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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Should the USA join the Commonwealth of Nations? And If Not, Why Should We Allow our Elected Federal and State Officials to sponsor Coordination of Child Welfare, Domestic Violence, and Family Court|Custody Practices, as Ordered (Ordained?) by Appointed (not elected) Experts To Promote Their Personal Beliefs, Practices, and Profits? (A Few Reminders of Who’s Who)

with one comment

Post title:    Should the USA join the Commonwealth of Nations?  And if Not, Why Should We Allow our Elected Federal and State Officials to sponsor Coordination of Child Welfare, Domestic Violence, and Family Court|Custody Practices, as Ordered (Ordained?) by Appointed (not elected) Experts To Promote Their Personal Beliefs, Practices, and Profits? (A Few Reminders of Who’s Who) [Started 2-17-2017, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-5VC”].

This post, I originally called “Offspring #2” from:

Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)“] Completed Feb 14, 2017 (Valentine’s Day 🙂 ) but being one of perhaps 3 updates to the “Reconceptualize” post, there is a natural sequence in which should be published first, so I may delay another day or so. [With short-link ending “-5SR, ” was posted 2/19/2017]
…(and with two or three of its own 2017 offspring)   

Two main themes (one regarding a program, another regarding one person/ality* and his related organizations under similar but not identical names) developed in this post have also been siphoned off to further develop them.

[“Offspring #1” on the programming labeled “QIC-NRF” was just published].


In the arena of FATHERS and their FAMILIES, and CHILDREN’s ORGANIZATIONS, I cannot but help notice practitioners’ consistent interest sharing the gospel (excuse me) best, evidence-based practices (often in trademarked form) in Commonwealth countries.

And, as it turns out recently, also with Russian universities and nonprofits, which I posted on recently (if you read the entire posts!).

A note on reading my posts since I started posting all those annotated images, of websites and/or tax returns (or printouts of federal grants). I typically incorporate summary, and sometimes more detailed, elements to the main message on the images. They are supportive illustrations AND an essential part of the message.  For a more complete — or often a concise, distilled — summary of any single element shown in an image, read both its underlying (“screen-printed”) content and my annotations. Some viewing devices may not allow full-sized viewing (I noticed my cell-phone does), so I typically after annotating an image print it to pdf, upload both image and pdf to the blog (creating a link for full-sized viewing+ image both), and post the link either in image caption, or (obvious by their descriptive filenames) nearby, or in both places.

In this post, and as to a certain collaborative I’ve taken an interest in, the situation is complicated not through its basic pattern (public/private, pick a curriculum, promote and run the curriculum, and take sponsorship for running it from multiple sources), but through the number or participants and because several of those participants have opted to shift business names, or (at least one case) acquire a trade name (then change the trade name) and do corresponding face-lifts to their respective websites.  I’ve been looking at it (at least) a month, and those images are selected from representative findings. I am writing about what I have seen in various findings; to understand, make sure to look (at the many images in this post), not just “listen” (read the main text), and so get a taste of the kinds of information and comprehension available to anyone who will look for it.  //LGH


I could probably do more or better with this post (which has already been split — see bottom), but at this point (3/12/2017 Sunday evening) I am simply going to publish it.  No question, there is plenty of valuable information, laid out as best I can, with supporting evidence.  There will be some repetition, but I doubt any single part of it will be anything but fascinating — unless you already know this material?

And if so, why haven’t I found your blog (or book) on it yet?

The split-off part of the post (which is about where it originally started) has more actual information on the Commonwealth of Nations (generally, historically, and specific points of interest connecting to key issues in U.S. history (like the role of universities, the place of religion and religious leaders, what about the women?); it also points out that focusing on cause (not accounting) has been an intentional, planned inwriting method for breaking down national boundaries (jurisdictions) to make way — piece by piece — for global government.  When published, this link will become active and accurate (til then WordPress may do a “best guess” within the blog). Repeated at the bottom of this post, with corresponding image:

This post title is taken from a screenshot below:  Explaining my Inspirat’n for asking, on March 8, Internat’l Women’s Day, Should the USA Join the Commonwealth of Nations?… (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6bm”)


This post, dealing with the “nitty-gritty-details” explains why I’m concerned about the lack of boundaries and accountability in this programming area.  If you have something (relevant, useful for the public) to say on this material, the comments field still works.

I’m deeply concerned about the proliferation and means of proliferation of this particular example also.  The man (and two others in the LLC) in question is working the conference/training circuits (utilizing on-line registration, webinars, of course) in at least three created fields of practice supposedly on behalf of children and domestic violence victims, from a fatherhood perspective, involving (in some of the symposia) at least one known fathers’ rights activist with public connections, and in general, in an unoriginal manner, taking a basic boilerplate developed with NCJFCJ, BWJP, and associated interests (including within the “DV cartel”), called it unique, trademarked it (controlling the “competition”). Like, and with others, he’s been working the child welfare, domestic violence, batterers’ intervention/supervised visitation fields in several states, and abroad.

I’m not only concerned about the subject matter and cause, but about what appears to be several unethical (a.k.a. corrupt) practices involved in setting up the coordinated trainings.

One “personality” which inspired this specific “Offspring #2” post was David Mandel, who has taken his “SAFE and TOGETHER(™)” programming international at some point, leaving a trail of “annual reports not filed” and at least one “IRS status revoked” entity from Connecticut in the path, while riding the waves of the “Ohio IPV Collaborative” which stops just a single noun (“collaborative”) short of admitting to being an actual “partnership” as in, “Public/Private Partnership” that our simultaneously developed, prosperous but at the same time deficit-ridden (go figure THAT one out) USA has become such an expert at promoting.  As are its philanthropic friends.  Here’s an annotated image to practice on, link both separate and in caption:

DMA LLC © 2014 describing its US (names states) and Overseas (naming countries) + Model Suite of Tools & Interventns (etc) (2017-03-09 at 8.22PM

from “endingviolence.com” © 2014 DMA LLC <==Click to see full-sized image.

Below, from a 2014 pdf (not that 2014 was the start of this), if the concept is unfamiliar, still.  The website is “nationalservice.gov” which brings one to the Corporation for National & Community Service.  I see that even the CNCS itself now (or at least as of May 2014 from this document) has the motto “Finding what works.  Making it work for more people.” Its “Social Innovation Fund” and the “evidence-based investment model” is described:


The Social Innovation Fund: Corporation for National & Community ServicePioneering an Evidence-Based Investment Model (May, 2014, from the Office of Research & Evaluation),
Authors: Christopher Spera, Ph.D. Adrienne DiTommaso, M.P.A. Mary Morris Hyde, Ph.D. Lily Zandniapour, Ph.D. (with acknowledgements also to others for their comments, incl. “They would also like to thank JBS International*** for their support of the SIF evaluation work under the direction of CNCS.”)

“…The SIF represents a new way of doing business with the federal government.”

“…Intermediaries selected through a competitive process must match federal grants, dollar for dollar, by raising additional private funds. The intermediaries, in turn, re-grant SIF funding to subgrantees in one of the SIF’s three focus areas: economic opportunity, youth development (from early childhood through transitions to adulthood), and healthy futures. Subgrantees also are required to match the federal investment, one-to-one, creating a powerful multiplier effect.”

“JBS International” sounded familiar, although I see the website has changed dramatically (more graphics, less information provided, plus thumbnail photos of their leadership and experts: MISSION: “Create sustainable change – in health care, social services, and education – that improves people’s lives.”

Founded 1985, in Maryland, a few screenprints….”JB” must refer to the two co-founders (women) and I see that they are really concerned about domestic violence and women’s rights (“Gender”) — in other countries, but in this country their concern for “women” (as a named area in this panorama) must be under “Children, Youth and Families.”  (A pdf of their “work” page shows interactive photographic grid by topics: JBS International, Inc. (MD, 1985) Work page by topic | interactive photo grid (the pdf may not display as a grid, but links will be active. Or see from main company site under “work.”).

JBS International home page (MD company was acknowledged in the front of a May 2014 CNCS publication “Pioneering an Evidence-Based Investment Model”  Serving vulnerable populations (and contracting with federal governments, state, commercial, and non-profit sectors).



Those CNCS/SIF focus areas have been a REAL economic opportunity for the investors….

(The work areas JBS International is showing parallel existing federal agency programming and named areas,  Click on the “sector” or “view clients” to (a) see and (b) see that not much information on when, how, for how much (etc.) is divulged, but it does list the agencies.  They also have offices in California and Georgia.  I looked up the California Registration, found  (which may or may not be all related, but I’ll bet at least two are) and see two out of three were forfeited, and which years registered), Not much interest in the MidWest, I see…

CNCS/Social Innovation Fund: More to the point, all this money is delivered to and through, circulating among tax-exempt entities, and this document explains in a glossary, while the specializations OF the tax-exempts is aimed at three focus areas, the delivery system is organized in sequential “cohorts,” by year, with a “cohort” having an “intermediary/subgrantee” hierarchy for several functional purposes.

By the time one is talking “cohorts,” vocabulary borrowed from the military campaign, strategy, I think the “opposing sides” have already been identified — and on one side, the good guys (public/private-partnering investors), the problem-solvers, and on the other side, non-personified, the “problems” in the communities, which have names (violence, poverty, hunger, ignorance — generic nouns, that is, causes).  Notice:  Problem-solvers vs. the problems.

People, it is WAY past time to stop ignoring (dispel ignorance of) how the non-profit sector is coordinating itself in partnership with federal governments, or if aware, to continue assuming this is “for good.” 

(And, while I’m talking here about the USA  [it’s where I live…], the principle would apply in other countries, although they may not handle their tax-exempt companies the same, obviously other nations still have them.  And yet, for how long has the standard practice of taxation of everyone (except the tax-exempt organizations and government proceeds — and, depending on what kind, certain kinds of religious establishments or organizations) been around?

I’m talking about the concept that while we are taxed locally and federally, the federal agencies don’t distribute back TO people or JUST to their local governments (although obviously some is) but instead a through combination of to local governments AND a host of nonprofit, tax-exempt entities.  These private, tax-exempt entities  may be focused, sure, at times on a certain geographic  community (a fully-loaded conveniently broad, undefined and vague word these days: its multiple layers of meanings depend on who is speaking and a major difference between the meaning to the tax-exempt entities and public/private partnership investors and common usage which has a more fuzzy, warm feel to it.

Or, at times may refer to a “field of practice” collegially — as in the “domestic violence community”) but however you interpret it “community” does NOT carry a uniform reference to any political jurisdiction as does, as applies to the USA, the words “State” or “Territory,”  or the District of Columbia.

Because of the networking and because (speaking of “community” as an adjective) a community foundation may be coordinated or operating in synch with statewide, regional (within the nation), nationwide (for the USA), or regional (globally).

Or, as I’m pointing out, whether more favorable to the Commonwealth (Euro-Anglo) Nations, or Soviet bloc, or otherwise.

In practice “community” may mean the exact opposite of local when it comes to influence or power, other than it has to claim a legal domicile with mailing address (registered agent in case it gets sued) somewhere.  To emphasize that geographically local connection, community foundations typically acquire (or use) the name of the political jurisdiction, typically a city or metro region.  One example in this post is “Greater Cincinnati Foundation.”

Wiki on ‘Greater Cincinnati” discusses the history, since 1950s, of progressively combining it into variously-named areas for U.S. Census purposes.  Can you keep the terms and concepts straight?— (for quote with all its links, see the link provided above to the Wiki page itself, I left links in the first (combined) para. only).

The Cincinnati metropolitan area, informally known as Greater Cincinnati, is a metropolitan area that includes counties in the U.S. states of OhioKentucky, and Indiana around the Ohio city of Cincinnati.  …The Cincinnati metropolitan area is considered part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis.  {{<==Fascinating!  See biography of geographer Gottman, the book “America 2050” and commentary on this Megalopolis from the Brookings Institution…Notice the section on “Governments.”  }}

The Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN, MSA was originally formed by the United States Census Bureau in 1950 and consisted of the Kentucky counties of Campbell and Kenton and the Ohio county of Hamilton. As surrounding counties saw an increase in their population densities and the number of their residents employed within Hamilton County, they met Census criteria to be added to the MSA. The Hamilton-Middletown, OH MSA was also formed in 1950 and consisted solely of Butler County, Ohio.

In 1990, the Census changed designation of the areas known as MSAs to Primary Metropolitan Statistical Area (PMSA), and a new Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area (CMSA) grouping was created. From 1990 through 2005, the Cincinnati-Hamilton-Middletown CMSA included the Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN PMSA and the Hamilton-Middletown, OH PMSA.

As of December 2005, Census terminology changed again, eliminating the PMSA/CMSA terminology. Consolidated Statistical Areas (CSA) combine more than one Core Based Statistical Area (CBSA). Newly defined MSAs (Metropolitan) and µSAs (Micropolitan) Statistical Areas are CBSAs. From 2005 to 2013, the Cincinnati-Middletown-Wilmington CSA included the Cincinnati-Middletown MSA (defined as the old Cincinnati-Hamilton-Middletown CMSA), and Wilmington, OH µSA (Clinton County, Ohio).

In 2013, the CSA was redefined again. The Cincinnati-Middletown MSA was renamed the Cincinnati MSA. The Wilmington, OH µSA remained in the CSA. The Maysville, KY µSA, which had previously consisted of Mason and Lewis Counties in Kentucky, was redefined as consisting solely of Mason County and added to the CSA. The name of the CSA accordingly changed to the Cincinnati-Wilmington-Maysville CSA.

A Census region =/= a political or governmental one.  Attempting to retain and sustain rule of law based on political jurisdictions and countries (i.e., national boundaries — here, U.S./Canada) is competing for dominance with movements (and people/financiers behind the movements) who are more interested in mega-region planning (which entails CONTROL) of regional infrastructure and basic human-regulating institutions.   Note: Wiki “Megalopolis” article is quoting 2007 Census stats, so must be less current than the Greater Cincinnati Wiki:

(from Great Lakes Megalopolis Wikipedia):

…In 2005, the Virginia Tech Metropolitan Institute’s Beyond Megalopolis, an attempt to update Gottmann’s work, outlined a similar “Midwest” megapolitan area as one of ten such areas in the United States (Canada is discussed tangentially).[5] Over 200 million tons of cargo are shipped annually through the Great Lakes.[6][7][8] Half the US’s population growth and two-thirds of its economic growth is expected to occur within the megaregions over the next four decades. The America 2050 project has identified eleven Megaregions of the United States, including the Great Lakes Megalopolis.[9][A] The Canadian part of the region is also referred to as the Quebec City–Windsor Corridor.


There are multiple government jurisdictions throughout the megalopolis. In addition to Canada and the United States, two Canadian provinces and multiple U.S. states have jurisdiction, and there are many municipal governments. Most the states have joined the provinces in forming the Conference of Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Governors and Premiers to coordinate economic and environmental strategies throughout most of the region.[10]


According to the Brookings Institution, if it stood alone as a country, the economy of the Great Lakes region which includes most of the Great Lakes Megalopolis, would be one of the largest economic units on earth (with a $4.5-trillion gross regional product), roughly equal to that of Japan. The Great Lakes contain one-fifth of the world’s surface fresh water and have a combined shoreline of 10,210 miles (17,017 km). About 200 million tons of cargo are shipped by way of the Great Lakes each year.[7][11][12]   [etc.]

Different rules and heirarchies apply in the public vs. the private sector, when it comes to legal rights under the law of any specific jurisdiction (like, say, the US of A, or any of its states). While government(s) should be regulating the corporate sector (incl. nonprofits) because those corporations must seek permission to do business by registering within the government(s) (whether D.C., States, or Territories), in fact government is more often collaborating with them to try out new programs on the populations and, if something seems to work or sell well (including be sold, here, from federal to state levels), then why not standardize, expand it (infinitely) and ensure ongoing consumption of services by the public who, indirectly or directly (or both) supports the same programming?

I mean, what, really is taking place here when the “standardization, replication, and internationalization” is now down to a replicatable model, especially in certain “focus areas,” but each new brand could still, like food products or clothes, or services, still be “branded” to make sure in which direction the profits and PR (propaganda) flows?

People who contribute ANYTHING to the support of ANY government should be able to track what is being done with its tax receipts — and under the “public/private” model of governance, we absolutely just cannot.**  Even IF we were provided the tools and not constantly having the model being promoted (from both sectors) to the public as “for your own good…”

**Which “cannot” is by design.  Talk about this is discouraged.  Talk about how good are the programs, or how to improve them is encouraged.  On those topics, along those lines, you can go Republican v. Democrat, Progressive v. Conservative, all you want, but neither conversation is exactly publicizing the financial accounting processes — or lack thereof — for the governments, are they, let alone teaching on it, are they? Talk about the public/private model, and the “replicatable model” as good or bad per se (in and of itself, without regard to performance statistics). In fact, and this IS my opinion, “per se” it is potentially disastrous towards liberty, safety, and self-sufficiency for individuals across the country. But that discussion is hardly what you’ll find on the government websites, or the philanthropic websites involved or even not involved, and in the illustration here (from the State of Ohio) and elsewhere, at the university websites either.

A 2015 Congressional Research Service Report R44027 on “USASpending.gov” May 13, 2015 by Merete E. Gerli

(NOTE: This is referring to just spending — NOT accumulated assets, at all.  There is a world of difference!) This let me know that this database was mandated by one public law under the OMB (Office of Management and Budget) in 2006 then moved to the Treasury in 2014, and the data in it doesn’t go back that far.  Excerpts (and below that, screenprints):


Finding data on federal grants and contracts awarded to states and congressional districts, local governments, nonprofit organizations, contractors, and other eligible entities may present challenges. The official website, USAspending.gov, at http://www.usaspending.gov, collects data on grants, loans, insurance, assistance, and contracts, and it presents various searching and downloading options to Congress and the public. Because of continued data quality problems identified by the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), researchers need to be aware that search results may be incomplete or have inaccuracies.

USAspending.gov was created under P.L. 109-282, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), and is to be enhanced by requirements of P.L. 113-101, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act).

Current (at that writing) version of USASpending.gov only became available in 2015 (??), from Page 2, but (within the report it shows) a prior version by the OMB had been available earlier:

Key Source: USAspending.gov

FFATA required OMB to create a public database of all federal funds awarded to the final recipient level. The current USAspending.gov database, redesigned by the Treasury Department, was launched on March 31, 2015. The website enables searching of federal funding awards and sub-awards from FY2008 to the present (with data downloads of prime awards back to FY2000). Current records are added as soon as they become available from federal agencies.

The version I had been using, as I recall, had searching of data back to 2000, not 2008.  Similar changes were noted (by me, only recently) at a single-agency database, TAGGS.HHS.gov.  Basic search capacity doesn’t go back even to the year 2000, but only (per their select-year input field) 2007, although clearly the data exists as far back as early 1990s, searchable in the Advanced Search capacity…)

Regarding the 2006-forward database, this then helped eliminate reports issued by another office under the Census which had provided reports dating back 30 years previous, with the year 2010 being the last.  (Next quote and its (fn3)):

  • P.L. 109-282, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA), called for the creation of a database that became USAspending.gov. The publicly available database replaced data collection and annual reports issued for more than 30 years in the Census Bureau’s Federal Aid to States (FAS) report and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR).3 … fn3  Congress subsequently defunded the Census office that issued these reports in FY2012, with FY2010 Federal Aid to States (FAS) report and Consolidated Federal Funds Report (CFFR) being the last.
  • P.L. 111-5, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), required federal agencies awarding stimulus funding and state and local recipients of such funding to report spending back to the ARRA Recovery Board; this reporting also became a part of USAspending.gov.
  • P.L. 113-101, the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act), transferred responsibility for USAspending.gov from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Treasury Department and required that expenditures data be included in the USAspending.gov database, in addition to federal agency obligations.

However, finding accurate and complete data on federal funds received by states and congressional districts continues to present challenges. Because of ongoing data quality problems identified by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) as recently as June 2014,4 researchers [pagebreak 2 to 3] should be aware that search results may be incomplete or have inaccuracies. According to the GAO report, data on contracts spending appear to be more accurate than data on grants and other awards. The DATA Act requires the Treasury Department and OMB to develop government-wide data standardization to consolidate, automate, and simplify reports on grant awards and contracts to improve USAspending.gov underreporting and inconsistencies.

fn4The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) “estimates with 95 percent confidence that between 2 percent and 7 percent of the awards contained information that was fully consistent with agencies’ records for all 21 data elements examined.” See Highlights page, Data Transparency: Oversight Needed to Address Underreporting and Inconsistencies on Federal Award Website, GAO 14-476, June 2014, at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-14-476

Wow.  Click on that GAO14-476 link and at least read the highlights!  Here’s about half of them only, the second paragraph from Highlights tab:

..Few awards on the website contained information that was fully consistent with agency records. GAO estimates with 95 percent confidence that between 2 percent and 7 percent of the awards contained information that was fully consistent with agencies’ records for all 21 data elements examined. The element that identifies the name of the award recipient was the most consistent,** while the elements that describe the award’s place of performance were generally the most inconsistent. GAO could not determine whether the remaining data elements were significantly consistent or inconsistent, in large part because of incomplete or inadequate agency records. Four data elements in particular (e.g., program source information and the state of performance) had inadequacies that were significant. This means that for each of the four data elements, at least 10 percent of awards contained unverifiable information. While OMB placed responsibilities on agencies to ensure their reported information is accurate and substantiated by supporting documentation, this approach has had limited effect on the overall quality of the data on the website, reinforcing the need for a more comprehensive oversight process by OMB and more specific guidance from OMB on how agencies are to validate information reported to USASpending.gov. Until these weaknesses are addressed, any effort to use the data will be hampered by uncertainties about accuracy.

