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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

“Consulting, Training and Program Development for Public Child Welfare and Child Protection Organizations to Promote Safety, Permanency and Well Being for Abused, Neglected, and Sexually Abused Children” (Or, “A Tale of 3 Ohio Nonprofits basically run by a Board of 1 man, 1 woman, + the Perpetual-Motion Grants Recycling Operation”) 1980-2016

leave a comment »

I live in California, but if I lived in Ohio I would get on this situation ASAP.  I will say that a few more times during the post.  

Post Title & Shortlink”Consulting, Training and Program Development for Public Child Welfare and Child Protection Organizations to Promote Safety, Permanency and Well Being for Abused, Neglected, and Sexually Abused Children”(Or, “A Tale of 3 Ohio Nonprofits basically run by a Board of 1 man, 1 woman, + the Perpetual-Motion Grants Recycling Operation, 1980-2016”)

(That ‘s a =single, system-generated shortlink; short enough to “Tweet” or tell others, spanning a two-part title.  WordPress-generated shortlinks for use within this domain (obviously) ARE case-sensitive.  This one ends “-5fG”)

HAPPY NEW YEAR (almost, Pacific Standard Time).  I’m posting this as-is, and will amend or improve it as I can, when I can within the next few days.  Please use the page-down function liberally, and feedback is welcome through the comments field, as at all times. What I have to say on this topic will not fit on one post, and about four are currently in draft on this very important timely, and I believe, relevant to everyone, topic.

Note on publishing this post.  I don’t take it lightly to red-flag this situation, but it is based on my first readings of several related tax returns, and I know what I saw, and will show readers also, to the best of my ability in the timeframe, with enough points of reference for others to follow-up fact-check, or look at more of the evidence and see what it may have to say.

For one, no one in his or her right mind would take on major universities (at the School of Social Work level) and two of the larger (I DNK If largest, but both are in the billion-dollar-plus range) tax-exempt foundations, as participants, not to mention the State of Ohio Department of Job and Family Services for their dealing with said 3 Ohio Nonprofits so long without confronting their fiscal behavior without some basis for doing so.

This post goes with more than one other post, but the one I hope to publish soonest after this one, which I hope to do perhaps even within two hours (although there is a change of year inbetween — I’m doing this New Year’s Eve!): The title (and shortlink) here of “California Components” related post BASSC (1987), CalSWEC(1990), PCWTA (1996?), CFPIC(2003)…How Many Acronyms, and Foundations (Zellerbach, Ford (et. al))  in this Global Child Welfare Village, and why did the California Components of this Public/Private Partnership draw its Core Competency Model from a funky, and not-quite-honestly reporting (1979-formed) Ohio nonprofit? [link active and accurate only after I publish this draft.  Note: shortlinks generated by WordPress are case-sensitive]

After looking at the history of “CalSWEC,” and how closely aligned this is with a series of federal acts with associated funding streams, I am even more convinced that it’s time to publicize this to a more general audience, particularly those who might have an interest in this blog after having been personally devastated by court-related procedures breaking up their families WITHOUT any identified maternal abuse, criminal behavior, court order violations, but often after separating from abusers.

This information, which I am, as diligently as possible in a short timeframe:  reading (processing), investigating, producing annotated images from tax returns and websites for (time-consuming) and formatting posts for (also time-consuming), has brought home to me personally even more, how understanding public/private partnerships AND DISCUSSING THEM from the “CONSUMER” (not promoter) perspective — is not optional to civil rights, freedom of any sort down the road, and functional pursuit of justice where injustice has been perceived.

Unfortunately, the road to understanding the larger picture has been deliberately diverted into intricate (though not 100% impenetrable) mazes specific collaborations which have the money to self-report,self-promote, self-fund (among the various partners) and avail themselves of federal funding in particular.  A problem exists in the time gap of public understanding BEFORE the infrastructures are “baked into” the many systems of government.


For an entire generation, “advocacy” groups purporting to have public interest in reporting about the above scenario (i.e., “Custody of Children going to Batterers based on flawed psychological theories” etc. — you know, I call them the “Broken Courts” crowd) has, with the major DV Cartel, DIScouraged discussion of the role of PRWORA and its HMRF funding, or the organization AFCC as dominating many influential court infrastructures in their difficulties.  Finally (only after having been “outed” on the coverup by, at a minimum, myself in 2014 significantly, and before then as I was blogging since 2009 on the topics) in October 2015, a “White Paper” of sorts was issued on SOME of the above, and not exactly accurate, complete, or factual in the summary. I later found out who was feeding whom information on this, however my point is — the people who MOST need to understand how things have changed, and been rapidly altered as a consequence of major changes in the federal funding of the “Welfare” and of the RAPID proliferation of certain kinds of nonprofits, and fueled by public/private partnership — some big money, coordinated — starting YEARS ago — have been induced and encouraged to simply talk about it from an entirely different perspective.  Necessitating blogs like this one (If you can find ONE other blog like this one, please send link in a comment immediately!)

— this list was taken from a 1990-2000 retrospective on “CalSWEC” in other words, it’s about your teenager’s age right now.  I found (literally, BURIED) in the summary of the decade 1990-2000 of this whole infrastructure I just “accidentally” (well, ongoing curiosity and follow-through to look things up once they had my attention was also a factor….) discovered last week, 2016!  Here’s that quote, and then I’ll give “just a taste” of “CalSWEC” which was one of six “advisory council” links on the NCCD 2016 (SoCal) conference [acronym and conference shown below on this post] where I found the link to, again, those Ohio nonprofits:

Advancing the Education of MSWs for Public Child Welfare Work

Early on, the Curriculum Committee of CalSWEC’s Board of Directors undertook responsibility for the development of a curriculum that the graduate schools of social work would use to ensure the sound education of competent child welfare workers. The committee, composed of social work faculty and county |(fr. p12 bottom to p13 top| social services representatives, had the additional benefit of a 28-member advisory panel drawn from child welfare experts in the schools and voluntary and public child welfare agencies around California. The draft of the core curriculum competencies consisted of 126 possible objectives, drawn primarily from Ohio’s Institute for Human Services, that were to be used by the schools of social work. A result of more than a year’s work, the comprehensive list included 76 competencies organized in the following categories: ethnic sensitive practice; social work skills; core child welfare skills; human development and behavior; workplace management; and child welfare policy, administration, and evaluation …

Why, Ohio’s Institute for Human Services? ??? We are not told.

The images are from this retrospective, and my quote shows the various federal acts mentioned influencing “child welfare.” Next to the images starts my quote from here.

The CalSWEC Board of Directors came together in June 1999 for a strategic planning retreat to examine our mission. Ultimately the board decided it wanted to be at the forefront of providing professionally trained workers for public human services, especially child welfare services. That process strengthened our collaboration and commitment to public human services and social work values. Without a strong collaboration, without dedicated individuals — among them, staff, deans, faculty, agency directors, practitioners, and CalSWEC alumni— who envision the whole collaborative as greater than each one of its parts separately, it would be much more difficult, if not impossible, to continue this work.

An Acceleration of New Policies Directed at Families and Children

In the last decade, there have been as many or more new federal policies concerning families and children as there were in all the previous decades since 1935, when the Social Security Act was first written into law. Some of these include the Family Support Act (1988), Family Preservation and Child Protection Reform Act (1993), Multiethnic Placement Act (1994), Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (1996), Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act Amendments (1996), and the Adoption and Safe Families Act (1997).

Ten years ago, [[this is a year 2000 document, so that means about 1989]] family preservation was the dominant theme in child welfare policy. More recently, the focus has shifted to safety for children and families and permanency for children. This policy change still includes prevention of out-of- home placement and short-term family reunification to reduce lengths of stay in foster home in families where this is feasible. Although the Adoption and Safe Families Act reflected philosophical changes in the ways we serve children and families, the funding streams have not caught up with the policy changes. However, California is fortunate to have secured a Title IV-E waiver to use the funds creatively to implement the new policies in support of families and children


I’m curious why the original years some of those acts were passed weren’t mentioned here; at least two date to the 1970s. This also dovetails in California with no-fault divorce and (“coincidentally”) about the time the Association of Family and Concililation Courts actually shows up incorporated in California (1975, although the organization likes to claim 1963 as its start date).  Bringing them in is entirely appropriate, as this organization has a close relationship among its founding and original more famous personalities (Meyer Elkin, for one, Judith Wallerstein, for another) with UCBerkeley School of Social Welfare, who we are dealing with here also.

Notice that “PRWORA” is one of them — no mention that this involves HMRF (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Funding) and potentially divorce and custody proceedings, is made.  “CAPTA Amendments” are mentioned, however, the original “CAPTA” dates back to 1974.  In fact, many of these programs and policies followed RIGHT on the heels of the civil rights movement of the 1960s, and incipient feminism of the 1970s, not that women have ever been able to stop standing up for fair treatment since (belatedly) getting to vote in the USA:

I also see the significance of who the “smaller guys” in this mix are hanging out with (the 3 Ohio nonprofits are indeed those smaller guys).

But, what I’ve seen, I’ve seen — and what I’ve seen just ain’t right. It needs to be brought up! I ask people to at least consider the things I’ve brought up which, apparently, others have not.

I have been working on this for over a week; there are subsidiary parts and posts (at least 3 in the works), including one on a major private tax-exempt private foundation which I’d not gotten into before.

This being New Year’s Eve, 2016, I am going to post this at the current state of development, and to red-flag a situation I first saw less than a week ago, and knew at once had to be at least mentioned on this blog.  This morning and afternoon (no, this season, I am not actively seeking nor do I have much of a holiday social life!), I added a brief section right below on the California Components which point to the significance of misbehavior (or, missing money) in even an out-of state participant, that is in the Ohio.  BOTH states are doing Regional and Coordinated Trainings for Child Welfare professionals.

As I looked closer at the California elements (based on the conferencing together this past October), opening up another panorama of partnerships between university schools of social work (preparing MSWs for work in the child welfare profession) and county service agencies, I didn’t feel that a “three-paragraph” or so introduction would convey the scope and importance of the situation we have here.

So,  having worked extensively on the introduction here today, I will split in half and ideally post both halves simultaneously.  One part is focused on the 3  Ohio nonprofits, and the other what I’d call the “California Components” or connection.

As I looked further at this, I began  to understand in part why it seemed such a hostile environment for domestic violence survivors who were also mothers with children in my state, in fact immediate geographic region, in this century, who were facing a powerfully networked, foundation-backed infrastructure determined to go in a different direction with the topic than we needed, or most likely wanted, and allowing the same entities pushing TANF-based “marriage/fatherhood” programming to also sponsor and oversee their private definitions of how public agencies should view (and train new generations of social service workers to view) child welfare, child abuse and (not much was actually said about the violence towards women aspects in the material I reviewed at the School of Social Welfare sites today.

Having now said this, I am breaking the post in two, posting the “3 Ohio Nonprofits” situation as is before it’s 2017 (PST) and will post the “California Components” part shortly afterwards, explaining the connection better.


Post Title & Shortlink”Consulting, Training and Program Development for Public Child Welfare and Child Protection Organizations to Promote Safety, Permanency and Well Being for Abused, Neglected, and Sexually Abused Children”(Or, “A Tale of 3 Ohio Nonprofits basically run by a Board of 1 man, 1 woman, + the Perpetual-Motion Grants Recycling Operation, 1980-2016”)

(That ‘s a =single, system-generated shortlink; short enough to “Tweet” or tell others, spanning a two-part title.  WordPress-generated shortlinks for use within this domain (obviously) ARE case-sensitive.  This one ends “-5fG”)


I live in California, but if I lived in Ohio I would get on this situation ASAP.  I will say that a few more times during the post.  


Readers, consider yourself “on notice” that it’s NOT OK to continue ignoring tax returns (where available and where it applies) to 501©3s taking government contracts at the state level to provide this type of services, and let this kind of slip-shod self-reporting, as well as back-patting by related organizations, go unchallenged.

Does this not indicate certain over-confidence (well-placed, apparently) that almost no one in the public at large is paying serious attention to state-level service contractors for training in the social services arena, and that where blatant abuse of the tax-exempt status and, in general, credibility, exists, the contracts seem to continue, but the public outcry based on that blatant abuse does not?

The oldest of these nonprofits is clearly functioning courtesy government contracts (and without which it just would not continue to exist) from the State of Ohio, Department of Job and Family Services.  The other two were obviously added on later as “obfuscatory organizations,” discouraging a more direct examination of the oldest one’s tax filings over time, while one boasts on the website not even named after itself about the partnerships with Russian and Canadian entities, and the other isn’t even mentioned (that I could see) on the website.

…if I lived in Ohio I would get on this situation ASAP

I “got on it” this far immediately because the entities in Ohio have been showing up in California, using the name of ONE of them chosen as the “umbrella agency,” in the form of conference sponsors; and those sponsoring that conference (as well as the related “Advisory Committee” participants — six links were provided  naming them) seem to go up to the highest level of preparing child protection professionals for the field, starting at the college level.

It’s another area to “drill-down,” and being a one-person operation here (mostly unpaid), I have to flag it hoping others will pick on the general situation, and why there is indeed cause for alarm.

In this situation, people, perhaps within Ohio coordinating with some in California, need to work together to finish figuring it out, break it up, and clean it up. I cannot do it alone, nor should I have to. If you (collectively speaking) REFUSE to talk FISCAL/BUSINESS OPERATIONS OVER TIME, CONNECTING THE DOTS, and identify ALL the related entities and nonprofits involved, then what basis do you have for complaining about performance in child protective services, or in the matter of state budgets?

(Any audit of an existing business entity would have to do at least some of this, so why shouldn’t the public monitoring those influencing their own relationships with their own kids — not to mention, the use of their own tax dollars?)

People who start to read  and compare different levels (state, county, city, retirement fund, AND the USA (federal government, via. US Treasury site) etc.) government CAFRs(Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports) as I and (some, not enough) others have been recommending for years will have some helpful points of reference in looking for related entities in the private and nonprofit world as well, including the Letters of Transmittal, “MDA” (Management Discussion and Analysis) and “Notes to the Financial Statements” (apart from all those charts and tables of numbers which are the financial statements themselves) will understand that the auditor specifies WHAT is being audited, i.e., what is considered under that government entity, and contains disclaimers.  

These CAFRS are reports of activities, cash flow, and fund balances, and a good place to also see FISCALLY what is considered that public (government) entity.  Several bloggers have written well to explain this, but putting your hands on at least a few of them is also a good start. I started posting in 2012 at http://economicbrain.wordpress.com), also called “Cold,Hard.Fact$” — there are examples in the sidebar.  Or go to any government entity’s finance page, or simply search on-line for it, and just jump in and read!

Again, I have to ask, how can the federal government (USA) be BOTH (when military and civilian are combined) THE largest asset infrastructure owner in the world (Bentley Systems 500), and yet be carrying such a debt load?  Start reading nonprofit tax returns REGULARLY, and see on every Form 990, Part I, SUMMARY, the difference between “Annual Revenues – Expenses = Deficit or Surplus” (it’s going to be a positive or a negative).  Read enough of them, and you will also start to see ones that either are functional illiterates as to reading directions on IRS forms, or are, in specific cases, just “cooking the books” by shifting categories around.  You will find internal inconsistencies and things that “just don’t add up” (as I did in the matter of grants distributed in some of the 3 Ohio nonprofits here; in fact it was one of the first red flags).  And you will probably find others that are written neat, clean, and clear — but may also reveal some surprises, such as “related entities” which are not even hinted at on the public websites involved.

That was the case here also.  See first sentences of this blog:  I’d get on this ASAP!

Sure it’s a lot of work — but it gets better with practice, and so is working to pour one’s money down a drain filled with many diversionary (into private pockets) holes.  IF we really want just and fair government, representative of the people and solid legal processes in the courts, the place to start has GOT to include a general public ability to understand economic / accounting concepts (I don’t say, everyone become a CPA, but get the basics) and have the ability to compare evidence with public relations material, regardless of who puts it out — and by that, I mean, whether a government source or a private sources.  Remember, all for-profit (though possibly operating tax-exempt) enterprises involve some accounting, and in these critical social services area, we are talking Public/Private.

In the Ohio situation, and as overlapping with the California Conference I referenced, universities are also involved in both states; particularly UC Berkeley.  Exploring one of the websites provided, there is another organization (Public Services Association) involved which I didn’t deal with in this blog, but is apparently involved.  After all, networks are going to involve more than one type of entity in one location.


Consulting, Training and Program Development for Public Child Welfare and Child Protection Organizations to Promote Safety, Permanency and Well Being for Abused, Neglected, and Sexually Abused Children”(Or, “A Tale of 3 Ohio Nonprofits basically run by a Board of 1 man, 1 woman, + the Perpetual-Motion Grants Recycling Operation, 1980-2016”)

(That ‘s a =single, system-generated shortlink; short enough to “Tweet” or tell others, spanning a two-part title)

The title begins with an exact quote from one of those three Ohio nonprofits’ tax returns stating its tax-exempt purpose.  That’s its story, and anyone reading a website or just part of the tax return or  even government-produced annual reports with pie charts and graphs is welcome to take it on faith.

The post title ends with my (parenthetical) summary of what the three (not just one) related nonprofits, looking at different evidence — their tax returns in combination with the leading organization website, one government source and at least one out-of-state source which led me to them in the first place. What most concerns me here is:

  • How little question there is that this is taking place, and for it to take place requires ignorance for many, and collusion for some.  I barely started looking at the tax return of ONE Ohio Nonprofit before realizing something was “off.”
  • The other colluding organizations (out of state) are big ones, and least one a big player in this field, particularly.
  • The subject matter could not be more significant — training child welfare workers to do their jobs properly and helping children who’ve been harmed about the MOST any kid could be harmed, other than beating, starving, and abandoning them (some of which sometimes comes with the territory mentioned).  This also means that anyone potentially criticizing the operation labeled as helping and protecting abused children will typically trigger emotionally-driven (not evidence-driven, and I am talking evidence of operational practices among the trainers) protests — “What, don’t you want children to be protected?  What system would you replace this with?”
    • It’s taken me time to realize that (along with ending (or “preventing”) domestic violence, or responsible fatherhood) these worthy purposes are often where some corrupt personalities (and their corresponding organizations) like to operate.  Not to mention those with direct or indirect access to extremely vulnerable adults and children.
    • The vital importance of any field (subject matter, or cause) is still no excuse for engaging in deceitful tax return filings, or setting up extraneous nonprofits under common control of those with the government connections.
  • One of the three Ohio nonprofits has been around since 1979 — am I the first person to catch, notice, and flag it as a suspect scenario in public?  The other two organizations dated back to 2000 and 2003, and after reviewing several tax returns over several days, the pattern I am complaining has been in clear evidence for years now.

Overall, my concern, and based on general awareness in social media arenas (blogs in particular, which are an easy place to show enough detail — Twitter isn’t enough —  Facebook isn’t really the platform for discussions involving a prolonged attention span on specific topics) is:

  • WHO actually reads tax returns of service providers in this category — in Ohio, or elsewhere?

Sometimes it can be assumed that a smaller outfit in the company of well-known and respected larger outfits should be above question — or that contractors for primary government services also should be.  If anything I hope this blog may break people of the habit of going by “person” (including business entity as corporate “persons”) rather than “performance.”  Just in case there is a question, I am publishing a quick look at one of the larger sponsor foundations (Casey Family Programs, out of state) involved with the umbrella agency of the 3 Ohio Nonprofits.  When I say larger, I am talking assets of over $2 billion.

Why it takes three nonprofits shuffling around grant money to and from each other to accomplish this when Ohio DJFS is already paying one of them, I fail to see.

But I do see that one of the two main people involved in all three organizations and drawing an upper-middle class (if not upper-class) salary — $160K each, the last tax return I could get my hands on — is coordinating regional child-welfare trainings in the state, and that several things just aren’t right about the set-up, when the organization’s website, the Ohio JDFS annual report, and most importantly, the tax returns, are compared with each other.  That, plus the standing question, WHAT does this have to do with its well-heeled partners conferencing recently in “SoCal” (Southern California / Orange County) on the same matters?

At first glance, this scenario might be technically legal (except moneys not accounted for among the grants transitions), but is ethically more than questionable, and financially, it’s got loopholes, and this time, internal inconsistencies in reporting within single tax returns, more than once over the years I’ve seen it for the organizations I put the spotlight on.

I live in California, but if I lived in Ohio I would get on this situation ASAP.  

Without question my state is also participating in endorsing the Ohio umbrella nonprofit for the one taking state contracts, and partnering with groups in Russia and Canada to spread the good news  evidence-based practices on how to promote those good things named in their program purposes, and a few other memberships collaborations shown on the (Ohio umbrella nonprofit’s) website whose depths, breadth, and height I have not yet (and may not) plumbed, sounded, scaled, or otherwise explored.  My state’s participation may be seen on both the organization (nonprofit) the conference was named after, the “advisory committee” (six links shown) for the conference posted on that nonprofit’s website, and my state’s participation also (which I knew earlier) in supporting the  “NoCal” (Northern California) 501©3 over the years, and probably contracting with it.

So I am posting to flag a particular situation by naming: the three organizations | their leadership | the apparent scope of operations and source of public funding in Ohio | their recent joint sponsorship of an out-of state conference with two other, much wealthier entities and an LLC of at this point unknown size and ownership | the nonprofit in whose name the conference was held**  and to recommend people in other states and US territories check out who and/or what is coordinating statewide training situation on this topic in their home states.

(** and which I’d already called attention to on this blog for the significance of its multiple incl. foreign government funders, and subcontracting with a NYC nonprofit entity formed by lawyers, part of whose operational procedures includes suing child welfare programs in multiple states (one tax return referenced operations in 8 states, winning, instituting overhauls of the agencies, resulting in the implementation of this  subcontractor nonprofits’ proprietary software as part of the public agency operations.  For which of course consulting and training on its use brought in more revenues.)

There is, after all, a pattern to such (situations), with functional names for identifiable moving parts and practices.  “The moral of the story:”  

“The Moral Of the Story”

(told by even a little digging for identities and financials here,

not to mention a lot of it I’ve done over the years)

Where nonprofits are involved with state-level funding especially in this field– do the drill down and study it until you understand it from a business and financial perspective on the operationsnot the “outcomes” which will be advertised plenty on both government and organization websites, but fiscal year and year-after-year, accounting operations — which will show whether the practices have integrity, or notbut specifically the operations.

  • Outcomes may have a variety of causes (cause-and-effect relationships) but operations can be described as of themselves in less speculative terms, at least in terms transferable across sectors.  For example: a Form 990 tax return is a Form 990 tax return (and not a 990PF) is a Form 990 tax return regardless of what charitable causes are endorsed.  I am talking, how does the organization report to the IRS, in good part, and state laws governing corporations in another, charities (as it applies) in a third. I am talking common indicators of (a) basic truth-telling or (b) attempting to avoid simply telling the truth.
  • A composite look eventually reveals operations, and from there, the character of the entities involved in any specific cause, however popular or worthy it may seem, and by whomoever else in high places it is being promoted.
  • Another indicator is — can a real purpose or legitimacy for the (nonprofit) be seen or not? Is it simply serving to “obfuscate” and place obstacles for people who might dare to even try to connect the dots from funder to grantee, from one organization to another?

Identify the entities, look at their Form 990 returns (where applicable and available) and related organizations (if any) for internal consistency and where money is coming from, going to, and how it is being accounted for.  Look at all parts of the return, and notice the Balance Sheet (Statement of Assets & Liabilities), and if assets are being held, in which categories.

(AN EXAMPLE, DETAILED IN THIS POST): At least one of the Ohio nonprofits has been holding “0” cash over time, Lines 1 – 4 on the Balance Sheet.  It also had zero employees, making lines 5-10 also blank.  Meanwhile, on a separate but related entity (the actual functional nonprofit, not the umbrella one featured in co-sponsoring the “SoCal” conference) on Part IX, Statement of Expenses,” Category “Line 11, Fees for Services, Non-employees” — — which has parts a,b,c,d,e,f,g with pre-printed prompts for categories — legal, accounting, etc.) and “g” = “other” — left Line 11g blank, but Line 24 (which also has subparts with no pre-printed prompts) had an amount well over 10% of the total. Exploring earlier grants, as I recall, as far back as 2008, Grants to others were also mis-labeled, and deliberately moved from where they belong (Expenses, Line 1) to an “Other Expenses” (Line 24) category. In other words, there are several kinds of ‘red-flag’ filing actions visible over the years, and on several parts of the return, not just one. Let alone, situations where some of the grants money appears to have gone “MIA” (as far as accounting for it within the body of the return where appropriate), amounts in the thousands of dollars. Then, what are actually government contracts, on another Schedule (A) are listed as government “support” with the details of the form prompting categories that clearly represent gifts, grants, dues, and contributions — NOT earnings.

That is an “anomaly” and I mentally flagged it for posting (and did posted it below).Even if the amount seems minor in compared to larger organizations (with which it is schmoozing) that KIND of a breach of protocol (til further notice otherwise) is major — it served in this case to obscure who over $2 million of expenses went to.  No independent subcontractors were identified, either.  The picture, then, did not “add up” to “ethical” in just the one year, one entity’s statement.  In combination with the related entities involved and the disparate website, it added up even less.  Yet at least one director is highly placed (it seems) in authority within the state of Ohio to coordinate regional trainings regarding Child Welfare (OCWTP — Ohio Child Welfare Training Program).

Now THAT doesn’t “add up” to right, either, and reflects on the government under OJDFS (the contractor here) at the state level, which is disturbing enough to have generated this post.) On yet closer examination, more internal inconsistencies, apparently deliberate mis-categorization of expenses, revenues, and to the point I believe there may be deception in portraying the basis for the organization’s qualification as tax-exempt status (relating to which part (II or III) of “Schedule A of Support” was considered for which organizations.
Describing this without pointing to the images, or posting all the images is simply impractical; it will be hard to follow. WITH the images, to point to, it is not hard to follow, but the time spent posting all images involved is more of a burden than I am willing to take on at this point, without an identified audience. I’m making a general note of the situation, and challenge anyone local to follow through with it.

Again, may I remind us the two primary and which first? level to determine regarding classification of sectors [or of any entity in a Public/Private Partnership, often called the “P3” sector] are () PUBLIC and () PRIVATE, as determined by whether the entity is filing a tax return on itself, or a government-standardized “CAFR” on itself, or as blended or component part of a larger entity filings such CAFR).  First, determine whether or not it is a public (government) entity.

Secondly, in the PRIVATE, is it operating for-profit or not-for-profit?  Typically they go tag-team on that status, and can be evasive on “fessing up” that the leading edge website is referring not to a charity, but a privately controlled LLC (sometimes privately controlled BY a charity which its by definition itself a “non-stock” corporation, i.e., privately controlled..  got it?).

Lastly, when dazzled by causes, complex graphics-filled websites with BIG picture and sometimes FINE print in the details (not the headings, but the paragraphs underneath them — if there are any without more “clicks”), and great-sounding names (based on great causes) — IF the website refers to a non-entity, or the IDentity of it is unclear from the website, probably you are dealing with a Center, Project, Program, Institute, or “Clearinghouse” which may be (and had better be!) referenced on someone else’s:  guess what:  tax return (if a nonprofit that must file one), financial statements (if a public traded for-profit), or CAFR somehow (if government entity). I’ve seen ALL of the above, and a lot of pretension to be something which does not exist, echoed by other partners involved.  Many years ago, I categorized this as “UFO” — Unidentified Financial Object.

Look — to do business in this country requires having an identity under which to do it, and that identity has to be registered as having a home “legal domicile” in the US or Territories.  Find that identity and take it from there.  Also, government entities, for what it’s worth, have to show up SOMEWHERE on their own, or another’s comprehensive annual financial report.  These are interesting reading, and specific parts of them (see CAFRMAN.com for an outline — or just find one and read the table of contents!) including Letter of Transmittal, Introduction (as I recall), “MDA” (Management Discussion and Analysis), and especially “Notes to the Financial Statements” come up with some real interesting stuff.  I look first for reporting units — whether blended, component, discrete, etc.

There seems to be no requirement, however, that assets and investments by USA-domiciled entities can’t be invested overseas.  I do not know the regulations, but have watched the movements on some major nonprofit players’ balance sheets and attached schedules (for example, of activities outside the US — when it may read “$###,000,000” and “investments” (community foundations, major tax-exempt foundations’ etc.) balance sheets, which show beginning of year, end of year, and change over time.  An entity could be (and some are) absolutely “US-based” but a look at the balance sheets, well, “where a man’s treasure is, there is his heart also.” Sure home country affects taxation for businesses — but have you considered how this works for tax-exempt foundations and public charities?  They’re tax-EXEMPT (as to the corporation).  As an employer, that’s one thing, but as an entity — they are not required to be 100% patriotic (‘investing in US”) and from what I can see, plenty aren’t.

And SOMEWHERE within other government sites must be legislation appropriating the money, and categorizing what funds it goes into. Yes, that’s quite the research project. Keep it in mind that, whether or not explored by you, (Dear Reader) these things do exist and influence the playing field.

THIS post is mostly tax returns, so don’t break out into a sweat (UNLESS you’re on the “obfuscation” team….).

Sorry about the rather expanded “Moral of the Story.”  I keep thinking of the variety of situations, and included some “CYA” and a plug for people to read more “CAFRs” — not just tax returns.  It should turn some lights on, and reduce the fumbling around in the dark that NOT knowing is going to result in.  for more, see some of my “sticky posts” on this blog, and “Cold Hard Facts” (another blog, while not complete has a good start on the material, started in 2012).

Results can be surprising, as I found looking at, or I should say for any business entity named “First Five Years Fund” (which turns out to be an Illinois LLC controlled by an Illinois nonprofit “Ounce of Prevention” as the “sole corporate member,” which nonprofit is closely tied into running and expanding the reach of trademarked “Educare” schools).  The FFYF.org website gave few clues to any home geography, and the answer was only found through an article in “Inside Philanthropy.”

[[Will discuss separately…]]

Regardless of the subject matter (or “field” of expertise), in public/private partnerships intending to improve, transform or reform anything, typically there WILL be a for-profit operation or entity within arms’ reach of any public-sponsored OR apparently private-sponsored non-profit with a market niche of some public service, or institution. This for-profit entity will show up either as part of the nonprofit’s project, or as a related entity, or as a subcontractor, regardless of the subject matter.

Also, in case you have not yet noticed, we are going digital decision-making, cross-country, cross-national borders, and global to better even out the pesky “legal rights” differences between countries with Constitutions and Bill of Rights, commonwealths with monarchs and a national religions, and those socialist, or otherwise.

It seems the USA as a wealthy, and prosperous country (at least those controlling most of its assets) has been “pegged” for funding much of this, in many ways — direct grants, nonprofits supported by gov’t grants focusing them on international while labeling themselves “national,” and in general through a proliferation of tax-exempt organizations too many for consistent civilian, independent monitoring.  We are also simply a very large country with a large population of employees whose continual revenues feed the central coffers, typically obtained in advance of actual usage through wage -withholding (sometimes, garnishments) and fees for services, etc.

Often such nonprofit may or will be providing the proprietary (trademarked) web-based training or training platform, or proprietary software, AND the nonprofit may provide technical assistance and training in how to use it.  

As I originally found in NCCD’s of California’s brief subcontracting partnership with Children’s Rights, Inc. of New York (which finally got me looking up NCCD’s tax returns and charitable registry filings, as well as its Wisconsin street address around the corner from AFCC in Madison, Wisconsin) and as more recently I found in NACCRRA (National Association for Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies) within the last month, while blogging the universal, international push for more (public funding for) “Early Childhood Education,” as announced by Linda K. Smith, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Early Childhood Development at her HHS.ACF.GOV “bio blurb” website. (site says last reviewed Feb. 2016).
click to read comments and view full-sized)depast-secy-for-ece-for-hhsacf-linda-k-smith-bio-blurb-annotated-to-show-naccra-and-publicprivate-revolving-door-2016-12-19-at-3-14pm
I already posted on the situation (“4th Quarter 2016” posts) in the context of a White House 2015 summit involving several evasively named situations). This professional summary doesn’t mention that the “NACCRRA” goes by a completely different name, involving a proprietary (trademarked) product, on the related website, and as I recall from the tax returns, there was evidence of significant program income (though not the main source) from the software involved.  As well as a somewhat complex set of related entities.  But, it seems the public is not supposed to connect the dots in the situation — in a revolving door career path (common for those in government) the intents of the PRIVATE sector (represented by a private association) can be carried back into the public.

The more heavily invested the federal (who also often funds more than half of certain state-level programming — for example:  Child Support Enforcement) sector is in anything, even as coached by private associations of groups already taking significant federal funding (such as Head Start) — the harder it is to conceive of any alternate scenario as possible, or even reasonable.  Which is certainly intentional by those who have already developed the relationships with the software providers, or are possibly investing in, or subcontracting with them.

If I were paying taxes in Ohio, or lived there, I’d follow-up on this situation, whether or not I had children.  Child Welfare proceedings (including trainings) don’t just influence direct costs of the trainings — they influence entire household economies, who may be put on welfare, put in jail, traumatized, drugged, or moved into foster care.  Those who train the professionals at the state level should be held to HIGHEST level of accountability and checks for ethical FISCAL behavior.  Please feel free to comment with findings or feedback on this post or any other (related) one.  What I’m saying is, in this instance, not that hard to see on the tax returns (as a whole, all three, and over some years),  and local individuals may find it easier to get actual paperwork, versus electronic filings, or may naturally be more familiar with some of the people or places involved.

But, don’t kid yourself that only those two states are referenced, they just showed up at this time when a group in Ohio helped (with three others) sponsor a conference in Southern California, along with three other entities, two of the VERY big (Casey Family Programs and The California Endowment) and the other, who knows?  It’s an LLC in Scottsdale Arizona.  And that was only the conference sponsors — the participants were from all over, and some representing private organizations (such as The Vera Institute in NY — several reps) and public, as well as of course several from the sponsoring organizations too.

OCTOBER 2016 So-Cal CONFERENCE WHICH LED TO MY LOOKING UP THE 3-in-1 OHIO NONPROFITS as 1 of them showed up as one of only four Sponsors:


Re: this post “Consulting, Training and Program Developmt. for Public Child Welfare and Child Protection Organizations to Promote Safety, Permanency and Well Being for Abused, Neglected, and Sexually Abused Children” (Or, “A tale of 3 Ohio Nonprofits basically run by a Board of 1 man, 1 woman, + the Perpetual-Motion Grants Recycling Operation”)


==>Click to read comments==> nccdsbcglobalorg-nccds-oct2016-conference-on-cyf-showing-4-sponsors-heavily-annotated-2016dec19-at-4-21pm

Consider the top half of the post a bit of a time-out and sound-off, in response to discovering the situation.  Below this, you will see more colorful images of logos, pie-charts from annual reports, and annotated images from organization websites (which tend to also be more colorful), tables with organization name, state, tax Return year, and what we really need, their EIN#s (in cases of organization name change over time and just to verify who’s who) with my also colorful annotations on the fine-print, black-and-white images of tax returns.  There will be less text and more links.  This section will show and tell the details and may be more “fun” for some.  The top section is mostly text, just me talking, without visual aids or pictures to maintain the attention span.

In addition, I’ll leave a big, fat heading to ID the transition from sound-off to drill-down.

website-nccd-nccd-2016-ccyf-conferenceadvisory-committee-7-links-in-cal-incl-calswec-2016dec19pm-png ==> Click to read comments==> nccd-2016-ccyf-conferenceadvisory-committee-7-links-in-cal-incl-calswec-heavily-annotated-2016dec19pm

How this post, that title and the following content got here:



(I promised a colorful title, so there it is.)

California HealthCare Foundation (“CHCF”) came up through partnering with The California Endowment (“TCE”).  Look at the size of their tax respective latest tax returns and another oddity I just noticed recently — their EIN#s differ by only one digit — the final digit.  And, they were both formed at about the same time, too (1995).

For MUCH more on The California Endowment (“TCE”), and that joint project, including some recently added details up front, see the sticky post I moved this stuff from, at  http://wp.me/psBXH-4FK. (About My Writing Style + Work Sample| The California Endowment).

Here for comparison (from that post), however are their latest tax returns and a single annotation on one of the organization’s $2.6M spent in a single year on a certain subcontractor.  Compare the size of these two to the much smaller total assets size of my 3 inter-related Ohio organizations, yet one of them spent a much higher proportion of its year’s expenses on, apparently, UN-named (filing 1099s) in the appropriate Tax Return Section, independent contractors.  However, the total amount was similar to what was paid the “Makena Capital Management, LLC” subcontractor (among a total of $11M for part of that category, that year), at $2M plus some:

Here’s TCE more recently and right underneath it, “The California Healthcare Foundation (also more recent return):

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

Check out the close similarity in EIN#s — interesting, huh? 954523232 and 945423231  One is filing as a “PF” and the other as an “O” — neither as a standard public charity 501©3.

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

COMPARING TOTAL GROSS ASSETS:  $3.7 Billion vs. 0.7 billion between those two, as of Yr “2015.”  By (size) contrast, the three Ohio organizations (that this post is about), abbreviations NACCRW, IHS, and (full name) “Dendro, Inc.” are in size for FY2014, $3.69M, $670K, and $2.68M.

In terms of Billions (the largest entity of the four is dealing obviously in billions), this would be:

TCE – $3.7B; CHCF: $0.78B, NACCRW $0.00369B + IHS $0.00067B + $0.00268B.  I used “+” signs because effectively the last three are run by the same officers (only two of who are paid).

When it comes to that 2016 NCCD Conference sponsors, only the bolded ones show.  I should add the foundation “Casey Family Programs,” I suppose; notice the operational structure is private foundation (filing a 990PF) and, of course, this represents UPS family wealth, along with Annie E. Casey Foundation (and probably others).

Casey Family Programs WA 2014 990PF 47 $2,244,074,790.00 91-0793881

So, the size would be obviously $2.2B. Of course, the fiscal year 2014 isn’t much help in viewing any funding of a conference that already took place in 2016, as to looking for the grants possibly involved as reported on tax returns…)

  • QUICK COMMENTARY on my (first) REVIEW OF THE ABOVE CASEY FAMILY PROGRAMS, Inc. 990PF has been moved to a separate post.  It’s relevant, and I will publish ASAP.  It had some surprising finds, although I’ve known for a while it’s an interested player in the foster care arena.


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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Eventually, I found the NACRRW EIN# and a very strange entity (only 3 directors, paid nothing) program description “supporting organization” (supporting a “related” organization at the same address called “Dendro, Inc.”) which I do NOT see mentioned in the colorful and somewhat complex website:


NORTH AMERICAN RESOURCE CENTER FOR CHILD WELFARE OH 2014 990 28 $3,394,400.00 31-1612100

Dendro, Inc. on the above return shows same street address as NARCCW, but on the corresponding (“2014”) return, does not.  NARCCW – founded 2000, Dendro, Inc., 2003, and says it’s a supporting organization for IHS (below, Institute for Human Services, Inc., EIN# 310968839), founded back in 1979.

DENDRO INC OH 2014 990 23 $2,680,679.00 20-0657293
Institute for Human Services ** OH 2014 990 36 $670,847.00 31-0968839
Institute for Human Services OH 2013 990 32 $1,080,695.00 31-0968839
Institute for Human Services OH 2012 990 31 $863,160.00 31-0968839


Unbelievable — what are “The California Endowment,” Casey Family Programs, and NCCD doing with this outfit?

All three Ohio organizations (NARCCW, Dendro and IHS) have basically two main officers, Judith S. Rycus and Ronald C. Hughes (that’s an Amazon.com link to Field Guides to Child Welfare on sale (used & new) from 1998, and as far back as 1982, by these two; Vol. I priced at $139).  Here’s BetterWorldBooks.co.UK selling them also….

Of all three nonprofits, only IHS pays any officers (those two) anything.  IHS gets grants from one of the related, and gives grants to another of the related entities.  Other than that, its main source of income appears to be contracts with the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services (only the acronym “ODJFS” is listed on the return, however).  For contracts (2014) of over $6M, they have expensed out over $2M of contracts to (to whom is simply unknown) but show no independent contractors paid over $100K in the return, and entered that amount in the wrong place on the return.  Independent contractors would be paid via 1099s, and the “other expenses” are labeled “1099s.”

One seriously wonders looking at the returns (and website) what is at the bottom of this maze.

I can literally show from all three 2014 returns, that money is circulating, or should I say RE-circulating between the three organizations with common Board members, such that “Contributions” stated on page 1 of any return, on Part VIII (Statement of Revenues) prove to have been mostly from “related organizations,” with only IHS acknowledging both orgs as “related” on its Schedule R.   And, that year, twice (that is, for two out of three) the total for “Grants” shown on Pt. I (summary) was over $20K short of the total shown in the Form 990 Schedule I (not hard to figure, as each Schedule I contained only one recipient). (The two shortages were $27K and $21K).

Confused?  Maybe that’s no accident.  

Here’s who said they gave what to whom, and when for “2014”  Of course, among the three entities, “they” pretty much refers to the same two board members anyhow. Also, what’s said on Pt. I (summary, Pt. VIII (revenues) and Sched I (where there are domestic grants, that lists “to whom”) and “Sched R” (acknowledging related organizations) are also relevant. (Referring to 2008ff Form 990s; Forms 990PF and 990EZ are organized differently).

NARCCW (founded 1979). 0 employees or volunteers, 3 Board:  Rycus, Hughes, and Norma J. Kley.  1706 East Broad St. Columbus, OH

  • REVENUES: Rec’d Contributions $420,000 (Pt. 1) from (Pt. VIII Line 1) “Related organizations” which would have to be one of the other two.
  • EXPENSES: Gave contributions of $487,000 (Pt. 1 Expenses, Pt. III Program Services Accomplishmts says $460K to “Dendro” and $27K to “other charities.”  No activities other than grantmaking are described, at all.  Sched I, however, only records grants to Dendro. Schedule I comes up $27K short of total grants distributed (= its expenses) on Pt. I.

Dendro (founded 2000). 0 employees or volunteers, same 3 Board members.  162 Misty Oaks, Gahanna, OH. 

  • REVENUES:  Rec’d $460,000 (Pt. 1; Pt. VIII shows it’s from “related”)
  • EXPENSES:   Gave contributions of $120,000 to “IHS,” and that’s the only “program service activity.”  Another clue — Gross receipts for this one (Page 1 Header, Part G): $1,929,907 — usually an indication some securities or other assets were sold; that’s the Gross Receipts, and Net is going to be less.   So, (Pt. VIII, Revenues) does show $1.4M securities sold for net profit of $16K, plus that year $28K dividends income.

Question:  Why was this organization holding assets, and why get rid of (sell) some of them now?

Question:  If this organization exists to support IHS — and as it has, basically zero expenses (See Part IX Line 1 grants out $120K versus Line 25, page total $121.89K) and it’s not doing anything but passing money on — why (for what bona fide purpose) even have the organization?  Why not just take most of the $460K it received and give it to IHS (instead of letting IHS get ITS money from the State of Ohio through contracts)?


Initial return (10 years ago, annotated in pink and blue) shows the organization received $1,3950,000 “public support,” held in investments, expensed the $500 filing fee, and earned $21,347 (Lines 4 & 5, in two categories related to earnings from assets held).  At the time, did the IRS Form 990 require reporting of related organizations?  Not on the revenues section, and I don’t see any attached schedule.  Were they hoping no one would find out? This extra source of revenues to go to IHS would provide at least some public support for it (i.e., “contributions”) — unlabeled as to sources for continued tax-exempt status (it’s main revenues being — see tax returns — government contracts, and which otherwise might just make it a plain, for-profit contractor (??).

Some fine print (2014) may answer that Question #1 in the Balance Sheet:   the two columns show Beginning of Year $2.3M assets, rounded up some and End of year became $2.68M assets, but in the middle the also sold $1.4M assets for not a very good profit  (see image, or tax return above).


Dendro, Inc. 2014 tax return, from Pt X Balance Sheet (note: there are NO entries under top lines, incl. checking, savings, pledges receivable, etc.

Some of those grants are being used, presumably, to purchase more assets.

Meanwhile under IHS (first formed in 1979 says the return), Rycus and Hughes are paid identical salaries of $160K each, as the only paid officers (and only ones working Full-Time). Meanwhile, under IHS (Yr “2014” above), the substantial revenues (Pt VIII, Line 2) are from “ODJFS” which is to say, government contracts.  They are it seems contracting with the State of Ohio, and of this money, apparently, some is going to the shell 501©3s above (same two on the board, all volunteer).  Good grief!!

institute-for-human-services-columbusohein310968839-2014-990-annotated-showing-main-revs-are-odjfs-program-service-revs-62m-scrshot-2016-12-17 (<==Click for full-sized image)institute-for-human-services-columbusohein310968839-2014-990-showing-main-revs-are-odjfs-program-service-revs-62m-scrshot-2016-12-17-at-7-58pm

Also, on the 2014 “IHS” tax return, an odd entry of $2.5M for Part IX (Expenses) which is put down on Line 24s (“Other”) and is about ⅓ of total expenses (i.e., over 30%) looks like it belongs on Line 11g, with Line 11 referring to “Fees for Services / non-employees” meaning other than those already labeled on Lines 11a,b,c,d,e (etc.) for specific administrative taxes).

Here’s that image:

(general comments on a viewing of several and related tax returns after a day’s “time out” from viewing them, exposed even more internal consistencies and flaws. These are better shown than narrated, but here’s the “first-run” narration I had, FYI. Feel free to comment — after looking yourself would be best).

****MISCELLANEOUS FOOTNOTES on the 3 Ohio Nonprofits:

  • Reviewing yet more returns (of all three organizations) some days after writing this, I found that the above practice (of labeling what looks like it should be under Line 11g and appropriately described to the public on the return — WHO were the over $2M of contractors each year, year after years, when the corresponding section (Independent Contractors paid over $100K) is consistently blank?) seems common, and a few more surfaced.  For example, where Schedule A is filled out on Part II or Part III depending on type of organization, the wrong “type” was checked, therefore avoiding displaying that it  was earning ample revenues as “Program Services” — in fact that was the main source of revenues (IHS). Instead, the OJDFS Contracts — hovering between $5 and $6M/year — were categorized as Line 1 (Schedule A) under gifts, contributions, dues, memberships, etc.
  • This would seem to validate its qualification as a nonprofit because of the source of its direct public  or government “support” however it’s getting contracts, not grants. In  addition, the so-called “supporting organization” is itself being supported from this one, and what the middle layer organization is even doing, is questionable (and not referenced on their website).  I found a 2008 website which actually acknowledged the website I was on, but more recent ones (under basically the same leadership) on Page 1, had “website” blank marked N/A.  In point after point, the IRS files seem evasive, inaccurate, internally inconsistent and where not, simply, incomplete.  I went to check Year 2008 (connecting the dots) and could not locate (at first two checks) any 2008 return for the main organization.  As I have said near the top, I am FLAGGING the organization, not completing the expose — and anyone who prints out all tax returns (hard copy recommended) and puts them parallel year by parallel year, may see more.  So would an honest CPA, apparently not the ones these guys have been using.

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

January 1, 2017 at 12:43 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: