haven Community Foundation) in California (TSFF The San Francisco Foundation), and also a statewide one (The California Endowment), and about a year ago, whether or not posted (I DNR), I also studied several in Minnesota extensively, finding out that some in the Twin Cities (a progressive area politically) were operating as a “Twin-Pack” run by similar management, and there was also a “six-pack” of large entities operating in a coordinated fashion.  A policy “NextGen” was being promoted, but as I recall, that was no entity, but a project of one of these community foundations.

They can become quite large, and also when operating DAFs (Donor-Advised Funds), this is something of a game-changer, and facilitates also claiming some project are being “incubated” (serving as fiscal agents) when in fact the projects are at times in fact already free-standing.

When websites are reticent about posting their financials, or actual business name (or ignore the business’s “revoked” status in home (legal domicile) state or territory.

I have consistently noticed organization websites failing to properly name their own businesses, post financials (See “Johnsonfdn.org” re:  The Wingspread Conference Center in Racine, Wisconsin (not too far from Chicago, or for that matter, Michigan) for one example, or “jstart.org” for another, or “The Schott Foundation for Public Education“). (<==This page remembers the Jobin-Leeds mother, who died in 2016; their father I learned, eventually, in 2014.  Only in subtle passing was any mention made of the source of company wealth, calling it “a publishing business.”

EXAMPLE from the SCHOTT FOUNDATION for PUBLIC EDUCATION:

Here’s the information from the public announcement on the father (Gerard G. Leeds’) death, and referring to both parents’ company together.  This is an obituary of an obviously famous person that I did not happen to know.  All I know is how many people of the same last name were showing up on multiple, inter-related nonprofits:

Gerard Leeds, Entrepreneur and Philanthropist, Dies at 92“

 A co-founder of CMP Media, Leeds made a difference on Long Island.

By Adina Genn (Patch Staff) – December 2, 2014 11:17 am ET

---

Gerard Leeds, an entrepreneur and philanthropist who co-founded CMP Media with his wife Lilo in their Great Neck home, died on Nov. 27 at the age of 92.

Gerard and Lilo Leeds are known not only as pioneers in the field of tech journalism and trade publications, but also in offering employees life-work balance. CMP Media, which in its heyday had operated out of headquarters on Community Drive in Manhasset, repeatedly claimed a spot on Working Mothers 100 Best Companies list, and was credited with launching Long Island’s first corporate-based child care center. At CMP, employees were known to work hard, but it wasn’t unusual to spot them lunching with their children at the company cafeteria during a midday break. In 1999, the company was sold to United News & Media for $920 million, according to multiple media outlets. Now known as UBM, the company operates from offices across the globe.

A noted philanthropist, Leeds co-founded and served on the board of directors of the Institute for Student Achievement, a nonprofit organization in Carle Place that aims to boost educational opportunities for underserved youth in the United States so that they can complete high school, ready for college. Founded in 1990, the organization has served more than 70,000 to date.

Leeds is remembered as a “dedicated philanthropist committed to helping Holocaust survivors, as well as the entire Jewish community,” UJA-Federation of New York stated on Legacy.com in the New York Times.

On Long Island, Gerard Leeds helped to transform the lives of many, both professionally and personally.

Here’s how the one of the adult children’s (married couple) profile refers to their ability to devote themselves to favorite causes now, making no mention of course of the company name of the $920M it was sold for:

The sale of the family publishing business gave Maria and Greg the financial freedom to put their ideas into practice and support social justice issues such as democracy and education.

Sounds almost like a Mom-and-Pop enterprise that made it big-time, and possibly which they were running as just humble folks trying to do right and suddenly making it big… I’ll show how far down on any project-promoting website that statement was, and that it’s NOT on most of the project pages, either. No reference there to when, or for how much, or the actual business name, or to whom..

The websites are bright, colorful, and all refer to and promote other projects, or organizations, or “Action Funds.”  Looking at these, there is common leadership, usually the Leeds Family and maybe one or to other (hired hands) or in the case of the “Schott Foundation for Public Education” President and CEO, partner.  (Some of that information would be available looking at the Massachusetts Commonwealth corporate search page; they allow searching on multiple elements — unlike, say California’s, which gives readers a choice of only two fields, and doesn’t allow exclusion of inactive corporations in search results, either):

This is an LLC run by Greg Jobin-Leeds and Maria Jobin-Leeds

Address (at very bottom of the page):  Partnership for Democracy and Education, LLC 675 Massachusetts Ave., 8th Fl., Suite C., Cambridge, MA 02139.  “PROGRAMS & PROJECTS” page (Showing the colorful portrayal before clicking on the small “Access Strategies Fund,” logo, at the top row, middle of the 3X2 list of logos shown. click my link to see the green page full-sized).

The Access Strategies Fund was spoken of on the site as helping facilitate the other projects (financially, is implied), and where I found “photo & bio blurb” on two of the Leeds heirs.  Page title (this page seems to feature feminism and Maria; others feature the opposite):

Action

The Partnership starts and nurtures programs and projects that share a common goal: to build a more just and inclusive society. By using a varied approach—from developing accountable leaders to cultivating voters to organizing around pressing issues—our programs and projects work synergistically to transform our democracy.

(1) What’s just and inclusive about a rotating set of project and campaigns — such as those they’re about to list — run by “yours truly” (a closely aligned set of individuals) and insisting on applying it to the entire population, as quickly as possible and in “transformative ways” ?  From Massachusetts Corporations Division, where I ended up yesterday evening after about a DAY poring over the multiple nonprofits — changing names, EIN#s, then closing down themselves and transferring assets to new names (same address), or same name (different address) — and on two kinds of nonprofits:  (1) 501©3s and (2) 501©4s.   Good Grief, what a maze — intentionally so, no doubt:

mass-corporations-search-individuals-name-%22jobin-leeds%22-shows-access-strategies-fund-csigmund-shott-fund-the-oppty-to-learn-fund-proteus-action-league-partnership-for-d-e-etc-2pp-at (<==this is a partial, but still revealing list.  Click to see two pages of entities (with some repetition) on which the same couple holds directorships — some are nonprofits, one is an LLC, another is an “Inc.” etc. … It turns out the only really large one (other than I cannot speak to the size of privately owned LLCs or Incs not public-traded) is the Caroline and Sigmund Schott Fund, named after the Jobin-Leeds’ parents (Greg’s) who fled Germany.  He didn’t mention that his father ran a major technology and trade association publishing business!

See related pdf. These links may be active, I DNK

(2) Last I checked the form of government in the USA is classified as a republic, so I do not know specifically what “our democracy” really refers to.  There is no specific mention, certainly not prominently on the website, of the USA, and the word “our” is possessive and claims (doesn’t just imply, but asserts)  “ownership” of the following noun: democracy.  But does it necessarily follow that the owners of the website (and whatever “our democracy” refers to, really) and the readers are an “us” with those running the organizations featured on the websites, and this website?

Drill-downs on who owns what in the steering mechanism (business) entities here, shows otherwise.  Usage of the word “us” in this context is disarming, but if there is an “us” who is the “them”?  — Corporations?  (This whole enterprise is “corporation- centric” and backed) Government — is “government” the “them” and if so, which government is the bad guy — USA’s?

On the “Access Strategies Fund” lead-in text (shown on image) is another reference to “our democracy,” and self-promotion of this particular Fund:

Access Strategies Fund
With tremendous results, Access funds grassroots organizations in historically excluded communities. Access grantees focus on creating equity— race, gender and income — at the grassroots and structural level using our democracy.

AccessStrategies.org / see “About Us” History page for the bio blurb.

Maria and Greg Jobin-Leeds

“[Para. 2ff] …Maria was motivated by her parents’ dedication and leadership in the areas of civil rights and feminism. Maria had a stimulating childhood surrounded by adults who worked to improve schools and stop the Vietnam War. Greg, a son of immigrants who escaped Nazi persecution, developed a commitment of fighting for fairness and social justice from his parents’ experience. As teachers, the Jobin-Leeds’ became more aware of the barriers to healthy and happy lives that many students from low-income communities struggled against, particularly those in communities of color.###

Maria and Greg are deeply committed to the power of community-driven philanthropy to advance progressive social change using a race, gender and economic lens. The sale of the family publishing business gave Maria and Greg the financial freedom to put their ideas into practice and support social justice issues such as democracy and education.***

The Jobin-Leeds’ approach in the world of Philanthropy was to develop the civic and social power to change laws and deliver resources to underserved communities.  They understood that philanthropy could not provide enough services for every person, and that it should be used to reprioritize the role of schools and government.

They weren’t aware of this just through general life experiences?  Who was teaching where?

Notice the casual, vague reference to “the family publishing business” and no reference to their own education or work history prior to their philanthropic transformative missionary-like zeal to towards “schools and government.”

“SCHOOLS and GOVERNMENTS?”  What kind of intelligent conversation can come from that when, the category of “schools” overlaps (but is not completely contained within) “governments” and the category of governments includes school districts of several different types:  Independent, state-dependent, county-dependent, and municipality/township-dependent? And which probably educate the vast majority of the US population, as those who cannot afford private must go somewhere by law; we are under compulsory education laws, and those who don’t comply (and in some states, apparently their parents or caretakers also) can be held legally liable for truancy when children and youth are NOT in lawful forms of schooling.

But is precisely the minority — who are NOT coming up through the public school system, or state university systems (because of going to private colleges) — which should never be off the radar when talking about “government priorities!”

Census Bureau, 2012 Census of Governments (it says, that’s the latest data at 2012), 2013 summary documents that school districts ARE government units.  SCHOOLS are what school districts run (they are I guess the project — not the units themselves):

The letter combo “fi” may be missing in some words this copy & paste.  Please read for context.  Notice “local” doesn’t include State Government itself, or any entities (component units, or blended or discrete entities, etc.) reporting under it.  The Census of governments is only done every five years, it says, years ending in either “2” or in “7”

LOCAL GOVERNMENTS (from http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf)

Government Organization Summary Report: 2012 //Governments Division Briefs

by Carma Hogue Released September 26, 2013 G12-CG-ORG

---

The official count of local governments in the United States for 2012 was 90,056, comprising 38,910 general- purpose governments and 51,146 special-purpose gov- ernments. General purpose governments include those classi ed as counties, municipalities, and townships. These governments perform a number of functions, which include financial administration, police protection, highway administration, hospitals, utilities, etc. In 2012, general-purpose governments included 3,031 counties, 19,519 municipalities, and 16,360 townships.

Special-purpose governments perform only one function or a very limited number of functions. For example, independent school districts perform education-related functions. All other single- or limited-purpose governments are called special districts. Examples of special districts include mosquito abatement districts, utility districts, water and sewer districts, transit authorities, etc. Special districts may serve a single function in a large municipality or may serve as a regional entity in more rural settings. In 2012, special-purpose governments included 12,880 independent school districts and 38,266 special districts.

Independent school districts under “LOCAL GOVERNMENTS” are not the only school districts also functioning as government operations around, either. But isn’t it interesting that there are over 4 times as many “special districts” as even independent school districts? (Four years ago…)

For more general information, see “Lists and Structures of Local Governments” where you can select on a dropdown menu “Public Schools” and get a spreadsheet by state showing the categories of school district, and how many each state has (but not linking to more detail on the same, at least from that page).  Why look?  It makes one aware of the categories of government-dependency any particular school district might be on.

(LOCAL GOV’TS, cont’d. from http://www2.census.gov/govs/cog/g12_org.pdf)

There are no county governments in Connecticut, Rhode Island, and the District of Columbia.

• A number of states have only public school systems that are dependent on the state government or on municipalities or county governments. The District of Columbia, Maryland, North Carolina, Alaska,

and Hawaii have no independent school districts. Hawaii is unique as having only one public school system, a system that is dependent upon the state government.

• Sixteen states have a mix of dependent and inde- pendent school systems within their state areas. For example, Virginia has only 1 independent school dis- trict and 135 dependent school systems. Louisiana has 69 independent school districts and one depen- dent school system.

The largest number of dependent school systems is in the Northeast with 687 dependent systems. The South has the next largest number of dependent school systems with 477. As shown in Figure 2, the largest number of public school systems is in the Midwest with 5,039 school sys- tems, only 8 of which are dependent school systems.  The [page break here] smallest number of public school systems is in the West with 2,744, of which 126 are dependent systems, found mostly in Alaska and California.

Interesting, California being such a large state, then has some of the largest school districs, and fewest independent ones around, looks like.  See next chart, “Fig. 2” — I had to do it in two installments, overlapping at North Carolina (see link for it fullsized):

Again, when you hear language like this:

This is a “framed debate” from the outset.  An “either/or” proposition is set forth (light-pink background), based on the measurement of “enough services for every person” (“services” being open-ended” and implying every person needs “services”). Having swallowed that bait, possibly, the reasoning goes, philanthropy exists to make up the gap somehow — but can’t possibly, which in fact is a mis-reading of “philanthropy.”

“Philanthropic” organizations (entities) are often private family-controlled  foundations that get to operate at reduced taxes on non-program related revenues when they donate to others a certain percent –and most donate around 5% if that. Some more, but consider out of a family’s total holdings, just as with corporations — throughout how many different foundations and/or nonprofits (referring to smaller organizations that register as public charities and qualify for this, i.e., to file Form 990s, not Form 990PFs) – how might the wealth be dispersed.  

There’s nothing that such foundations gave out that wasn’t first obtained from somewhere else — and part of this may be the profit differential between employees wages (and benefits) (i.e., overhead) and what the company itself is pulling in, prices paid for goods at the store, and when philanthropies get involved in providing extra services for government and taking funding for it — THAT funding also comes from somewhere, often future generations paying off government debt with every paycheck.  The word references the word for a friendship type of love (Brother Love — remember Philadelphia, The City of _____?).  A better translation would be “you scratch our back, we’ll scratch yours”  without the public at large being in the conversation.  

Philanthropy is a sector of a controlled economy, and the control is through application or non-application of taxation, who is exempt (how much) and who is not.  It should NOT be confused for “love.”

Having got that far with an Either/Or argument based on a presumption, it proceeds onto some more mis-labels:  Schools and Governments” which need to be prioritized (because Philanthropy — a generic nounc — can’t do it all….). Let’s talk about that which is eliminated from the conversation — private schools (PreK-12) AND private colleges and universities do exist.  

The tax-paying public ALSO supports these institutions, including where federal student loans are applied to those attending private universities, as well as to entire universities which are government operations.  But even restricting the conversation to just PreK-12, the phrase makes no sense — although that’s EXACTLY what “Access Strategy Funds,” Partership for Democracy and Education, LLC, and “The Schott Foundation for Public Education — and “America Graduates” (while it existed), “Educate Voters America” and other projects run by a very few individuals, are demanding happen.

Notice the vague wording, ignoring that in reality schools come in two basic types:  Private, or Public.  When schools are “public” they are under the control and authorization of school districts.  School Districts are a specialized government entity.  Therefore even using the phrase “school and government” implies both are separate — when overall, they are nothing of the sort, either at the K level (and Head Start/Early Head Start –administered through HHS and among its largest programs (see TAGGS.hhs.gov for a look) funds so much Pre-K, right?) up through, I believe in all states, though I know in many states, not one, not two, but at least THREE types of higher education, often with multiple campuses:

(1) University of [State name/Campus]  (2) [State name] State University [Campus], (3) community colleges, plus research institutions nationwide.  If we are limiting it to just up through 12th grade, that still leaves some schools are run under school districts, and others are run privately (some of them under the equivalent of religious districts too).

This family line also was involved in the startup of Alliance for Excellent Education.

I also found on a tax return under Alliance for Excellent Education (talk about a distracting name!!) investments in Bernard L. Madoff funds around the turn of the century and a myriad of changing 501©4s (and 501©3s dominated by the “Leeds” and “Jobin-Leeds” family.  Come to find out after all that reading, with colorful websites full of self-commendations and naming proudly the projects or campaigns started — that in at least some cases, this was “Daddy’s Estate” funding it, and the second and/or third-generation family members pulling strings on ALL the involved organizations, whether 501©3, 501©4, The Schott Foundation for Public Education, or the “Partnership for Democracy and Education, LLC.”

Perhaps some letters of inquiry are due the state-level charitable registries (here and in other places) as to what resources are available to monitor this situation, and how they decided to refrain from having the Secretaries of State revoke the organization’s status based on lack of compliance with their charitable registrations, and to protect the citizens from RICO operations in-state involving public systems — like the schools.

In post after post, and foundation after foundation involved with tweaking (make that “steering | dominating” actually) and (inter)nationalizing the US Family / Welfare / Juvenile Court systems, I also find the same foundations and/or their friends absolutely convicted with a missionary zeal is that wherever low-income, vulnerable, or dis-advantaged parents exist, those children need more, and earlier pre-K (or earlier) “interventions” to get them on the “work for the man” track competent enough to “work for the man” (a lifetime), and remembering to say, “Thank You, Sir, Yes, Massah!” afterwards — for the trademarked curricula providing a REAL nice profit for those who own it, as well as for the — let us not forget — consulting fees generated by those groups which know how to get in there and advise entire federal departments on population control.

• It’s time to take a hard look back, and that requires time and personal effort, not to mention the ability to understand post-poned gratification.  Understanding isn’t a fast-food franchise, and not available through intravenous injection.
• Certain practices facilitate gaining it.  One of them is paying attention to tax returns, a decent memory, and an attention span.
• I came with the motivation (my children were stolen overnight in a US court system, and never returned, even after their father who subsequently obtained sole physical AND legal custody, then promptly (apparently within two years — the first year was spent in court repeatedly, so effectively make that about a half year, and I only learned of this three years after the fact, when one daughter aged out).
• I cannot produce motivation in others; but will say, I’ve found the efforts worthwhile.  What price can be put on learning such truths about one’s own country, state, and county operations?

The purpose of understanding is wisdom for making sound decisions and priorities in life.

“Barking up the wrong tree is not a sound decision,” but that’s how I would describe what I have seen among mothers who went through this, and among the family court reform groups.  NONE of them seem to really want the pieces assembled about how long ago this started, and how deep, high and wide it is...we are talking here about an entire economic system, as managed by the government (federally especially) without proper restraints and boundaries upon private influence upon government, and where that leaves the public without acknowledging the real character (and long-term agenda) of the “Public/Private Partnerships” as it truly is — as revealed by its practices.

That character does NOT have the overall public interest (at least in this country!) in mind, and as such, is using its corporate wealth and public relations clout to disseminate lies about themselves and about their own programs, and evade accountability of nonprofits run by themselves!

If that summary is offensive, please take an overview of just how far I drill down (and have been) for how many years on which corporations behind the foundations, collaborating on Public/Private Partnerships to study the poor, control the poor, keep the poor in their place, and with a good attitude too.  I’m not a novice, I am not a devoted subscriber or consumer of either “alt-right” or “left-progressive news media.”

I prefer it closer to first-hand, and by that, I mean the financials.  The closest this is available presently is through public-access websites (despite almost everyone of them coming with a disclaimer) for the drill-downs and for the overviews.

Speaking of the “Public/Private Phenomenon” (“Triple-P”),

I have seen the private attempts to steer the courts and public policy from top-down by (families whose forebears controlled, and sometimes they still do also — example, the Johnson Family enterprises (S.C. Johnson, Johnson Outdoors, Johnson Bank, Diversey, Inc. (which has some turnover, and a former heir was found to have been molesting his teenaged (12-15yrs old) stepdaughter, and even got a few months — not years — in jail, and less than half a weekend’s conference expenses, probably, in fines) and more in Racine, Wisconsin).

The Johnson family got my attention by providing those Wingspread Conferences leading to declarations by the National Council of Family and Juvenile Courts, the Family Violence Prevention Fund (before its name change to “Futures without Violence’), and in 2007, with the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, based (legal domicile) respectively in Reno, Nevada, San Francisco, California, and Chicago?, Illinois — although its IRS filings still read, misleadingly, “Wisconsin.

END “INTRO” || BEGINNING OF “MOVED MATERIAL “

FIRST 5 MATERIAL, FROM 2016 TOC

** I borrowed the phrase “First 5” casually, already knowing it was a reference to the political push for universal preschool and related programming in California, from where I have been blogging. I only used the phrase in reference to having First, 5 points to make about “navigation” of this table of contents and blog, but ended up discovering another specific program (fund) based in D.C., making another follow-up project on both situations.

“First 5” lookup led to the “First Five Years Fund.”  

Organizationally and Geographically, they are different,

but Politically and Economically, they are related:  

The Executive Director Kris Perry [2<==,] [3<==9/30/2016 comment on Congress having kept the government funded] of the D.C. “First Five Years Fund,”[1 <==Who We Are” which like too many organization websites, doesn’t actually identify or reveal who, as an organization, they are.  Corporations are persons, remember?  What an organization’s activities are, or who its staff is,  who is funding it, or even how much money it has, still doesn’t tell “WHO” in the most important terms, it is.]. FFYF does not appear to be a government entity, but (see footnote [2]), on its website identifies its Executive Director as a former director of First 5 (specific entities), which are California government entities, or at least “commissions.”

Kris Perry and her wife Sandy live in Washington, D.C. and have four sons.

[2] Kris is a national thought leader on early childhood education, who has appeared in the New York Times, POLITICO, New Republic, Salon, Congressional Quarterly and many other new outlets across the country.

Previously, Kris served as Executive Director of First 5 California, fostering their emergence as one of the most well known and respected advocates for early childhood development on the state and national levels….

[3] …About the First Five Years Fund: The First Five Years Fund helps America achieve better results in education, health and economic productivity through investments in quality early childhood education programs for disadvantaged children. FFYF provides knowledge, data and advocacy – persuading federal policymakers to make investments in the first five years of a child’s life that create greater returns for all. http://www.ffyf.org

Greater than what alternatives, honestly and openly considered and debated among all that would be underwriting them, particularly the working class who do not have sufficient excess to become experts in finding tax loopholes for their excess revenues as do those most intent on promoting these policies?

The First Five Years Fund (WHO is it?) and Why Aren’t Its Backers/Directors Aren’t Advertising that EIN#? (<==again, this is a “tba” post started 10/7/2016, currently in draft).

To further understand why I ask, one must have looked — long and hard — at the tax-exempt sector as increasingly taking operational control of government-funded services and programs… and policymaking… and institutions, including the courts..

I show and tell this, over time, time and again, in this blog.

Seems to me the same “greater returns for all” argument was made about promoting the purposes behind welfare reform as to promoting marriage/fatherhood, the formation of two-parent families and reducing out-of-wedlock childbearing, with dramatic collateral damages associated with the massive shift of government services into private hands, and exponentially increasing (and incentivizing) the formation of nonprofits exclusively to receive programming under those grants, and related professionals to further market their for-profit products/services (often in electronic form — low overhead, high profit once initially designed) and coordinate with already like-minded PRIVATE entities (501©3s) to continually “demonstrate” “evaluate” “disseminate” (findings), order more research, suggest more areas to demonstrate, evaluate and disseminate the findings on, at public expense, by demographic, gender, behavioral, geographical (urban/rural), and of course ethnic/racial profiles around the previously-determined themes.

It seems / perhaps / from what I’ve seen researching the grantees, as indicated at length in this blog, they simply forgot to finish the phrase — “greater returns for all _____” and fill in the names of affiliated friends, associates, colleagues etc. in the blank. In other words, we are NOT all on the same page in these matters, and this proposition for narrowing all kinds of gaps in reality, exacerbates the power imbalance in determining how public money is spent, and on what.

What’s also remarkable about the First Five Years Fund here, address 1010 Vermont Avenue NW #810, Washington, D.C., is how evasive it is at showing any financials or identifying its business entity self — if there is one — or, if it’s a project of some other BUSINESS or GOVERNMENT entity — which one.  Instead, we get a lot of PR and advertisement.  That alone (in addition to the profile of the Executive Director — which implies a nonprofit entity of some sort — as having come from my (adopted) state, and originally, it looks like “my neck of the woods,” that is, Northern California, SF Bay Area, East Bay) caught my attention.

There is also a connection between these fields of early childhood development, Head Start and Early Head Start and the family courts (and, fatherhood promotion) or I would not include it here, or post what are until linked to evidence, unsupported summaries of the situation I have perceived over time (and geographies / entities studied).

First 5 in California is organized at the county level, and is, basically, about getting disadvantaged children that the public/private partnerships do not yet have their “paws” on into programming to produce a more politically correct product (i.e., domesticated livestock, i.e.,  human population). . .

*”First 5″ in California is a  public funding source; there are “First 5 Commissions” with a reputation for political, ah, purposes, about programming for children aged 0-5.  The funding in California came from Prop. 10 vote for increased tax on cigarettes for this purpose.

In other states, as I recall this past year, in Alabama and Georgia, I have also seen cigarette (tobacco settlement) money used to sponsor early childhood education and set up county-based “child policy councils” to push certain themes, one of which included more and earlier childhood education — another of which is more involvement of fathers.  The connections can be seen from mutual references and cites on the state-level websites.  The system of “CPCs” helps disseminate anything privately agreed upon as good for the state’s kids, faster and statewide.

At the time I saw this I also explored it to agree, saving the notes in draft posts for further followup.  Finding the “First Five Years Fund” and its leadership and backers, as well as scant and hard-to-locate information on the exact organization’s business (and IRS-related) identity confirms the significance and importance of following through on the initial intuition, observations, and curiosities about WHY the controlling powers’ (public/private always in nature) collective obsession with “early childhood education,” when their own topleadership(versus “hired hands” leadership which Executive Directors by definition are – they are to “executive” what Board of Directors, led usually by a Chairman (sic — can be a woman) determines as guided by their by-laws, articles of incorporation, etc.)most likely was not a product of any such thing, or normal work lives in the private sector and primarily as employees.

Punishing (penalizing) cigarette-makers and marketers in order to promote health, to me seems odd as the giant tobacco firms end up getting into food, i.e., the giant centralized parent companies of many common brands of food made available to Americans (reference meaning “in the USA” — it’s these courts within the USA I’m investigating as they tie into federal and state financing and social policy.).  If you think about it, some of the health problems we have were eating over-processed food or unhealthy food which these firms were pushing, including plenty of sweets.*

*I have no experience in family courts of other countries and have not been investigating them, although some information naturally surfaces as the court websites here reference practices in, for example, Canada, and as the judges/lawyers/psychologists/mediator’s associations involved in the courts HERE are indeed attempting to internationally align practices with countries whose governmental structure has major differences from that in the USA.).

So then to counter the sweets, or other things causing health problems (obesity, diabetes, etc.) at times mediation (pharma, “Rx”) is also needed, as well as of course some of the R&D to go with it.  Meanwhile firms controlling both food (or its production by way of seeds, pesticides and fertilizers, a.k.a. drugs, a.k.a. chemicals,)  are merging and consolidating power.

Huge corporations typically are going to have related tax-exempt foundations to “go with.”  Good to counter some of that wealth accumulation with PR, but it’s going to come with strings attached (control) and overall, collectively, that is as a major sector of the economy, collateral effects on all.

These tax-exempt foundations, called typically “philanthropies” throughout when they do wish to be well-known, focus on the public good they are doing and with what “love” they do it — when in fact, the overall effect is to reduce corporate taxation while retaining as much control of the assets, and influence upon government (needed to a large degree for the corporations to operate).

These foundations have gotten in a HUGE way into managing and controlling “the poor” or “low-income families” and are absolutely already entrenched into the family court systems, at local and statewide level as well as the social service and criminal/justice systems.

The sheer SIZE of some of these firms lends to them working together (internationally) and/or eating up (buying, selling, assimilating and then digesting and excreting — like the human body — that which seems beneficial [in corporate terms, profitable] to itself), leading to a situation none of us should want — centralized control, for profit, of all aspects of life and of the things on which life depends, as well as the places where life might take place (i.e., real estate and asset infrastructure of the cities where so many people are concentrated, particularly in the USA).

A good portion of my blog, after first working upwards from the smaller nonprofits attached to (and affecting) custody outcomes, that is, doing business with and around the family court system and related functions (such as child support enforcement or abatement), and as often run by participants, ends up looking at the bigger money behind them.  In recent years I have focused on the impact of public/private partnerships on due process and justice, where those partnerships form a self-encircling closed-circuit loop of input, leaving out MOST of the population.  Then we wonder why we can’t be permitted ongoing contact with our own children, despite no evidence of illegal, law-breaking or, court-order-contempt activity — and complain that the system is biased against women — or against men.

I try to find LCD (lowest common denominator) language in which both women and men may communicate our concerns about the family courts (despite our differing biological participation levels in becoming a parent, and in the workforce, and over the history of this country, in the overall power structure — starting with the ability to vote (!!), or to enroll as undergrads in some of the nation’s politically-connected Ivy League universities.  etc.

Anyhow, as I’ve said above, while looking for a link quick reference to “First 5,” it was for a tongue-in-cheek and casual way of saying “5 points, first” (as in, before showing the Table of Contents) instead I found also…I found also a WDC “First Five Years Fund“

(Which looks like a nonprofit, but I cannot locate a corporate entity in DC (where its address seems to be or any EIN#).  The purpose is to expand early childhood education — for disadvantaged families, that is — for a better world (get them babies away from them Mamas and Papas earlier, get the Mamas and Papas working for wages, and supporting the infrastructure).  More on that later (the table excerpt above, is a link to a post in process about some of the finds..)

END of “FIRST 5 MATERIAL MOVED FROM TOC 2016”

===================================================================

INTRO., Cont’d.

This subject matter has been gripping my attention for about a half year now, as it continued to sink in that the power bloc (as defined by federal government/fat foundations partnerships with State Governments/Governors following suit) has made it clear in their private writings and on websites (for those who get around to reading and comparing notes) that rather than ACTUALLY solve any of the multitude of problems in society they have “stepped up” to solve (in return for further obfuscation of finances, and diminishment of local control — while promising the opposite — of all major public institutions, including the public schools), they will continue to generate what I believe is best summarized by “fees for friends” and ensure the status quo (oligarchy) doesn’t change TOO much, or any further than these decide should be allowed.

Meanwhile, the system of separate and not even close to equal continues for the private prep school, Ivy League Feeders, and almost-Ivys, and their graduates working sometimes at those Ivies — or at other major public universities (which the public pays for through basic taxation and being charged for government services coming, going, marrying, divorcing, modifying any custody order, or child support order, etc.) continues.

The talk  of “equality” somehow never entails equalizing the public with the level of private, but by demographic sector, getting some public schools to improve to the level of others — while in the more select private ones, associations and friendships which can and do benefit individuals in business formation and raising capital, as well as (by general association) better understanding of how government and business works, are made early and can continue benefitting individuals their entire lifetime, and accumulate a buffer zone of finances, if one venture fails, they are not homeless or at risk of it — or can call upon some friends to bail it out.  [Continued below]

Right now, as far as philanthropic inspirational causes, “Black Men and Boys” and Latinos is more fashionable.  Girls of all colors, again, should be thankful and not organize themselves across the color divide.  They should also be “seen but not heard” when observing deal-making of women in power –including women in power within the domestic violence cartel and of course within the legal and family court judges’ fieldswith the fathers’ rights movement who was scared, probably, that after such “great” concessions in the 1960s regarding African-Americans in the fields of housing, jobs, and education, they might have to face up to women also.

The politically correct gender-based response at all times seem to point fingers at the most blatant sexist behavior (turn on the TV and listen to the talk about Trump.  I’m not discounting, but guess who else has shown systemic prejudice based on gender?  but less openly), and ignore the saturation of the social services sector (for example) after Executive Orders (Clinton 1995 giving 90 days to re-assess the entire Executive Branch as to was it father-friendly enough), Welfare Reform (1996 and reauthorized several times since) pushing fatherhood and marriage.

One thing about “Welfare Reform” is getting mothers away from taking care of their children and into the workforce — generating a need for increased child care.  With the children in child-care, then they are also subject to social science R&D on “early childhood development” theories — which are still THEORIES unless we are to accept

In 1999 the State of Oklahoma even grabbed welfare funds to set up state-wide marriage promotion, at which individuals from out of state (the Parrotts, religious couple from Washington State, UDenver professors Markman and Stanley with “Prep, Inc.” and “Within My Reach” curricula, Paul D’Amato, and more), Executive Orders Bush (2001) and Obama (2009?) pushing forward “faith-based” and structuring offices for this within the White House (a form of patriarchy + religious tax-exemption special privileges in getting federal funding and partnering with government).  Some states mirrored this process also.  From about 2000 (after a conference in Chicago by certain groups to start a “marriage movement”), “Smartmarriages.com” ® owned by a DC-based LLC owned by Diane Sollee through at least 2010, conferences were run as marketplaces to buy and sell marriage curricula (which would eventually take advantage of funds diverted from TANF, Title IV-A programs, i.e., the federal government) and sit (or run) certifications as relationship trainers, or class facilitators, to go back to their home states, start “marriage initiatives” and encourage yet more nonprofit formation for this purpose.

Some of these grants went straight to churches and religious institutions, who then ran classes as part of the offerings to further evangelize “the natives” by offering social services — a win/win for church and marriage curricula owners, a loss for the public who underwrites ANY religious-exempt group but doesn’t get to read their tax returns (for that group — whether it be Archdiocese, “Conference” or “Convention” on the Catholic or Protestant sides of Christianity), and at many levels, a loss for married women (and children of married women) who were already being battered under the “woman, submit” and inferiority and permanent, intergenerational curse of Eve story lines.

(Some may also remember that the same justification was used — within recent generations — under the label “the curse of Ham” regarding ethnicities in the USA…. with same negative consequences, including ‘standing by” while violence is done to a community, or an individual based on their race, as has also been done for standing by while violence is done to individual women within religious communities).

Meanwhile,

(I seem to be full of long sentences this morning….)

(OK, this now becomes a continuation Post)

MORE DRILL-DOWN, WHAT LOOKING AT ONE ENTITY’S TAX RETURN CAN SHOW, (<=that’s a link.  Will activate when the attached post is published)

WITH FOLLOW-THROUGH (LIKE OTHER PARTS OF THE SAME NETWORK, AND FROM THERE, AN OVERVIEW OF THEIR PRACTICES….).

This information is left-over from the drill-down on ConnectEd and other beneficiaries of the James Irvine Foundation (assets more easily measured in the billions, not millions), started at  ConnectED + MPR Associates Inc. + Gary Hoachlander, WestEd, and the US Dept. of Ed, with help from James Irvine Foundation (published 11/18/2016 or so).

One EIN#, ONE organization:  EIN#203944097.  It is now called one thing, but started with the words “League of” prefacing its name:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

As you can see, those assets are being run down, intentionally, no doubt.  I wonder what’s next.

The first 501©4 (that I’m aware of) founded with Alliance for Excellent Education (a 501©3) was called “America Graduates” (run by Leeds family).  However in 2008 America Graduates decided to close down and give its remaining assets (about ¾ million — over $775K) to another 501©4 (out of the exact same street address at the time) NPEAF — National Public Education Action Fund– headed by Daniel H. Leeds.  However from the start, NPEAF was organized, and says so on its return, to simply pass through the money mostly to Education Voters America (“Edvote.org” — website no longer functional).  Also run by the Leeds.  Education Voters America we can see was formed earlier — and is ALSO fun by LEEDS family line as a 501©4.

Keeping the years of startup in mind (or perhaps taking notes separately, like on the old-fashioned medium called paper, and using a pen or pencil) might give a better visual.

NPEAF from its start said its primary purpose was to fund “EVA” (Education Voters of America — which must have changed its name by then). I have also found the Caroline and Sigmund Schott FUND (not Foundation — it changed its name, one reason I couldn’t initially find it using the description provided at — guess where, The Schott Foundation for Public Education” website) out of all of these seems to be the one with the most assets (currently)…..

Total results: [3]. Search Again.  EIN# 11-2856561, Caroline & Sigmund Schott Fund