**In looking at a different database, “TAGGS” the field “recipient” is among the least consistent (there seems to be no style chart enforced over time by the data entry people, or however the data was uploaded if it wasn’t “data entry,” making a namesearch NOT a helpful process, whether one was searching govt or private.  AND, with the agencies being responsible to upload information onto USASpending.gov, one wonders how the data could be so erroneous at the federal grants (HHS) database, and somehow most accurate, when put onto USASpending.gov…

And two more screenprints showing (under “Background” and referring to a situation as of FFATA 2008 amendments) 13 (not “21”) data elements.  It also reveals that a sampling of only 385 (awards?) was taken during this 2012-2014 audit. On the second annotated screenprint, I have a lot to say, and remind us again that SPENDING is less than half (Walter Burien for years has been saying as to revenues, tax receipts are about ⅓ of total revenues:  They are using tax receipts to fund debt which is already self-funding through the revenue-producing assets being held) of the picture.

We can understand this ourselves at a household level — there’s spending, but also income, any reserves (‘holdings’), what are the current and potential ongoing sources of income for survival (physical, that is, for life, to stay alive and help one’s offspring).   Also, there is of course where anyone stands vis-a-vis the IRC (tax code), and the issue of stability allowing some momentum in acquiring and retaining some savings (or “assets”).  Why should this concept and awareness somehow be turned off, when the scope is an entire bureaucracy, that is to say, federal government? [See below, recent example re: NYS, 3rd largest pension fund in the country, at $184-$186 billion in assets, which are being invested, and guess what — apparently tempting crooks.]

Table 1 in two screenprints (from the GAO report) showing some familiar (I hope) data elements — the total is only 13 elements shown, and the footnotes are also important:

Table 1, “Required data elements for Federal agency reporting” (Image 1 of 2 from GAO rept — Click to read full-sized)


Table 1, “Required data elements for Federal agency reporting” (Image 2 of 2, annotated from GAO rept — Click to read full-sized)

I’ve quoted USASpending. gov in this blog, most likely the pre-2015 version, but didn’t find it reliable enough.  and frequently didn’t match HHS for the same grants/years.

This CRS report acknowledges — and says it’s even less reliable for grants than for contracts.

BUT, the CRS report does have two useful charts illustrating the most federal aid goes straight to the states (pie chart) and how many different places it could go afterwards.  It’s a helpful visual to compare with, say, what CNCS’ through it’s Social Innovation Fund and “Evidence-based Investment Model” is doing to channel funding differently, but from one federal source (the Corporation for National and Community Service) and instead of having the States as the intermediaries (shown in the CRS report’s piechart below), it’s certain chosen intermediaries, in varying numbers year by year.  The second visual simply brings up the concept of sub-awards from the grants.  Now imagine — how are we supposed to track those?  It’s a maze!!  Without the ability to navigate such maze (or use other ways to assess where the situation stands — which will be used as a basis for policy at various governmental levels (federal, state, county, school district, etc.) — it’s a “take it on faith (pick your political party and news media) and follow the headlines” scenario.

This report (just found) answers some questions about USASpending.gov, a website I used, but not much, some years ago; it didn’t go so far back, and often didn’t match the info from the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database (my main interest). (Not that TAGGS is internally consistent with itself, either!) It didn’t produce the best reports, visually; eventually I just stopped researching at USASpending.gov. CRS reports are well-written (the ones I’ve seen), attempt to be fairly neutral in tone — they are intended for Congress and members of Congressional committees. This one is relevant to the whole concept of accountability












See original for context — this pie chart was produced using information from USASpending.gov 2000-2015. That tells us, AFTER the major change of 1996 Welfare Reform, i.e., “Block Grants to States” under TANF giving States more flexibility in what to do with them.






So how might that standardized, replicatable work when the model first  gets set up as a franchise in the USA, at taxpayer expense, then goes international?

Here are some screenprints, regarding Social Innovation Fund (from that “Pioneering an Evidence-Based Investment Model” document), but not annotated (except for the first one).  Just read, and notice the concept of intermediary organizations, (reducing progressively over time), matching funds, accelerated implementation, and the concept of “What Works” as well as building public/private partnerships, based on the concepts of limited public resources.  As to “limited resources,” it might be time to start reading some governmental (CAFR) AND nonprofit financial statements (and for the latter, their 990s) to comprehend that when one is tax-free, and has enough write-offs, once started, the assets can definitely be regularly increased, invested for ROI, or the expenses exaggerated, and any number of less than “internal controls-and-balances” activities take place — with public funds.***


[***EXAMPLE:  From today’s (Sat. March 11, 2017) Wall Street Journal, “What’s News” Item, Article Title is Pt. B1, first column, just above the fold:  “Pension’s Controls Lacking for Years” and the Page A-1 Listing: “A money manager at New York State’s pension fund was able to steer trading commissions even after officials were urged to shore up controls.” — the fund is $186 Billion…. I can’t provide direct link without signing up for WSJ articles (I’m not a subscriber), but in a related search of the man’s name, found the USDOJ’s 12/21/2016 announcement of the charges against Navnoor Kang:

U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara said:  “Today, we allege a classic, quid-pro-quo bribery scheme at the New York State Common Retirement Fund, the third largest pension fund in the countryNavnoor Kang, a former portfolio manager at the fund, allegedly steered billions of dollars of business to broker-dealers who bribed him with luxury vacations, high-priced watches, drugs, cash, and more.** The hard-earned pension savings of New Yorkers should never serve as a vehicle for corrupt, personal enrichment. The intersection of public corruption and securities fraud appears to be a busy one, but it’s one that we are committed to policing.”

Interesting, this came to my attention through a weekend March 11-12, 2017 Wall Street Journal, mentioning the SDNY US attorney by name.  Within 24 hours, alongside the about 46 attorneys just asked to resign, Mr. Bharara said no — and was then promptly fired, making the TV news headlines.  As this Meet the U.S. Attorney page is probably going down swiftly, I thought a pdf printout should be saved from the US Dept. of Justice!  (Notice his specialties, since appointed 2009 by President Obama):  Preet Bharara~ Meet the U.S. Attorney [While you still can, asked to resign, refused, just got fired March 2017)|USAO-SDNY | DOJ (LINKS active if still valid)

Accomplishments, from Preet Bharara Meet the US Attorney page at USDOJ (viewed 3-12-2017 pm)

(USDOJ’s 12/21/2016 announcement, cont’d.)

FBI Assistant Director-in-Charge William F. Sweeney Jr. said:  “Instead of upholding his fiduciary duty, Kang was allegedly paid in bribes for diverting business to two separate brokerage firms.  When it comes to retirement funds, fixed-income investments are often thought of as a reliable choice.  Members of the New York State Common Retirement Fund likely also relied on the belief that the man directing their investments was an honest public servant. Unfortunately, as alleged, that is not the case here today.”

According to the allegations in the Indictment[1] and Information, which were unsealed today in Manhattan federal court:

** The “and more” as well as the scheme, described — defrauding of the pension fund “and its members and beneficiaries” of its “intangible right to honest services” (from KANG), and later, obstruction of justice once the investigations started.

From 2014 through 2016, KANG, KELLEY, and SCHONHORN participated in a scheme to defraud the NYSCRF and its members and beneficiaries, and to deprive the NYSCRF of its intangible right to KANG’s honest services.  The scheme involved, among other things, an agreement among KANG, KELLEY, SCHONHORN, and others to pay KANG bribes – in the form of entertainment, travel, lavish meals, prostitutes, nightclub bottle service, narcotics, tickets to sports games and other events, luxury gifts, and cash payments for strippers and KANG’s personal expenses – in exchange for fixed-income business from the NYSCRF.  Such bribes – which totaled more than $100,000 – were strictly forbidden by the NYSCRF, and were paid secretly and without any disclosure to the NYSCRF and its members and beneficiaries concerning the conflicts of interests inherent therein.

The WSJ pointed out that this happened AFTER 2013 notice to shore up internal controls at the same fund.

Just a bit more in this notice reminds us that, well, huge pools of assets to be invested are going to tempt the immoral, unethical, and devious.  Maybe it’s a better idea NOT to warehouse huge piles of assets, including pension funds (NYS’s was the third largest — whose to you think is THE largest?) — and for more on that read “Carl Herman,” or Walter Burien, or search this blog on their dialogues with each other on why even have the pension funds’ huge pools of assets (when California’s was $600B) are actually being used to fund their expenses? I also noticed that the three individuals were located in Portland, Oregon (Kang), Piedmont, California (I know the area — rich people live there), and Short Hills, NJ (likewise):

KANG’s trades resulted in the payment of millions of dollars in commissions to Broker-Dealer-1 and Broker-Dealer-2, of which KELLEY and SCHONHORN personally earned approximately 35 to 40 percent, … ….

The Obstruction of Justice

In late 2015, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) opened an investigation into the entertainment and benefits that KELLEY had provided KANG, and the SEC subpoenaed both KANG and KELLEY for their testimony.  In advance of their testimony, KANG and KELLEY agreed to align their stories and testify falsely before the SEC in order to conceal their scheme.  In late 2015 and early 2016, KANG and KELLEY each falsely testified under oath before the SEC about expenses KELLEY had paid for KANG.  Moreover, after a federal grand jury investigation was opened, KANG instructed SCHONHORN to testify falsely before the grand jury, and KANG admitted that he had hidden relevant evidence.

*                      *                      *

KANG, 38, of Portland, Oregon, and KELLEY, 58, of Piedmont, California, are charged with the offenses set forth in the chart attached to this release.

On December 15, 2016, SCHONHORN, 45, of Short Hills, New Jersey, pled guilty in Manhattan federal court before Judge Paul G. Gardephe to six counts: conspiracy to commit securities fraud; securities fraud; conspiracy to commit honest services wire fraud; honest services wire fraud; bank fraud; and conspiracy to obstruct justice in the SEC investigation

Wow.  (Zerohedge.com commenting on Kang’s LinkedIn, incl. prior time at PIMCO and Goldman Sachs and a degree in economics from Columbia, reading from his profile:  “According to his bio, Kang “outperformed his peers year after year because of his astute investment strategies and sound judgment for value”…while that could be interpreted as a veiled reference to “hookers and blow” we can’t be certain at this juncture.

N.Y. Pay-to-Play Plot Fueled by Bribes, U.S. Says
by Bob Van Voris and Chris Dolmetsch
December 21, 2016, 8:19 AM PST (in Bloomberg.com.  Gives more details of the “brazen scheme” and reveals that it wasn’t the first pay-to-play problem at the NYS fund.  Also, “Kelley” is a woman.)

Definitely interesting, but self-explanatory….


Back to

CNCS, SIF, & “Evidence-Based Investment Models”:

By accelerating programs INTO local communities without AT the community level any human being’s ability to keep pace with ALL the functioning nonprofits likely to contract with, influence, or function basically as government at any one time, this keeps OFF the radar and OUT of public consideration (because the comparative resources are not available for the ideas) that which isn’t approved at the CNCS/SIF and their philanthropic intermediary chosen favorites’ agenda for problem-solving.

Timing and amounts:

CNCS launched the SIF in 2010, following President Obama’s signing of the Serve America Act.Between FY 2010 to FY2012, the SIF awardeda total of $137.7 million in federal grants. Matches multiplied the potential reach and effectiveness of programs. The 20 selected intermediaries and their 226 nonprofit subgrantees raised an additional $350 million in funding for promising community programs[3]. …

CNCS funds SIF grants through annual Congressional appropriations, with $70 million earmarked for the SIF in 2014 [2]. Using a competitive process, CNCS selects highly successful intermediaries to implement the program, with responsibility for selecting nonprofits for SIF funding and overseeing their work.  [para. out of order, I put it in chrono order.  Footnote [2] said that in prior years it had been $50M.year.]

Also notice the focus on “Community Outcomes.”  We are looking here at social experimentation from afar, but sold as if it’s local. Next few screen prints, including one of the ending “Glossary of SIF Terms” which I heavily annotated page 1 (only of), but only that one in the whole series:

Providing an SIF Glossary the CNCS is promoting and setting up a field of practice around the “Pioneering concept” of evidence-based (social innovation) practice and try to draw attention AWAY from at least one or two major realities: (1) the “Scientific” and “Evidence” problem-solving/ community-outcome premise frames “communities” as the main source of the problems and the SIF participants’ (again, federal beneficiaries, tax-exempt orgs.’)  position as neutral and scientific — they just wanna solve problems and help people; and (2) substitution of terms: intermediary, sub-grantee (etc.) distracts from the reality that the MOST direct beneficiaries being tax-exempt are all (a) under private control; (b) tax-exempt CORPORATIONS with ALL the power differential (vis a vis individuals) that entails (including related corporate wealth, related-entities within any nonprofit) and increased potential for fiscal fallacies, loopholes and “royal f—ups” in filing their IRS returns), and that (3) through acceleration, multiplication, scaling-up attempting to make this happen before the local citizens NOT in on the process perceive that they are, in fact, with the rest of the income-tax-paying public, being (further) colonized: being sold “better, faster, evidence-based services” when in fact the same tax-paying, service-consuming public is a financial power base (through federal government) for the intermediaries, subgrantees, and service providers. In the larger picture, they (we) are being used, not “served.” Over $100M of federal funding of course helps with the persuasion. Anyhow, click (above) to read my comments (pdf doc’t is 5pp long, but only p.1 annotated).

<==SIF Glossary+(last pg here) SIF Defined- from CNCS’ May 2014 ~Pioneering an Evidence-Based Investment Model (viewed Mar10 2017, pp11-15 of original) (same link also in annotated SIF Glossary image caption).

Image 1 of 4 CNCS (nationalservice.gov) May 2014

Image 2 of 4 CNCS (nationalservice.gov) May 2014

Image 3 of 4 CNCS (nationalservice.gov) May 2014

Image 4 of 4 CNCS (nationalservice.gov) May 2014


NOW, the OHIO IPV COLLABORATIVE, as I’ve been tracing the named participants one by one, so far, we have (and I’ve posted on most of these within the last month or so),  first, the non-government, that is, private entities:

  • A private, nonprofit university in Columbus Ohio which took out a trade name to pretend not to be itself, thus concealing that donations to the “dba” through its website (or otherwise) were direct donations to the university; and positive PR (as well as tax deductions) for those who donated to it under its first tradename (National Center for Adoption Law and Policy), ALTHOUGH it was cancelled in 2010, and allegedly (but I haven’t found it yet) renamed and re-branded in summer 2015 as Family and Youth Law Center.  There were all kinds of “who’s who” logos which didn’t really tell Who was Who.
  • A tax-exempt foundation from New York which does many things, but it seems, particularly foster care (and early childhood education?).  And whose most recent voluntarily (at org. web page) posted tax return is only for fiscal year 2012, it’s fuzzy, and the size of business is major.
  • A tax-exempt foundation (small print, carries a very big stick in the foster care arena) from Seattle, WA, whose name is often found on anything to do with foster care and poor people, and funding research on them. The large size is at odds with the small font (footprint) as to its Ohio IPV involvement.  Look at the assembled logos when I post them, this one requires a magnifying glass to read….

I’ve probably posted on it (though not in a post title) already, but FYI it’s a (FY2014 return) $2.2 Billion gross assets (outfit), with its Chief Investment officer earning over $1M salary ($51K benefits), and the others, pushing ½ million also, plus as to independent contractors, the custodian investment bank (BNY Mellon) is also receiving over $1M to steward the holdings.  It invests directly (moreso than through grantmaking) in these “Direct Charitable Activities, respectively (1,2,3) at the $52, $28, and $15 (million-dollar) levels — for that fiscal year:




Those being “direct services” (not named grants) the costs would show up in collective “salaries” and “other expenses” category, unlike grants which can be tracked in more detail, at least when one nonprofit claims to have donated to another, or to government.  Given all the funny-business going on in this specific Ohio IPV Collaborative, yes I do think it reflects on this “small font this time, but we do carry a big stick” foundation…

Before image (at NCALP), annotated. I’ll show it again, below:

NCALP at Capital Univ Law School, OHIO IPV Collaborative collective logos shown; Click Link to read my annotations full-sized (Screenshot was Feb. 12, markups I see Feb. 18)

AFTER (2015) Image reflecting the changed name and new logo (at the university level — which if you look closely (top of image) above is also labeled the “Home /OHIO IPV Collaborative”







Click to see that This is basically a plug for “Safe and Together(™)” and DMA, although it references “a number of programs” only one is mentioned. ALSO, it talks of a “partnership” within the “Collaborative” involving a subset of the participants (basically DMA and two state agencies: Supreme Court and DJFS).


  • An LLC from Connecticut and (in fairly large letters) the name of its program, although except for the name of the Collaborative, all the other listings were actually “entities” of one sort or another (although who they were may not have been immediately obvious).    On closer look (at the website and “symposia” one through four, it’s announced the LLC is transforming itself from an LLC named after a man into an “institute” named after its programming, especially because of the global nature of the services provided, with a heavy emphasis on training, self-assessment, certification of those trained, train-the-trainers and facilitators.  Wow.

Announced at a “4th Symposium” in Orlando, Florida, after all this promo, the LLC is getting a new look (website, name, etc.).  If you type in that new website name, it redirects to “endingviolence.com”

DMA (CT LLC) at Sept 2016 (FL) Symposium announcing its formerly status and impending company transformation to S+T Institute (Screen Shot 2017-03-12 at 6.44PM (pdf of the top image, with black background, only).

Same basic idea on all of them…. Incidentally, I found that the “Safe & Together Institute” (as of January 2017) cost $1,900 and consists of a six-month training (with two on-site — kindly fly your welfare workers to Stamford, CT) plus mentoring followup and such, for a certification good for two years. I also found (not linked here) and earlier (2009) slide-show from a Florida Presentation stating that he was on the Connecticut “Domestic Violence Initiative Consultation” (or similar), that is potentially a civil servant at DCFS.  The basic idea is to re-state that perpetrators (batterers) are dangerous so keeping the children with the other parent (where child welfare services are already involved) should be prioritized.  Also the training will (naturally) show people how to use his particular model.



On following one theme (this collaborative in Ohio) looking at one webpage with multiple logos, I found out that:   Some had changed names before– one usage only lasted six years (officially, 2004 through 2010) and has changed since (officially 2015); another featured foundation was apparently attempting to conceal its own $28M roots (or at least sponsorship) with a 2010 name-change to what’s being featured on the webpage for a center at a law school (which also changed its name before the final report came out, with help from others), and so forth.

The “university center” name-change was helped with thanks to another Cleveland-based foundation named after a couple whose 990 I can’t find (and may not be able to). Somehow all the donors to this university dba as a center AT a private, non-profit university whose tax returns I DID find (in fact, posted right below) didn’t have a problem coordinating their labeling of the center at the law school with the programming (while listing the EIN# is known to belong not to that center, or any nonprofit, or any entity, but simply the university itself).

Finally (??) in showing how many people and entities also went along with advertising for the (center representing a university representing itself, through a trade name — which changed — as NOT itself) seem to have coordinated ongoing references to a $230,000 (HHS funding) website or resource which (1) is not being featured on the current site, and (2) appears to have never been constructed.  In making such a claim I feel I should post the evidence, and have (making the post yet longer)…


The next two sentences (one paragraph each) are long because as a summary, I still need to name the relevant parts of the whole.

  1. Basically, on my own initiative and as a member of the public curious about the situation, I discovered as to looking more closely any single element (logo advertising a supposed entity and in this case, one logo referring to the model program being promoted), as well as investigating their respective declared or presumed relations with each other, of a typical webpage associated with a private university’s law school in Ohio’s state capital (Columbus) on a probably what is a popular cause (an obviously public-private “collaborative” to prevent or reduce “IPV” [which again assumes that P/P “collaborating” is the best way to do so, and/or is the real purpose of such collaboration], so far NOT ONE seems to check out as operating “honest” in this situation.  
  2. What’s more, off-site (previous internet proclamations from highly-placed people — such as a U.S. Representative) connect HHS funding to a specific website which appears never to have been constructed — although plenty of other reputable sources continue (to this day) to list it as a referral for the subject matter of “Adoption.”

Next mini-section shows more of the evidence.

Notice (next table of three rows of recent tax returns) the name blooper (courtesy the database “Foundation Center” not the IRS-filing institution) but the same EIN# for all.  Click on Year (ending) 2015 to see that the attached return says nothing about the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy.  (This is a recurring error for FoundationCenter; I ought to write them and ask how it’s happening…)

Total results: 3Search Again.

National Center for
Adoption Law and Policy
OH 2015 990 62 $223,264,480.00 31-4379435
Capital University OH 2014 990 59 $226,694,843.00 31-4379435
Capital University OH 2013 990 56 $213,249,353.00 31-4379435
the html, I’m leaving it as-is and hoping it will be legible in final form).

Stated Educational Purpose (p.1 and top of p.2):


Anyhow, its main revenues (like most universities’) are from “Program Services” (see Pt. VIII, i.e., tuition and fees for the classes), and of its contributions of $6M that year, only $1M (approx) came from “government grants.”  Of its $46M grants TO others, all $46M went to scholarships and aid to individuals (specified on Sched I), none to any other entities.  There are no “related entities” (i.e., NCALP isn’t one) other than some (5) annuities or charitable trusts f/b/o the university.   Also of interest — the law school is on downtown Columbus, but the main campus is in a suburb within the metropolitan are, “Bexley.”   The school isn’t huge (2,700 students and 160 faculty), has an interesting (not quite typical) mix of graduate programs.

As contributions to the university aren’t that large, the ones from HHS for the purpose of this National Center on Adoption Law and Policy at the time, must have been significant (although, it’s not dependent at all on contributions to make ends meet):

Bottom row of this next TAGGS.HHS.Gov-generated (saved search) Advanced Search specifying only “Ohio” and “Capital University” (no year) comes up with a total of only $802K, of which the only grant under the CB (Children’s Bureau) — all others related to nursing — was the $230,000 for the Adoption Law Website.

The Grant # is as you can see 90XA0034 and principal investigator “Marjorie Frazier.”  Notably, it does NOT say to “NCALP” — as reported in an article I’ve posted and quoted below here, by a US Representative (and adoptive mother, judge, adoption advocate, and school alumna, she said).  She spoke wrong, and I seriously doubt she could not tell the difference between a nonprofit with one legal name implying it was NOT part of the university, and a nonprofit university dba that misleading name.  Plus, the grant was for 2001, and the tradename registration said first doing business under that name 2003.  Apparently true — because HHS did business with it under the right name…

Program Name:  (CFDA 93670) “Child Abuse and Neglect Discretionary Activities.”

I searched the same Award# (90AX0034) minus the last two digits and any state specified:  ($50M of awards, 126 “distinct awards” Including negative adjustments and “0” awards) starting in 1998.  Saved Search specs (not results, but the specifications), click on any column to sort.

I sorted by award #, and think readers may be interested to see the first four (Chicago Dept. of Health, Kentucky Child and Family Services, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges (starting 1998, and labeled “Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment” …Principal Investigator Meredith Hofford (i.e., this money probably helped them write and publish the famous “Greenbook” which then was used as the basis for pilot programs as “The Greenbook Initiative,” based on that title and the date),

and (90AX0005) “Institute for Responsible Fatherhood and Neighborhood Revitalization” in D.C., whom I have blogged). Also interesting is to sort by different columns — such as Sum of Actions (large to small) and notice how while the largest ones were to several different (or at least differently labeled) groups in: Alaska, Alabama and (then, by size) Ohio, the earliest one was to Chicago Dept of Health for School-based (1997) child abuse prevention.  Use the link above.

I also saw two, under ‘Ohel Family Services” in NY (no DUNS# provided) with P.I. David Mandel.  I am wondering if its the same person referenced in this post  If so, he certainly knew about this category of HHS grant.

|1| Fragment of TAGGS (tinyurl=gt3v99e) CFDA93670 Grant#90XA00 — CONTEXT- CAPITAL U (ColumbusOH) got #34 — Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 5.04PM

|2| Fragmt 2002-2003 OHEL CHFS NY (David Mandel PI, $573K) of TAGGS (tinyurl=gt3v99e) CFDA93670 Grant#90XA00 — CONTEXT- CAPITAL U (ColumbusOH) got #34 ScreenShot 2017-03-11 @5.11PM**


This chameleon, shape-shifting in and out of legitimacy, or from legitimate to legitimate names while providing misleading information on various (and inter-related) websites on the same groups (or program models) as a pattern (or should I say, business model) is NOT unique; I’ve seen it in the healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood funding fields (i.e., entities that seem to rotate names time after time).

(**If this represents the same P.I., “Principal Investigator,” as involved in “SAFE and TOGETHER(™) this prior involvement s/be referenced as to others in same grant series (and CFDA#), incl. several others specifically fatherhood-oriented, NCJFCJ, and I saw also Children’s Rights Council (in MD), for supervised visitation/access services — a well-known fathers’ rights group.

OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services in NY: (About, also Board Members):

re: two specific HHS grants found under PI name “David Mandel,” (in 2002, 2003), looking up group to see if PI may be same person as involved in OH, FL, and overseas trademarked CW trainings

$75M assets FYr2014 (<=Form990, EIN# is 116078704) self-explanatory if you read; main revenues are from program services (incl. residential services).

The Form 990 for FY2001, besides showing just a fraction of the current (almost) revenues, at only around $5M, lists also (Sched A) a “David Mandel” with others employees besides board members, as “CEO” (salary, $184K).  This still doesn’t prove it’s the same individual, as that is not a particularly unique first-last name combination.  But, being in a similar business I am wondering if it might be the same individual.  As of this writing, I have no proof that it was, just a hunch.  Also, the “Safe and Together(™)” individual did say the training had been used in New York (see first image of this post).


From tax return 2001 for Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services in NY, EIN#116078704, Fiscal Year begins July 1 (so this year ended 6/30/2002).


ALSO, featuring centers at universities for the funding complicates tracking the money, but as to “Ohio IPV Collaborative” SOME of that money has already been identified public grants from US federal agencies, and state entities.

For example, read this link from (strangely) “ScienceBlog.com”  archives dated 2003 (the USPTO.gov search site marks 2004 as “NCALP” (written out) as a registered mark).  It also references a Capital University alumna as a legislator helping get $230K funding (HHS) for the tool:

National Center for Adoption Law & Policy Launches Powerful Adoption E-Tool for Parents and Professionals  7/15/2003

From: Prof. Kent Markus of the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy, 614-236-6545; e-mail: kmarkus@law.capital.edu web: http://www.ncalp.org

WASHINGTON, July 15 — The National Center for Adoption Law & Policy at Capital University Law School, located in Columbus, Ohio, today released the nation’s first comprehensive online compilation and synthesis of the law of adoption.  …

Three years ago {(meaning, about 2000, with “NCALP” start date per its Wiki and elsewhere cited as only 1998)}, U.S. Rep. Deborah Pryce (R-Ohio), a leading congressional adoption advocate, former judge and adoptive mother, secured $230,000 in federal funding to launch the creation of this comprehensive adoption website. Speaking at the unveiling, Pryce noted that “Adoption laws vary, often dramatically, from state to state. The Adoption LawSite is a powerful tool for policymakers, judges, child advocates and adoption professionals, but it’s also a long-needed resource for adoptive and prospective adoptive parents trying to better understand the adoption system. As a Capital University Law School alumna and long-time friend and supporter of the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy, I am honored to have been able to play a role in making this possible.”

“Long-time” meaning about 5 years?  She’s more likely a friend of Mr. Marcus and the University…

The construction of the site was primarily funded by the appropriation secured by Rep. Pryce through the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Seed funding for the project was made available by the Ohio State Bar Foundation and critical support provided by the Dave Thomas Foundation for Adoption helped make the site possible.

That’s “to be continued” (on this post) as it doesn’t look like the website they are referencing is now, or possibly ever was, functional, nor was a “redirect” to the same thing under some other domain name published.  I also don’t see (readily) any reference to it on the follow-up “entity” of “NCALP” which would be somewhere under “familyyouthlaw.org

I looked up the donations shown (may have posted already; I did take screenprints from both those foundations (with “Dave Thomas” being the founder of Wendy’s), and as I said, the donation was not to any separate entity, but to the university EIN#. The HHS also shows the donations under this name as a PROGRAM were to the UNIVERSITY and under “Adoption Incentives.”

@USPTO’gov we see that Capital Univ owned NCAL&P as a WORD MARK Jan 2003 (May 2004 registered, #78205699) thru Dec 31 2010 (Cancelled) (Sshot 2017Feb-18 at 516PM)

USPTO.gov TESS “word mark” search showing ownership of the phrase (NCALP) and dates of active status (Cancelled 2010)

OH ST Bar Fndn (From Sched I to Form990 Yr 2010) givt to NCALP@ CapitalU with EIN#314379435 confirming that yes, it’s ~Capital Univ~ and NOT as implied on websites some separate nonprofi

So how does that fit with “representative government” in this country? And what’s so “responsible” about that process?  Perhaps that why the marketing of “responsible fatherhood” and “healthy marriage” has to keep advertising that this is, indeed, responsible and healthy, when the fiscal and labeling behaviors say something else — as well as the overt marketing schemes.

I also looked for the website, referenced about three times by name in the ScienceBlog.com article as “http://adoptionlawsite.org&#8221; and thought you might want to see the site results, and whether there has been provided any redirect, whether the site is still up, etc., for which $230,000 was shelled out “back when…”:

Adoptionlawsite.org itself now reads “under construction

Automatically generated placeholder showing that “adoptionlawsite.org” has not yet had any page attached to it: “About This Page with (upper right corner) notice:
This “Under Construction” page is an automatically generated placeholder Web page for a domain that is not yet attached to an active Web site. This page replaces the “Not Found” error pages and notifies visitors that a Web site is coming soon.
How Do I Replace This Page?
“Publishing your Web site, updating the name servers, or forwarding to another domain name will automatically replace this default page.
If you do not have an existing Web site hosting package or web forwarding, further information to get your Web site online can be found by clicking the following links. (etc.)”

The “WHOIS” lookup / domain name listing for “adoptionlawsite.org” showing it was registered a certain date in 2002, last updated (Feb. 9 this year) and due to expire in 2018, “Network Solutions, LLC,” and if you scroll down further, a Garrett Laidler (SEO guy in Houston TX with a BS in Psychology from Hope College, Grand Rapids, Michigan).

Despite this, there’s no lack of reference to the website, in that format, from related or interested groups (I did a similar pdf-printout for the “CalBrexit” post. As there, the image printed from (just page 1) of the pdf should have clickable links, despite how small they are:

adoptionlawsite.org – GoogleSrch (p1 ACTIVE LINKS) showing ABA and other references to this non-extant URL for which $230K HHS grant was provided 90XA0034 ab 2001) viewed 2017March11

See nearby link. (“adoptionlawsite.org – GoogleSrch (p1 ACTIVE LINKS) showing ABA and other references to this non-extant URL for which $230K HHS grant was provided 90XA0034 ab 2001) viewed 2017March11“) The search-results links WITHIN this image should be active, but if not, the ones shown in the pdf link in this caption, will be. It’s amazing how widespread is the acquiescence that this exact, same, expensive, apparently non-website is actually an adoption law referral resource. Check it out….


Here’s an image from the ABA itself referencing this dysfunctional (was it ever functional?) website:

ABA Adoption Links (annotated) include both NCALP and FYLAW as well as extinct or never completed adoptionlawsite.org (ActiveLinks|Viewed Mar13 2017)


Behind these entities involved in the Ohio IPV Collaborative, per the logos shown) though most of them are much more than “flush” with assets and revenues — at least the larger tax-exempts — are other donor nonprofits whose tax returns I found contributing to the NCALP cause, including a Wm. J. and Dorothy K. O’Neill Foundation (Cleveland) and, as I recall from earlier (than this month) lookups, the famous founder of Wendy’s (Dave Thomas) foundation, and the Ohio State Bar
.  There are probably more.

The (three) government entities involved can be seen on the logo I’m about to provide; all three are at or very close to the state level.  Behind the government entities comes HHS funding, including CAPTA funding, TANF funds, etc.

Re: the private, nonprofit University, I found a Martindale-Hubbell description of Capital University Law School (with dates, affiliations, descriptions and a list of its full-time professors, mentioning a Center for Dispute Resolution, and as it mentions this “NCALP” obviously is not completely current.  But, it does say:

Today Capital University Law School is a comprehensive educational institution, offering a J.D. degree, a joint J.D. Master of Business Administration, Master in Science in Nursing, Master of Theology, or Master of Sports Administration/Facility Management degree, as well as an LL.M. in Tax, Business, or Business and Tax. In addition the Law School offers a Master of Taxation for Accountants and a Paralegal Certification program. The Law School is housed in a state of the art technologically sophisticated building in the heart of Columbus, Ohio’s downtown business, government, and law center, blocks away from the state capital, federal and local courts, and the region’s major law firms.

Capital’s vibrant J.D. and LL.M programs are offered in full-time, part-time day or part-time evening options. Our Juris Doctor program strongly emphasizes basic lawyering skills – legal research, writing, dispute resolution, and analytical skills – skills that can be applied to a variety of legal careers. Our curriculum encompasses more than 120 elective courses, running the gamut of business and commercial law, property, criminal law and procedure, public law, international law, litigation, and taxation. Our concentrations in dispute resolution, environmental law, governmental affairs, labor and employment, publicly-held companies, small business entities, and children and family assist students to focus in an area of the law and expand their knowledge for the legal and business world.

Complimenting a student’s classroom experience are opportunities for involvement in our National Center for Adoption Law & Policy, the only entity of its kind in the nation studying and advising governmental and nonprofit agencies on issues of adoption and child welfare; the Tobacco Public Policy Center; or the Center for Dispute Resolution. In addition, students gain real world experience in our clinics, externship programs, law review, and moot court teams. Students have 24 hour access to our comprehensive law library, with a full complement of librarians, who hold J.D. and library science degrees, wireless internet access anywhere in our building, as well as, access to WESTLAW and LEXIS.

In case it’s not clear from other posts, or the rest of this one, my position until further enlightened that the use of the word “entity” referring to the above (NCALP) “center” may have meaning in SOME contexts, but the most likely context in which it would be understood — especially for any university offering so much training in business and tax also, would be as a business entity (for-profit or not), OR a government entity.  Other than this, not many people go around using the word “entity” so much as intended for public communication.  Do you?

Do you buy donuts or coffee (or food) at a “food entity”?  If the car needs to be repaired, do you do so at a mechanics “entity”?  So where’s the “entity” in Ohio by the above name?  Wherever it is, I already found the USPTO registration (and posted it) showing that that is a trade name of Capital University (and NOT just “Capital University Law School.”).  What does Martindale-Hubbell apparently know that we can’t determine from public sources  listing “entities” for Ohio? Or do they not have an accuracy requirement in describing parts of the law school listings?

NCALP at Capital Univ Law School, OHIO IPV Collaborative collective logos shown; Click Link to read my annotations full-sized (Screenshot was Feb. 12, markups I see Feb. 18)

This was recently posted, but again, here’s $34.9K from Wm. J & Dorothy K. O’Neill Foundation in Cleveland helping NCALP re-brand itself (and a similar-sized grant to National Fatherhood Initiative in Maryland). At least the O’Neill Foundation — unlike others in the OHIO IPV Collaborative, is actually IN Ohio…

I would like to either see some 990PF for this entity, or learn if it is not required to file one. Any help with this is appreciated — submit a comment if you have info. Thanks! (Or, I suppose I could just write or call and ask…)


Capital U Law School per Martindale-Hubbell (extract showing CDR and NCALP contacts along with Dean, Library, etc) (viewed2017Mar09 at 5.46PM) || <==Click for full-sized (Martindale-Hubbell listing viewed 2017 (but evidently not current)) or see other link provided in my 3/9/2017-published post.

<==That OHIO IPV collaborative, as collaboratives and public/private partner-ships tend to do, chose “its” favored model programming; in this case it seems to be “Safe and Together(™)” by Mandel (or DMA & Associates, LLC).

Naming is “everything” in marketing.

Note that the precondition of “Safe and Together(™)” is the word “and” connecting Safe with Together as the goal AFTER abuse or terrorizing threats. This incorporates the condition, minimizing or bypassing open debate on it, while expressing continued concern about safety, “apart” is not part of the model.  The goal is “AND together.”

That pairing of “Safe” with “Together”  is where the public, and the non-criminal, non-abusive parent are being told to “take it on faith” that the behavioral modification and other social-science/ psychological /psychiatric professions (in collaboration with the criminal justice enforcement agencies as “backup“) (a) know what they are doing, and (b) have their (the public’s and the non-criminal, non-lawbreaking parents’) best interests at heart, and that the “behavioral mod” people (and entities)  should therefore be given their T&TA opportunities, and get to distribute the downloaded curriculum (or curricula).

As to participants once any particular evidence-based model is disseminated, being trained as a trainer (or, provider) of any such curricula in use in the public welfare (etc.) systems is a resume- and credential-builder (stick it on the c.v.), which helps increase the loyalty, over time, through social bonding, personal time invested, and common jargon. This is a marketing tactic involving group training, facilitation, “guided” interactions in and in short, undue influence. So these are in work- and financial-best-interests actually bound to each other more than to the “them,” referring to demographic delineations, who may be faceless strangers, and if known, not known in a professional, work, collegial mutual-benefit relationship, but in a service provider/service recipient (“client”) relationship.

The Safe and Together(™) as to dangerous situations and relationships one partner is trying to exit is obviously going to be an issue with parents, particularly women, attempting to NOT be together with the parent who had been assaulting, battering, terrorizing, threatening to kill and/or kidnap the children, or kill (options 1, 2, 3, or 4 from the “retaliation” categories on: her* (and or extended family), the children, him/herself, or all three) and may have already made good on some of them during the course of the relationship.  (*As Mandel is focusing on FatherEngagement and referring, it seems, primarily to men, on the other side of that assertion, and being a woman, I’ll say “her” there).

This is supposed to be good-guys, compassionate, empathizing with people (it doesn’t quite say “women” but the emphasis regarding “batterers” is definitely towards men, so “do the math”…

…Our approach, with its focus on behavior, is designed to enhance policy, practice and collaboration while avoiding stereotyping based on race, ethnicity, gender, and sexual orientation.

We work to ensure that our trainings and technical assistance meet the needs and mission of our clients and that training participants walk away from our trainings with specific, concrete strategies for improving practice.  Our current areas of specialization include:

  • Enhancing the child welfare system’s ability to respond to domestic violence cases including supporting domestic violence advocates in their work with child welfare and child welfare involved clients
  • Promoting responsible fatherhood
  • Home visitor practice related to fatherhood, and domestic violence
  • Perpetrator accountability and change including batterer intervention programming, community and government corrections, courts and law enforcement
  • Trauma exposure response (secondary trauma)


(Referring to the OHIO IPV Collaborative — image below)

If I lined up the tax returns (where they exist) and (some more homework) the fund balances of just those entities whose logos are shown on the name-changing “NCALP” (founder, Kent Richard Marcus) who maybe learned some of these name-changing and fund-raising tricks during his time as a Page (high school) at US House of Reps, after which, Northwestern University (Chicago area, undergrad) and Harvard Law School, cum laude, after which time at the USDOJ, it  would be illuminating, and could be a little shocking:

NCALP Founder: pedigree and prior connections (including, but not limited to Harvard Law School grad cum laude in the 1980s)…

Kent Richard Markus (born February 1, 1959) is an American lawyer and experienced federal and state government senior manager and leader. He currently works as a Senior Advisor in the Director’s Office at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[1] Prior to joining the start-up Consumer Bureau, Markus served as Counselor and Chief Legal Counsel to Ohio’s Governor [Ted Strickland] and a law professor and director of a child and family research and advocacy center at Capital University Law School. During the administration of President Clinton he was a senior official at the U.S. Department of Justice and before that had served as Chief of Staff in the Ohio Attorney General’s office. Markus was also a federal judicial nominee to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

(Check out the footnote reference from 2001:  http://www.cbsnews.com/news/bush-dumps-clinton-nominees/) Sixteen years later now in the “First 100 Days” (of DJTrump) this may sound familiar….Also, I’ve removed links (obviously) from second part of quote, see Wiki for a full set of active links of every fifth word (Wiki style…)

Two years later, at the outset of the Clinton Administration, Markus became the Executive Director/Chief of Staff at the Democratic National Committee before joining the U.S. Department of Justice two years later, in 1994.

At DOJ, [that is, “THE UNITED STATES DEPT. OF JUSTICE“] Markus worked as Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General in 1994, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and then Acting Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs from 1995 to 1996. He then served as Counselor to Attorney General Janet Reno and DOJ Deputy Chief of Staff from 1996 to 1998.   Upon the birth of his son, he returned to Ohio where he founded the National Center for Adoption Law & Policy at Capital University Law School and taught what was at that time the nation’s only regular law school class regarding the law of adoption. (He also taught what was likely the nation’s only regular law school class in “Baseball and the Law”.) The Center is known, today, as the Capital University Family and Youth Law Center. … …

Subsequent career in state and federal government[edit]  
On January 8, 2007, Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland announced that Markus would be taking a leave of absence from Capital University to serve as Strickland’s Chief Legal Counsel. He later also served as “Counselor to the Governor” assisting the Governor with issues across the spectrum of his responsibilities. Markus’ name came up as a possible interim replacement for former Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann, who resigned from office on May 14, 2008.[3]

In January 2009, Markus said he was throwing his hat in the ring to be nominated by President Barack Obama to become a U.S. district judge for the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.[4] However, in July 2009, Ohio Sen. Sherrod Brown announced that he would be recommending then-U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy Black for the seat.[5] The Senate confirmed Black to that seat in May 2010.
In the Spring of 2011, Markus became the Deputy Director for Enforcement at the newly established Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.[6] ….
Markus is married to Capital University Law Professor Susan Gilles. They have a son who is a student at Northwestern University.

Susan M. Gilles (brief Capital Law page) is John E. Sullivan Professor of Law, and has an LLM from Harvard, and an LLB with Honors, from University of Glasgow, Scotland.  She joined Capital U in 1990 before the was working in litigation with Baker and Hostetler

Some things about Northwestern University and its Children and Families Justice Center (part of a network) and subsequent (2000s) setup of “Child Welfare Law” as a specialty with help from HHS, nonprofits such as National Association of Counsel for Children, or the Juvenile Law Society® (in Denver), etc., in connection with the immediately (first 5-10 years) post-PRWORA regime — understanding that when PRWORA 1996 was passed (Block Grants to States under “TANF” and the incorporation of Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood Programming known to be part of this), Kent Marcus was working, as it says, for Federal Government, being now middle-aged and a career government/civil servant (although also with time as law professor) since high school, but apparently not having become a father until 1998 (98-59 = do the math…)..

Sorry about the long sentence, but I’ll break it down some (also see sidebar on Children’s Law Centers):

I wanted to know WHEN the Northwestern Children and Families Justice Center (associated, famously, with Bernardine Dohrn, long-time partner of Bill Ayers, as I was reminded on hearing from “BillAyers.org” that in 2013, she retired from working at the center — but was really into the recent “International Women’s Day” march and the earlier (January, 2017).

Bernardine Dohrn, founder and former director of the Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC), Bluhm Legal Clinic, Northwestern Law School, will retire from the Center and Law

For more than twenty years, Bernardine has been the CFJC’s visionary leader and champion in the struggle for justice for youth. She has advocated for fair sentencing for children, for applying international human rights standards here at home, and for ending the over incarceration of children of color.   With Bernardine at the helm, the CFJC has taught, trained and mentored over 500 students and represented hundreds of youth in conflict with the law.  Bernardine has played a leading role in systemic reform efforts to eliminate both the death penalty and life without the possibility of parole for children. She has led efforts to restore the Cook County Juvenile Court to its rehabilitative and child-focused origins, and to enhance the zealous advocacy of children.  She has long championed the cause of the United States’ adoption of the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.


Bernardine has been steadfast in her commitment to young people, to her students and to the many attorneys who have worked at and with the CFJC. She has inspired many former students to pursue careers in public interest and teaching. Bernardine’s limitless generosity, passion for justice, and intellect are now embedded in the CFJC’s fiber.  While she will be sorely missed at CFJC and Law School, we will strive to live up to her high standards and will collaborate with her as she continues her important work.

We will honor and recognize Bernardine’s extraordinary contributions at a CFJC symposium on September 6, 2013.  The symposium is entitled Implementing a New Bill of Rights for Children: Urgent Challenges and Next Steps in Justice for Children. It will include two panels:  Taking Miller to the Ground:  Sentencing and Re-Sentencing of Youth, and Rethinking Incongruity: the Role of United States in Utilizing International Human Rights Standards for Children.  Please save the date. Details will be forthcoming.

Thomas Geraghty and Julie Biehl

WIKI ON THE UNCRC. First, it’s a treaty and binding under international law:

…Nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law. Compliance is monitored by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, which is composed of members from countries around the world. Once a year, the Committee submits a report to the Third Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, which also hears a statement from the CRC Chair, and the Assembly adopts a Resolution on the Rights of the Child.[5]

Governments of countries that have ratified the Convention are required to report to, and appear before, the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child periodically to be examined on their progress with regards to the advancement of the implementation of the Convention and the status of child rights in their country. Their reports and the committee’s written views and concerns are available on the committee’s website.

The UN General Assembly adopted the Convention and opened it for signature on 20 November 1989 (the 30th anniversary of its Declaration of the Rights of the Child).[6] It came into force on 2 September 1990, after it was ratified by the required number of nations. Currently, 196 countries are party to it,[1] including every member of the United Nations except the United States.[5][7][8]

… … …  There are some serious and safety-related ramifications to this part, while I can understand how appealing this CRC would be when one is thinking, instead of people in the USA or other “developed” countries, of children in war-torn or other areas of conflict being starved, abducted, used as human shields or hostages, or forced to serve as child soldiers.  It also emphasizes putting the US subject to international law regarding its own laws, rather than having us work out our own laws with regard to the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights:

The Convention deals with the child-specific needs and rights. It requires that the “nations that ratify this convention are bound to it by international law”. Ratifying states must act in the best interests of the child. In all jurisdictions implementing the Convention requires compliance with child custody and guardianship laws as that every child has basic rights, including the right to life, his or her own name and identity, to be raised by his or her parents within a family or cultural grouping, and to have a relationship with both parents, even if they are separated.

The Convention obliges states to allow parents to exercise their parental responsibilities. The Convention also acknowledges that children have the right to express their opinions and to have those opinions heard and acted upon when appropriate, to be protected from abuse or exploitation, and to have their privacy protected, and it requires that their lives not be subject to excessive interference.

The Convention also obliges signatory states to provide separate legal representation for a child in any judicial dispute concerning their care and asks that the child’s viewpoint be heard in such cases.

Link to the UNCRC itself  (“OHCRC.org”).  See Articles 28 and 29.  I can see why the US might resist signing this treaty, and I approve of its resistance, speaking as a mother and, professionally for decades before, an educator.  It is seeking to control the education of all nation’s children with respect to UN principles, not national laws, including laws in place to settle issues between parents, regarding all kinds of issues and regarding in particular what forms of education should be promoted, what should be taught in school, and how to view various cultures and backgrounds within the nation.  I say this even realizing that the declaration insists that education include “equality of the sexes.”

(Re: Bernardine Dohrn) Are you familiar with her history with SDS and having been wanted by the FBI, etc. (etc.).  THIS month (a few days ago) a women’s magazine (MarieClaire.com) interviews her as the radical feminist standing up to “Patriarchy” — but in fact, many of the programs (as I will continue to point out) dealing with the programming under juvenile justice, and “children and families” are plenty patriarchal — as it overlaps in subject matter with fatherhood funding, HMRF funding, and under that, family reunification, prisoner re-entry (you name it …). Needless to say, their websites don’t advertise this, or the impact it may have on intact, or single-parent, female-headed households in the USA who are not necessarily challenged by asylum, immigration, or our kids being in juvenile delinquency trouble — and many who are.  From the same BillAyers.org blog, posting a more recent article.  I suppose it may help sell Marie Claire product…

How Women Can Strike Fear into the Patriarchy: Lessons from a 1960s Radicalist

Bernardine Dohrn, the most wanted woman in the world, on the power of protest


From the school of law (Northwestern) itself I see that this Center was started in 1992 at Northwestern (answering my question about, was Kent Marcus aware of it while an undergrad.  That said, being in similar fields, and a well-informed and well-known lawyer with significant experience in the USDOJ, I’m sure he knows about it.  Who is Bernadette Dohrn (in general) and Bill Ayers (Univ. of Chicago, ret’d.) also plays into the whole flavor:

About Us (http://www.law.northwestern.edu/legalclinic/cfjc/aboutus/)

Founded in 1992, the Children and Family Justice Center (CFJC) is a comprehensive children’s law office and part of the Bluhm Legal Clinic at Northwestern University School of Law. At the CFJC, attorneys and law students work together to promote justice for children, adolescents, and their families through direct legal representation, policy advocacy, and law reform.

Providing access to justice for unrepresented youth is a core mission of the CFJC. Each year, CFJC faculty, staff and students represent young people on a wide range of matters, from delinquency to immigration and asylum to cases addressing harsh sentencing practices or the collateral consequences youth face after coming into contact with the law. Oftentimes, the CFJC gives its young clients access to a lawyer when they otherwise would not have one.

The CFJC also actively collaborates, both locally and nationally, on key policy and law reform initiatives affecting children and adolescents. CFJC attorneys forge deep connections—from the grassroots level all the way up to major government entities—to develop fair, effective, and lasting strategies for systems reform.

As a teaching institution, the CFJC trains over 20 law students each year in critical lawyering skills such as interviewing, counseling, investigation, legal writing, negotiation, and oral advocacy. CFJC professors encourage their students to step into the role of lawyer and take ownership over their cases and projects, while providing intensive supervision and regular feedback. In the process, CFJC students have the unique opportunity to develop both the skills and the confidence they need to become effective lawyers. As a holistic children’s law center, the CFJC additionally serves as a field placement for training masters-level social work students.

Whether advocating in front of judges, legislators, policymakers, the Prisoner Review Board, or the classroom, the CFJC always strives to advance the notion that youth matters, and that our justice system must keep the unique characteristics, needs and capacities of children and adolescents in mind when determining how they should be treated under the law. The CFJC also seeks to reduce the disproportionate criminalization of youth of color, and to reduce the over-incarceration of youth by expanding the use of community justice alternatives.

One major difference between this center and the one started only 7 years later in Columbus Ohio (at Capital University) is that in donating to THIS (Chicago) CFJC, one is informed that one is donating to the Northwestern University “Attn: Children and Family Justice Center” (“make checks payable to Northwestern University) and that their website actually resembles that of an educational institution — in fact this one (see above), unlike the misleading “familyyouthlaw.org” not to mention the name itself containing the words “At Capital University” as though it was just not part of it (or, “it,” literally)….

(The next images were not from those years, but do illustrate the situation; they were posted before also, they show the “TANF” part and as to the current Acting Director of OFA (under which TANF is administered).

A short section here, around a single revolving-door situation around PRWORA programming now and its leadership, and testimony from the same person — in a different capacity (Joint Statement before House Ways and Means) around the time it was passed.  

My point is awareness of certain parts of the nonprofit sector, working in synche to influence public policy  (public law) over time– then (at least some of the leadership) moving into implementing — the reformed laws.  One person first worked for a policy institute testifying TO the NGA, then worked FOR the NGA testifying before Congress, and now works for HHS running the programs she was originally testifying about. Is that not inordinate influence by private (tax-exempt) entities upon the federal government?

Around these (about 3) images is also some of my writing on a certain (current) situation involving a gentleman whose company is benefitting professionally (and I’m sure financially) from the altered legislation, namely TANF, and under it, the “family values” rhetoric as it came through the HMRF funding.  (“Patience, please….”)  The writing on the other situation is dealing with the international, while obviously “welfare reform” in the US is dealing with national.   The major funding base for the national as it includes revenue from a federal agency, is enabling the international.

click for full-sized, although this is simply a home page under “ABOUT” at HHS/ACF/OFA referencing the programs, including the “HMRF” ones as well as TANF, it administers.

CLICK HERE to read the text and annotations. I was a little shocked to read this just today (3/4/2017), but given the situation, it makes sense why the last few years have maintained such oppression of battered and separated mothers when it comes to custody and just basic survival as human beings after standing up to abuse (theirs, or their kids’)  SEE FORM 990s for the NGA Center for Best Practices in this post…

That post (Progressive Language Creep Section from 2012 “Reconceptualize This” post (reviewed and reformatted 2017)“] has many details on the situation, but I remember being struck, viewing the PR on “endingviolence.com” of which countries seem to have attracted his attention, after skipping from state to state around the US with agreement from “friends with funds (private tax-exempt style)” and “friends with state Supreme Court or Social Services Agency connections (public officials in high position-style)” that a SINGLE model (his, or rather his Connecticut LLC’s) would be just absolutely the best to train child welfare workers statewide (in Ohio).  I know he had a civil servant (or consulting) position in Connecticut and perhaps the programming involvement with DCF in Florida.  (I can’t be everywhere at once tracking this stuff!) But it sure seems, repeatedly in certain spheres, that by the time word starts getting out in our good’ol USA, it’s probably wise — and I’ve noticed many organizations do — to start building connections internationally making sure to reference from a more distant place, one’s great credits and accomplishments within the US.  Fatherhood organizations  most certainly have been known to do this.  And, I have to consider the possibility that this was the ultimate plan all along.

RE: the HHS/ACF/OFA images above and Ms. Golonka’s background with the NGA Center for Best Practices — here are those tax returns.

Total results: 3Search Again.  The four Board Members are GOVERNORS.

Other Program directors/Officers are paid by “related organizations” and the (only) “Related Organization” — the NGA itself — has an EIN# shown, but is characterized as “nonprofit” when the website seems to call it an instrumentality of government.  Notice the legal domicile is DC, and that the total assets are increasing. Organizations like this (there is one for “Lieutenant Governors” also, in fact more than one) collectively function as an alternate, if not “shadow” form of government for virtually any agency in the executive branch of a state government (which let’s remember also includes law enforcement, Attorney Generals, etc. public welfare, human services, and education funding….), and some for authorities in the legislative, others, the judicial branches — with the overall goal, it would seem, of consolidation of the separate branches around named themes in virtually every category.

Meanwhile, it is “privately” funded in increasing donations over time (see Sched. A for the prior 4-5 years in any specific year) and doesn’t function as an employer because the NGA Is the “Paymaster” (see Sched. J). etc.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2015 990 49 $30,178,936.00 23-7391796
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2014 990 43 $24,025,416.00 23-7391796
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2013 990 43 $21,492,523.00 23-7391796

Here’s Ms. Golonka in a joint statement (with two other significant associations) Feb. 26, 1997, testifying right after welfare reform passed (that is joint statement dated 2/26/1997) before the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on “Human Resources” and re: Technical Corrections to (PRWORA).  I notice this doesn’t show her as representing the NGA’s nonprofit (tax returns shown above) but the NGA itself, a “related” but different entity at this time.  Recommended reading in general!

NGFA(Golonka) NCSL(Steisel) APWA(Ryan) Feb26 1997 JOINT STATEMT B4 House Ways+Means SubComm on HumnResources~re Technical Correx to Welfare Reform (2017March09@2.27PM (same link as in image caption, just below).  The testimony started out:

Today, we would like to discuss some technical corrections that would facilitate successful welfare reform implementation and urge you to make those technical corrections law.

You may recall that our three organizations appeared together before the subcommittee in September of last year, shortly after the enactment of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.

Here’s a NYT article summarizing this, and sure enough, it quotes from all three organizations.  If you read it, be reminded that at this time, there was (as I recall) a Republican-controlled Congress pushing for the legislation, and a Democrat White House Administration under President Clinton.  And, it was about seven weeks before another presidential election (!):

While generally supporting the new welfare law, state officials asked Congress today to give them more latitude and a bit more money to care for poor people and create jobs for welfare recipients.

Whenever Congress debated welfare in the last two years, Republicans and Democrats bitterly denounced each other, and Democrats disagreed among themselves. But today, when a Congressional subcommittee examined efforts to carry out the law signed 26 days ago by President Clinton, the proceedings were notable for the lack of acrimony.  Though some had feared that Federal officials might undermine or delay the new law, Republican lawmakers today commended the Administration for being cooperative. …

The Republicans were pushing for this legislation; what was eventually passed apparently was a “triangulated” version enabled by President Clinton (a compromise from the harshness the Republicans wanted, see “Contract for America”).  The Republicans were afraid it would get passed, but the Administration would blockade implementation.  As it was, one of the HHS officials (Mary Jo Bane) had enough resistance to it (as passed) that, it says, someone else was substituted for her in (testifying or reporting on the results of the subcommittee hearing?):

And in brisk, businesslike testimony, Olivia A. Golden, Commissioner of the Federal Administration on Children, Youth and Families, [[ACYF]] said, ”Our job is to implement the legislation as Congress passed it and the President signed it.”

Ms. Golden testified in place of Mary Jo Bane, the Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services [a higher position, it seems] responsible for welfare programs, who had been scheduled to appear. The Administration pulled Ms. Bane from the lineup of witnesses, fearing that she might be asked to explain why she opposes the welfare law. Ms. Bane said last week that she would step down on Sept. 28 because of ”deep concerns” about the law, which ends the 60-year-old Federal guarantee of cash assistance for the nation’s poorest children.

Now it would seem to be a guarantee of cash assistance, nationally, for nonprofits lined up for diversionary programs under block grants to the states… but that’s just my opinion.

My point is — coordination on the issue is happening through certain types of nonprofit associations — three MAJOR ones mentioned here — and lobbying (asking) for law.  Not mentioned here — DNK if elsewhere — prior to working here, Ms. Golonka had been working for yet another nonprofit (Policy Institute on/or for Family Impact Seminars) pushing fatherhood initiatives. Search the term and you will find these eventually became entrenched at certain (various) universities, where the themes are continued… And the model they want is increasingly: (1) in private hands and (2) “totally integrated.”  Among the first examples given here in that 1997 testimony was from Michigan and regarding “workforce development boards” implementing “welfare-to-work.”  FYI, fatherhood programming often flows through these.  Look at the description:

  • In Michigan, more than $75 million has been distributed statewide to twenty-six local workforce development boards, with primarily private sector members, that are responsible for local decisionmaking and administration of the welfare-to-work initiative, as a component ofthe state’s totally integrated workforce and economic development system.

Basically this is saying, we want ONE system, availing itself of those block grants (and more — see “contingency funds”), in private hands, mobilizing the population to become good competent, and of course, and obedient corporate workers….  The next excerpt (meanwhile), not clarified, is the only use of the word “domestic violence” or anything close to it as a concern, in the entire joint statement:

Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your continued interest and commitment to preserving the flexibility in the law that will allow states to successfully implement welfare reform by designing programs that fit the unique needs of each state. At the national level, our three organizations have continued to work closely with the staff of this subcommittee in drafting of a technical corrections bill, and they have been very responsive to our concerns.

Implementation is an ongoing process and each year will bring new approaches, new opportunities, and new challenges as states learn from their experiences. Thus, we agree with the sentiment that many have expressed that Congress and the administration should refrain from making major changes in the TANF block grant at this time and give states a chance to implement the law.

At the same time, our organizations, along with many others, will be monitoring implementation closely to identify any problems or stumbling blocks that may impede implementation efforts. For example, we believe that the domestic violence provisions are being misinterpreted by a number of organizations involved in advocacy around welfare reform** and this may result in states making decisions that have unintended consequences. We would like to see some clarification of these provisions.

That was a rather vague statement of the problem, but the only one that I could see.  **No other organizations were exactly named, the field being — the entire nation.”  Further on, …

Our three organizations also have been working closely with the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture (USDA), and Justice (DOJ), the Social Security Administration (SSA), and other federal agencies that have a role in welfare reform. We were very pleased with a recent policy guidance from HHS regarding maintenance-of-effort (MOE) under TANF that reaffirmed what we believed was the law’s intent to allow flexibility in the use of a state’s maintenance-of- effort dollars. Mr. Chairman, we want to thank you for your support of the states’ position and for the letter you sent to Secretary Shalala.

Although more responsibility for welfare reform has shifted to the states, there are still areas where HHS does have regulatory authority such as in imposing penalties. We are pleased HHS has been willing to consult with us on these issues. …

“Penalties” is referring to penalties to the states, I believe, for refusing to follow protocol… Image of the joint statement is below:

This post continued where it (actually) started:
Explaining my Inspirat’n for asking, on March 8, Internat’l Women’s Day, Should the USA Join the Commonwealth of Nations?… (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6bm”)

It gets back to “DMA,” and model programming to protect families so they can be “together” but still “safe.”

Mr. Mandel’s LLC seems to like Commonwealth Countries quite well, a pattern I’ve noticed in so many court-connected, or taking court-referral business entities.

Another pattern which continues to come up for people who take a closer look among such entities:  Changing names:  The LLC is currently undergoing a name-change, after its name has been proselytized all over Ohio and at a private, not-for-profit university (law school) located in the Ohio state capital (Columbus), or so the website says.

Name-changing seems to be a very big deal in public/private partnerships (re-branding for selling services to the public, or justifying services already set in motion and funded, in case someone asks…). Possibly to put off the bloodhounds (or other trained domestic animals on the scent of something which smells a little odd).



This post title is taken from a screenshot below:  Explaining my Inspirat’n for asking, on March 8, Internat’l Women’s Day, Should the USA Join the Commonwealth of Nations?… (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6bm”)


Meanwhile, today’s news is that Scotland is looking to leave the UK. Maybe they want to stay in the EU? But, I’m not talking here about the EU, but about the Commonwealth of Nations, a far larger and more widespread “empire,” although not technically speaking in the former sense.

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

March 12, 2017 at 7:36 pm

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    March 13, 2017 at 9:29 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: