Omidyar Entities: The Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan Consulting Model (Transform and Help Run — or own — Distressed Assets, LIKE U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS), Rebranded, on Steroids, and Gone Global(with WordPress-generated case-sensitive short-link ending “-6lm”)(total length about 13,000 words)

This post has two companion posts I am trying to get out, with this one, ASAP and one right after the other.  This one has a significant new payload relating to some previous goods delivered on the matter referenced in its title, on this FamilyCourtMatters.org.

This was intended to be third, but after two days of working on it, I’m publishing it first.  The post  falls into about two equal sections (after the “Read-More” link below, before which I am mostly demonstrating that the Omidayar Entities are major players in this field) each has its own key information. The end just sort of “stops” because it was taken out of another post; it ends explaining more of the “Bain & Company” model.  Some of my purposes will be come clear as the other two posts, focused on school transformation entities, are published.  We are dealing with a MAJOR section of U.S. public institution assets, U.S. Society (as in, “the next generation”) and I am showing you, sector by sector, WHO wants (and so far, has) a major piece of the action — and some of their organizational characteristics.

Upcoming:  More on “WestEd” (a 1995-formed JPA formed by other JPAs with connections to two other JPAs dating back to the 1960s which in the first sentence describing WHO it is, lies (by about 30 years), and the second one, disarming in its openness, explains who it came from.  Which readers ought to look at, ConnectEd, and the James Irvine Foundation itself (key entity in California) and the current (billionaire) Irving Company sole shareholder, Donald Bren.  It wants to get into school transformation too, of course.

Upcoming, another post:  Three (or Four) Nonprofits who Just Wanna Transform Schools (link and full title below).  Again, this would be the third post, except I just decided to post it first.

If you’re not familiar with the name Omidiyar (unlikely…), probably you’ve heard of “eBay.”  From Bloomberg.com, the Executive Profile won’t fit all on one screenprint, but here’s most of it.  Please do read the rest of this just 49-year old billionaire, philanthropist, board member, and “mover-and-shaker” in general:

Mr. Pierre M. Omidyar co-founded Omidyar Network in 2004 and serves as its Founding Partner and Chairman. As an entrepreneur and innovator, Mr. Omidyar guides Omidyar Network with his strategic vision, values and fresh approach to the field of philanthropy. As an extension of Omidyar Network’s activities in microfinance, in 2005, Mr. Omidyar gave $100 million to Tufts University. …He also founded eBay Inc. as a sole proprietorship on Labor Day in September 1995. Mr. Omidyar served as the President at eBay Inc until August 1996. He served as the Chief Executive Officer at Ebay Inc. until February 1998 and served as its Chief Financial Officer until November 1997. After eBay became a public company in 1998, he co-founded the Omidyar Foundation… [ insert multiple accomplishments and companies he founded, and a few he worked for before founding others…]  He served as the Chairman of eBay Inc. since May 1996 until July 17, 2015 and has been its Director since May 1996. Mr. Omidyar serves as a Director of ePeople, Inc. He serves as a Director of The Ulupono Initiative, LLC. He served as an Independent Director of PayPal Holdings, Inc. since July 2015 until March 20, 2017…He served as a Director of MeetUp Inc. Mr. Omidyar serves on the Board of Trustees of Omidyar-Tufts Microfinance Fund, the Punahou School, Santa Fe Institute and the Roshan Cultural Heritage Institute. In 2011, he was honored with the Carnegie Medal of Philanthropy for the lasting impact of their work. Mr. Omidyar holds a B.S. degree in Computer Science from Tufts University.

Ebay, Inc. Executive Profile, viewed 3-29-2017 at Bloomberg.com — note: image doesn’t include the whole profile. See related link!

While writing this, I couldn’t remember exactly whether this man was associated with a sponsor of CalExit, and went looking.  Another entrepreneur (Sherpa Capital) Shervin Pishevar, was.  One thing both and many more tech and internet entrepreneurs do agree upon is shown in a letter they signed in July, 2016, expressing their opinion of our current president, but then, candidate, Donald J. Trump:

“A Gigantic List of Tech Leaders Just Slammed Trump” by Sophie Kleeman (News Editor) in Gizmodo.com (“Gizmodo Media Group”).

“A lengthy list of Silicon Valley’s top players have signed an open letter slamming Donald Trump’s bigotry and policies, arguing that the bloviating, radioactive orange slime puddle “would be a disaster for innovation.”

“The letter, published this morning on Medium, includes the endorsements of Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak, Tumblr CEO David Karp, Reddit co-founder Alexis Ohanian, Twitter co-founder Ev Williams, billionaire entrepreneur Pierre Omidyar, venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar, Slack founder Stewart Butterfield, Yelp CEO Jeremy Stoppelman, and Arielle Zuckerberg, a partner at Kleiner, Perkins, Caufield & Byers and sister to Facebook CEO Mark.

The letter specifically calls out Trump’s “divisive candidacy,” “poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works,” and attitudes toward women, immigrants, and people of color. It argues that his approach runs counter to “the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy.” There’s not much in the way of specific policy callouts, but the letter does criticize Trump’s giant wall and plans for deportations and profiling…

My point here being that in such a long list (click link to “Medium” to see), Pierre Omidyar made the cut for listing the big ones; is simply billionaire entrepreneur” (I’m sure many of the others on the list also fit that category), and there also is Shervin Pishevar who has come out in favor of CalExit.

I’m not following all Omidyar entities –one of them came up in the blogging context for school transformation using technology and in a particular business format which has close resemblance to the Bain/Bridgespan model, from what I can tell.   However, this paragraph from that letter is also interesting:

An open letter from technology sector leaders on Donald Trump’s candidacy for President

from 7-14-2016 “An Open Letter to Trump from the Technology sector”

We are inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers, investors, researchers, and business leaders working in the technology sector. We are proud that American innovation is the envy of the world, a source of widely-shared prosperity, and a hallmark of our global leadership.

We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not. He campaigns on anger, bigotry, fear of new ideas and new people, and a fundamental belief that America is weak and in decline. We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation. His vision stands against the open exchange of ideas, free movement of people, and productive engagement with the outside world that is critical to our economy — and that provide the foundation for innovation and growth.

Great ideas come from all parts of society, and we should champion that broad-based creative potential. We also believe that progressive immigration policies help us attract and retain some of the brightest minds on earth — scientists, entrepreneurs, and creators. In fact, 40% of Fortune 500 companies were founded by immigrants or their children. Donald Trump, meanwhile, traffics in ethnic and racial stereotypes, repeatedly insults women, and is openly hostile to immigration. He has promised a wall, mass deportations, and profiling.

The parts I marked in different font may sound differently after you’ve looked more closely at the business model and (as I did, particularly as to grants and overseas investment policies) the Omidyar Network Fund, Inc. (a philanthropy and a Form 990PF) initial grantees and ongoing “investees.”  Total Gross Assets for the Network Fund, Inc. for YE 2015 was $446M, i.e., pushing ½ billion. It is being funded from another trust in his name; that year, to the tune of $184M (see its “Schedule B” for the list of payments).  No outside donations or funders are even needed, or wanted, apparently.  Control rests in the hands of the Boards of Directors at least for the private foundation.

The Omidyar Group (see in “PayLoad” section) has offices in the US (East-D.C. and West Coast – “Silicon Valley” Northern California), London, Mumbai, and Johannesburg, as well as it Network Fund is the controlling entity of an LLC in Brazil. The investment model seems to include the typical “partial ownership in exchange for our support” and among the investments are in proprietary digital platforms targeting school systems (here, and overseas).

Among the first $8M of grants to from the fund in its first year, $1,000,000 (the largest grant by far) went to America Indian Foundation, and $700,000 to an Institute in London.  Ongoing involvement in buying British government debt and charities seems to be part of its strategy (“program investments”) and so forth. (Tax returns and some more of these screenprints will be shown below). $4M went to Grameen Foundation USA (Both Grameen Foundation and Grameen Bank articles in Wiki were flagged, but I gather this is based on Grameen Bank (Bangladesh), Microcredit financing and the USA foundation was started in DC in 1997; and that last fall, the foundation consolidated operations with “Freedom From Hunger.)

Short Insert Section on Grameen Bank & Grameen Foundation USA (half of first Omidyar Network, Inc. grants to other organization went to this one, so I looked into it….)  This adds about 2,000 words to the post size. Looking more closely at this situation, I saw why it might be attractive to the Omidyar business model in general.  

Grameen Bank (“Bank for the Poor”) Founder Muhammad Yunus:

Muhammad Yunus was born on 28 June, 1940 in the village of Bathua, in Hathazari, Chittagong, the business centre of what was then Eastern Bengal. He was the third of 14 children, of whom five died in infancy. His father was a successful goldsmith who always encouraged his sons to seek higher education. But his biggest influence was his mother, Sufia Khatun, who always helped any poor person or relative who knocked on their door. This inspired him to commit himself to eradication of poverty. His early childhood years were spent in the village. In 1947, his family moved to the city of Chittagong, where his father had the jewelery business. …. (realizing the problem was interest rates and middle men for poor women with a trade):

Against the advice of banks and government, Yunus carried on giving out ‘micro-loans’, and in 1983 formed the Grameen Bank, meaning ‘village bank’ founded on principles of trust and solidarity. In Bangladesh by 2015, Grameen has 2,568 branches, with 21,751 staff serving 8.81 million borrowers in 81,392 villages. On any working day Grameen collects an average of $1.5 million in weekly installments. Of the borrowers, 97% are women and over 97% of the loans are paid back, a recovery rate higher than any other banking system. Grameen methods are applied in projects in 58 countries, including the US, Canada, France, The Netherlands and Norway.

And a message from the founder:

Beloved owners and honoured members of Grameen Bank:

Thirty-five years ago, I did not know that I would start a bank, and that I would lend to poor people, especially to poor rural women. Like many other teachers, I was busy teaching in the classroom, far from the realities on the ground. But Jobra village took my future into a completely different direction. I saw, first hand, how the loan sharks enslaved the villagers; I thought that if I were to lend money to the poor, then the villagers could be free from the grasp of the loan sharks. That is what I did. I never imagined that this would become my calling in life. I learned a lot sitting and talking with the women of Jobra; I came to know about things which I had never imagined. I longed to do whatever I could to help them. With my students, I was able to help the women in a small way. Acting as the guarantor, I was able to arrange loans from the bank for the poor people of the village. Alongside the loans, I added a savings program. At that time, women in the village did not have the capacity to save. The savings program started with 25 paisa in savings per week. Today the total amount of savings by the borrowers stands at 6 billion Taka!

Our members, when we started, did not know how to read or write. We started to teach them to write their name, with sticks in the dirt. I then created the Grameen Bank Project.   (etc.)

Among the “16 Decisions” are those relating to cultural decisions (not taking dowry, keeping family size small) as well as commitment to living clean, and no dilapidated housing, and “16.0 We shall take part in all social activities collectively.” (The model was designed for the villages it was intended for)….See also its “FAQs” (For example: Why focus on women:  “Women in Bangladesh are neglected by society. Through the opportunity of self-employment and the access to money, Grameen Bank helps to empower those women. In addition, studies have shown that the overall output of development is greater when loans are given to women instead of men, as women are more likely to use their earnings to improve their living situations and to educate their children.”). Or, under “Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Poverty“ — the poor do not have collateral. Instead, Grameen Bank depends on: “the voluntary formation of small groups of five people to provide mutual, morally binding group guarantees…” accompanied by “Intensive discipline, supervision, and servicing characterize the operations of the Grameen Bank, which are carried out by “Bicycle bankers” in branch units with considerable delegated authority. The rigorous selection of borrowers and their projects by these bank workers, the powerful peer pressure exerted on these individuals by the groups, and the repayment scheme based on 50 weekly installments, contribute to operational viability to the rural banking system designed for the poor…”

Grameen Foundation in Washington, D.C.

That was the bank; this is the foundation, which as it says, is focused on other nations, women, in particularly and (well read their main page):

The Grameen Foundation (“About” page)

Mission

Enable the poor, especially women, to create a world without hunger and poverty.

About

Grameen Foundation is a global nonprofit organization that brings innovative and sustainable solutions to the fight against poverty and hunger. Together with local partners, we equip families, women, and smallholder farmers with resources and services that expand financial inclusion, strengthen resilience, enhance health and improve livelihoods.

Our approach combines the power of partnerships, digital technology, and self-help solutions.

• To achieve lasting change, we collaborate with local partners: companies, non-governmental organizations, government agencies and others that share a common interest in developing, delivering and sustaining innovative solutions to poverty and hunger.
• We strive to harness the unprecedented opportunities offered by technology, especially digital technology, to accelerate progress across our programs.
• Our solutions always promote self-help, and because children are most vulnerable to the ravages of poverty and malnutrition, we focus on women—their primary caretakers. We equip women to succeed at the very thing they are already determined to do—feed their children, improve their family’s health, and create positive change in their communities

Where We Work

Grameen Foundation works in developing nations where poverty and chronic hunger are suffered by a large portion of a country’s population, and in countries where wide disparities of wealth leave large populations marginalized.

Headquartered in Washington, D.C., we are a 501(c)(3) organization with offices in the U.S., Africa, Asia, and Latin America. We work in the Middle East and North Africa through Grameen-Jameel Microfinance Limited, a joint venture, and in India through Grameen Foundation India, a wholly-owned subsidiary, and through Freedom from Hunger India Trust, an independent affiliate.

Total results: 3. Search Again.

For year “2015” (which is Fiscal 2014) above, declaration of authority over financial  accounts in the following countries (by 2-letter abbreviations):

At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account, securities account, or other financial account)?…………………….

If”Yes,”enter the name of the foreign country CO-GH,CO,UG,HK,RP,KE,ID,IN
See instructions for filing requirements for FinCEN Form 114, Report of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBA R)

I managed by tweaking the URL (and figuring out a different Fiscal Year End (Dec, not March) to locate this foundation’s FY2004 return, pretty early in its development.  For Omidyar Networks Fund to have given it $4,000,000 out of a total $10.9M (non-government) received that year was a significant boost. In the same return (two images shown) Schedule A of prior years, we can see it basically helped double their revenue.  At this time no officer was paid over $100K (and few over $50K) and few program investments.  Now, many are paid well over $100K, and program investments (are around $3.6M):

Grameen Foundation USA Yr 2004 (Pg 1 top)

Grameen Foundation USA Yr 2004, Sched A of Support (Prior years)

Financials are posted (Annual Report, Audited Statement, Form 990) on organization site, unfortunately the one labeled “FY2016 if clicked turns out to be “FY2015 (Their Fiscal Year is April 1 – March 31 of next year):

https://grameenfoundation.app.box.com/v/FY2016-Form990 (EIN# 73-15027977, shows a new address within Washington, D.C.)

Tax Return Part VIIB, Independent Subcontractors paid over $100K for that year (only 5) shows  (with a name that includes “Mauritius”) only one in the USA, and 4 out of 5 are “Software Development Services;” the next image shows where Program Related Investments are held:

In other words, there is a significant involvement globally, but when it comes to the US, schools transformation seems a focus. Speaking of the investment in schools, this is also what the Tech Leaders, in the letter re: Trump, had to say last July:

Finally, we believe that government plays an important role in the technology economy by investing in infrastructure, education and scientific research. Donald Trump articulates few policies beyond erratic and contradictory pronouncements. His reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions threatens to upend what attracts companies to start and scale in America. He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation.

We stand against Donald Trump’s divisive candidacy and want a candidate who embraces the ideals that built America’s technology industry: freedom of expression, openness to newcomers, equality of opportunity , public investments in research and infrastructure, and respect for the rule of law. We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership.

Among some of the more progressive school transformation nonprofits I’ve been seeing, and their wealthy sponsors, “respect for the rule of law” has NOT been at an all-time high (referring to the James Irvine Foundation / Connected:  The Center for College and Career relationship, nothing particularly re: Omidyar entities so far).  While I have plenty of concerns about our current president, I know too much about prior administrations to take proclamations of loyalty to this country at face value.  Certainly it’s been good for the tech giants and those who have invested in their stock, and it’s very, very good for those who figure out “which way the wind is blowing” (before acquiring enough leverage to Do the blowing themselves, or with each other) before any field has been fully co-opted by others.

Right now, as I am continuing to document, the “school transformation through proprietary digital platforms” field is already crowded, the application of the Bain & Company turnaround (LBO, nonprofit-style) to nonprofits field is GETTING crowded, and the concept of reducing manpower by standardizing operations according to digital analytics in the social science and family services field has long been on that course, as you can see (and I have been blogging since I learned of it) by groups such as NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency) and their various trademarked data analytics which you can view on their website:  NCCDglobal.org last I looked.

….

All they really needed to get it going for good is contributions from INTERNATIONAL governments and all across the USA (as a nonprofit no one would particularly pay much mind to), shifting their HQ to the West Coast (NY to Oakland, CA), and lawyers or a nonprofit firm run by lawyers in New York (Children’s Rights, Inc. self-appointed national watchdog for abused and neglected children)  to, in sequence, systematically sue entire state child welfare agencies, WIN settlements, and demand restructuring to use the NCCD software.  Someone has to be trained in its usage, and “voila” — NCCD gets more business.

NCCD provides training and technical assistance related to juvenile justice, child welfare, adult protective services, economic support, and education. These activities focus on the needs of our clients and partners, and include training in the SDM system, family and client engagement, gender responsiveness, addressing disproportionate incarceration by race, worker and supervisor coaching, data monitoring, and process evaluation and consultation to improve services.

For more information, please contact us.

Children’s Rights, Inc. in NYC. NCCD was a subcontractor one year, I noticed it on the tax return because it was on the opposite coast, which in the context seemed odd. Sho ’nuff, NCCD was taking grants from many Commonwealth of Nations government, provinces (Canada and others) as well as many specific states in the USA as well as some metropolitan areas within this country. It functions nonprofit too, of course.

You can search this blog for some of those terms and look at the uploaded images or IRS filings; I have reported on this, but may not remember all details exactly of course.

Why I’m in the mood to talk..

After days of annotating images and moving links into place, reformatting with each annotation, move and linkage, I’m in a mood for a conversational “Preamble” about this situation.

Below that, you can see the pictures, charts, exhibits and more visually interesting documentation which has begun to populate this blog since I learned how to do it, about a half year ago.

Actually, both sections now have images as I decided to also post something I’ve been holding onto for a long time, as in all it’s a major (detailed, over 150pp) write-up covering several fields of professional practice, and some well-known entities.  BUT, I did it looking at the nonprofit filings.

This writeup was completed over a year ago.  I am posting several images and a link to 7 pages of summary information specific to original entities starting the Family Justice Center and its Camp Hope in Southern California. It shows just how far off-the-chart insane the setup is — and that it IS indeed a “set-up.”

I am about to talk about “Selling Hope,” and as it turns out key to the Family Justice Center model (originally) was its “Camp Hope seeking to just help some kids ages 6-15 especially, get out and play (with or without their parents), particularly traumatized and vulnerable kids. Now there’s a Camp Hope Oregon being advertised.

I would’ve thought that “Selling Hope” would be a sarcastic title, and that “hope” should NOT be for sale in the form of words Or goods, but apparently there’s now a “science of Hope” and a “Pocketful of Hope®” nonprofit which University of Oklahoma just “had” to do a preliminary evaluation on (run by the person who’s running the trademarked program). Just shows how far people will go in search of a sale….Among the quoted authors is Mr. Gwinn of the original San Diego FJC.  So, in this “Preamble” section, I will also have “Show and Tell.”

For those who just don’t have the patience or time for both sections, I’ll mark them “Preamble” ….  then  “PayLoad”… If you must pick one, pick section “PayLoad”

“PREAMBLE”

Sometimes the title seems to comes to mind, suddenly inspired understanding of what to call  what I’ve been seeing.  I post the label and then start writing.

Other times I must move a large section that will either detract from that message or couldn’t be squished on top of it, although it’s closely related.  Sometimes, I have already copied, cut, am pasting such a section representing a day’s (or a week’s) work into a new post and I must find a title, inspired or not, that identifies and summarizes it so I can get back — and link this material back — to the original one and attempt to meet my self-imposed posting schedule.

The second situation is how this post was:  conceived, launched, founded, initiated, birthed, emerged, and/or given life,

(to borrow some of the common words, especially in the field of “responsible fatherhood” I keep reading to characterize the act of writing or obtaining a boilerplate for some articles of incorporation, getting some friends, a spouse, or business partners to sign them, picking a legal domicile, paying the fee, and filing it with a Secretary of State or State Corporations Division, or wherever (by domicile) or however (including electronically) it happens.  It’s not even necessary for the new entity to be funded yet.

You can characterize this dry, commonplace, and inexpensive series of actions by any number of verbs to thing involving more flesh-and-blood sweat, passion and personal relationships (human conception, gestation labor and childbirth), or stimulating, courageous high-risk adventures, like the valiant launching of a ship upon some uncharted ocean as if generations or centuries ago, but face it:  the process is administrative; it’s clerical, and involves transmission of some data, payment of fees, a FILING to fulfil a legal requirement in the creation of a business “entity” for the purpose of doing business, i.e., commercial exchanges:  it is to encourage and expand cash-flow.  Depending on the type of entity chosen, and where it may fit in some larger operation, it is also for minimizing payment of taxes and maximizing “ROI.”

Beyond those legal purposes, there is also the barely legal, i.e., creating a cloud of shell nonprofits (or, LLCs or anything else), holding them empty year after year — and ready for moving funds into them quickly “just in case” some other entity comes under too-close scrutiny. , and then the simply illegal, which is not getting around to filing (or starting, then stopping — while continuing business operations) for that entity.

I’ve already seen the “barely legal” operational in the opening years of — get this!  the San Diego Family Justice Center (versions/names 1,2,3)** + Camp Hope (also versions at least 1 and 2, and now I see there’s a replication, CAMP HOPE OREGON which claims being based on that model).

**San Diego Family Justice Center, National Family Justice Center Alliance, Alliance for Hope International (as I recall), the various mutations can be seen over time, for example, participating in a Batterers’ Intervention Conference in Michigan in 2008, it was in transition.  There’s also or was also both a SDFJC, and a SDFJC Foundation).

I have written it up and sent to a few people but not posted the write-up here (yet).  However parts of it were not hard to identify IF you read nonprofits and expect that dots should connect where filings say “we gave $$XX to entity XYZ in YearNN.”  My write-up was over 45pp (in 8X11 format with images, pages go by fast!) in one section, 181pp in whole, and originally written Dec. 15, 2015.  In Dec. 2016 it was sent to a third party (near stranger to this blog and material) for feedback on tone, coherence and also to test whether it had proved its main points.

Here are five screenprints from the first section (statement of the issues and discrepancies), and I’ll enclose those pages in pdf format — but notice, this excerpt does not include the following evidence from the same document — all those tax return images showing the details,  culled from different entities, two different state resources, and to a lesser degree, news articles over time.  I have been working on this blog for a way to post that document, including accustoming readers to illustrated pdf write-ups (you may have noticed), adding the Table of Contents in 8X11.5 pdf form, etc. – but that write-up in memo form is extremely detailed and requires a significant attention span to understand.

It also took a long time to write because I tend to re-research whatever I already had on any group or situation before summarizing it again. (For example, see Retrospective 2017 post.  I had to go back and review those earlier posts being referenced, and update many of them).

This “Public Still Clueless After All These Years?”  also illustrates how tax returns often tell a very different story than press releases, or even complaints about any organization in journal form.  The financial information is simply of a different type and nature — but it STILL shows organization ethcis and character.

Based on that evidence, I say my up-front summaries are accurate, as is that the public is in 2017 as in 2015, “Still Clueless After All These Years” (at least about this particular public/private partnership’s basic model and based on that model, purposes).

You can see why such shady “slosh-money-through” behavior would need a REALLY benevolent purpose, cause and association to distract from the financial realities throughout.  Probably it’s distracted many of the volunteers and some employees too, but at SOME point in time, that “stuff” will become public.  Then what?  Well, “we’ve already invested too much in the program and built up the infrastructure in city after city, what about all our employees and the clients we’re servicing?”

My point exactly — part of the business plan is to accelerate expansion BEFORE the public gets a serious clue what’s coming down the road at them, and at their expense, ongoing….Hardly the “democratic” and (much less the republican) form of government…

Similar deal with the Bain/Bridgespan model — and Harvard University (or at least Harvard Business School // Review) agrees.  As to Public/Private Partnerships and Accelerating Social Change in the name of public welfare — the Corporation for National Service/Social Innovation Fund (I posted on it recently, and earlier in 2016) agrees too.  I guess there’s just nothing to be said about distributing representative government throughout unaccountable nonprofit networks which hookup with government agencies or entities, and then take it global.  I (Let’s Get Honest, and I do have my name on the next excerpts to, and many of these annotated images) am voicing an extreme minority point of view — so I must just be wrong.

The only problem I have with constantly being on the “wrong” side by not cheerleading either Progressive or Conservative Philanthropic Plans for Families (or in general, schools) is what to do with this evidence — how to make it somehow disappear from my awareness, or reasoning.  I have no question how others might make it disappear from visibility on-line, or drown out reporting on it by simply reporting from other angles, almost always (that is, cause-based angles, not accounting-based).

What would YOU do with information like this affecting a networked agenda over a dozen years old and officially approved by both the USDOJ and DV personnel (“Cartel”) AND apparently from the HHS angle also, who sponsor many of the DV statewide coalitions too?  The five numbered screenprints summarize introduce some of my writing (and research) on specific subject matter as of 12/15/2015.  Here’s a seven-page excerpt (starts one page before, ends one page after the screenprints 1-5 below) in pdf form, and specifically regarding the origins (and then-current names) of the San Diego Family Justice Center and Camp Hope startup.  

For example, Year 1, a private philanthropist (whose son got in trouble for trying — with duct tape — to abduct young girls (twice) from elementary schools and ended up with a GPS ankle bracelet and on psychiatric watch) first funded the Camp Hope.  THEN, it was another $2M from the USDOJ. Meanwhile, the behavior of the Camp Hope entities (plural) or whoever was running them, is summarized as “sloshing money through” and “nothing but the tail lights” while the positive press — in other states — continues. How can we take ANY nonprofit of “Justice Center” seriously when this was the business model and have characterized the practices?

EXCERPT pp2-8 ONLY (12-10-2016 DRAFT4Feedbk! Dec 6, 2015,VEnglund – Public Still Clueless After All These Years? (BISC-MI+DV Cartel+PRWORA, 1995-2015 | Notice the Narratives but EXAMINE (Goes with the next five screenprints below, sometimes it took two to get the images from a single 8X11.5″ page, so the pdf is more continuous.  There are headers and footers also showing in the screenprints, but I think the main points still come across):

1

2

3

4

5 (5th and last screenprint)

Here are some more recent symptoms of this FJC model in operation.  As you can see from my about six annotated comments on hearing of a certain PhD promoting “The Science of Hope” and having found the same guy referenced both in Thurston County, Washington — and in University of Oklahoma’s “Applied Research Center for Nonprofits” (“Preliminary Evaluation of A Pocketful of Hope®”, 2016) (or similar title; see link) — survey of students, how well “A Pocketful of Hope® program worked as based on student self-reporting, which of course was also a nonprofit whose EIN# I looked up — I’m also irritated. Some of that irritation comes from awareness of things which can’t be conveyed in one annotated image, as this “FJC” model has now been operational (a $120M USDOJ startup grant in 2003 sure helped) for over a dozen years and managed to get an international (at least in the UK) component, too. I even caught some of its leadership trying to put this model into state law, but fortunately our then-governor Gray Davis said no.  (Search string, this blog:  “SB 557 and  the One-Stop Justice Shop.” It may predate what’s on the Table of Contents).

[One post, I just cleaned up some of the formatting and replaced a broken link or two, adding images for the missing info, first published 6-25-2011 on this blog: CA SB-557, and U.S. H.R. 2193 — Family Justice Center & Fatherhood pending legislation (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-L3”)

And earlier one, 6-5-2011, has more details on Bill 557, showing the attempt to write the San Diego entity’s (National Family Justice Center Alliance) name into the bill, and further reporting on the Alameda County in “IndyMedia” from another local individual “Steve Boatbrain” (username), pointing out some obvious nepotism, that the “Executive Director” (besides being Bill Lockyer’s wife) as going to be D.A. staff, and particularly regarding the GWB USDOJ announcement of the national initiative — specifically naming San Diego’s FJC as a good example:

“(“Say no to SB 557,” cont’d.) Local Connections and Faith-Focused OVW Grants: “All in the Family”– but Whose? (Published 6-5-2011, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-J1”)…

On browsing May 2011, I see two more posts on this of interest:

CA SB 557 — “Just say NO!” or at least “Whoa!!”  (show me the money…) to Scandalous San Diego’s One Stop Justice Shop Pyramid Scheme (post title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-HG”), and

Ms. O’Malley goes to Washington, selling SB 557 (Legislating the “One-Stop-Justice-Shop”) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-Hy,” published 5/29/2011 (May 29).  (Nancy O’Malley being the Alameda County District Attorney at this time.  Some tongue in cheek, also discussion of where child support and former L.A. Mayor Gil Garcetti.  Finally 5/13/2011 (but also there’s one called “Dubious Doings by District Attorneys around this time…):

From 2013, this one talks about the model itself, shows where the original center was being sued over its assigning contracts for the nonprofit (such as the nonprofit Casey Gwinn was then involved with) noncompetitive.  I also provided links to my many posts on this topic, and talked mores pecifically about the underlying problem being how for profit/not-for-profit operations had created and are perpetuating a caste system in the U.S.  This is a good post to read, though nearly four years old now:

Family Justice Centers, revisited (Model Programs with Major Design Flaws) [post updated 5-31-13] (Post title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-1IF”

If I could clone myself and do simultaneous blogs, one of them (years ago, and now) would be dedicated to following the origins, expansion, and filing fiascoes of the One-Stop-Justice-Shop + Christian Camps for Traumatized Kids*** as reflected in this whole networked and co-congratulating among the various elements, typically county-based enterprise…

(***Particularly after one or both parents have been removed from participation, and while other facets of the same overall enterprise virtually guarantee that parents will not be left alone after abuse to rebuild their relationships or otherwise provide on their own what these individual wish to provide in a trademarked and controlled manner, and take credit for the benefit, while helping build the business portfolios of others with a new theory to promote and trademark — which is exactly what’s happening here:  selling “HOPE” theory as a social and community asset…

This annotation has several URLs within it for further info: CAMP HOPE Oregon citing to FJC 2003 Camp HOPE + DrChanHellmans HOPE (recreation, play) THEORY for traumatized kids (Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 1.50PM)

CAMP HOPE Oregon citing to FJC 2003 Camp HOPE + DrChanHellmans HOPE (recreation, play) THEORY for traumatized kids (Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 1.50PM)

Sometimes, looks like, people also just skip the filing to legitimize one’s business entity part, get or are given a website (with domain name) and start acting legit (like they are the named entity), and counting on not getting caught until it no longer matters — as others have been involved who would then have cause NOT to reveal in what illegal enterprise(s) they were participating (aiding and abetting), which of course might affect the reputation.

BUT, if you control and dominate an entire field, perhaps this really no longer matters, legality.

For groups, including some huge community foundations [one comes up again in this post] or others facilitating  “DAFs” (Donor-Advised Funds), often managed electronically both to collect distribute and report funds, this is a good two-way deal; they can become fiscal agent for others and take positive credit for helping them (though fees are usually charged).

Other times, what’s really being helped is to, for a period, actually cloud the connections and conceal the real identities [and associated with this, cashflow] of the various projects — while the benefit (publicity, validation by well-known foundations) to those others is obvious whether they do or do not have their own separate, legitimate EIN#s.  (Obviously a community foundation  or other donor advised funds are not restricted ONLY to helping those without a legitimate business identity on their own)…Having more layers between the public giving and those receiving can make a small organization look more legitimate or larger AND it can make a very large existing organization less FISCALLY visible, as they are soliciting under an entity associated with helping organizations in need. It can also help the inter-related large organizations set up multiple sponsored fronts and over time and space, make the whole look more grassroots than it really is.

Seriously, this mirrors “Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap of Batterers Intervention Programming.”  In fact, published just about one year ago: March 6, 2016, Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap (While We Were Being Battered or Seeking Safety, These PhDs were Debating Batterer Typology for PsychoEducational Treatments and, of course More Forensic Clinical Research with (AFCC) Colleagues)

Same general process leading towards validation of further investment in someone’s favorite curricula.  Here’s that University of Oklahoma 2016 “Preliminary Evaluation” (link provided also on the annotated image):

Click to access Pocket-Full-of-Hope-Evaluation-2016.pdf

2016 Univ of OK Exec Summary of Pocketful of Hope®

Unbelievable:  HOW MANY TIMES is it possible to reference the promoted paragraph, per page, in a short plug for it under the guise of social science, evidence-based cognitive programs?  There must not be much else to say because every third sentence is referencing the trademarked program. Here’s one example (in addition to what’s seen on the “Executive Summary” in which we learn that 33 children in a single “Pocketful of Hope®” program — and their self-assessments via questionnaires — was the substance of the “preliminary evaluation,” while Chan M. Hellman is being cited in the references alongside “Gwinn” (as in Casey Gwinn, of the San Diego fiascos in question and which I just referenced above).  They are also plugging a known fatherhood practitioner (as he takes credit for) based in Tulsa (National Center for Fathering).  I already located the tax return — the program’s been around since 2000, is moderate in size, and has 1 employee — the founder (!)

”

Originator of the program’s academic background + experience:

A Pocket Full of Hope® was founded in 2000 by Dr. Lester Shaw, a singer, songwriter, international recording artist, filmmaker, drug counselor and life-long educator. He serves as Executive Director and Program Coordinator and oversees all components of A Pocket Full of Hope®. He has a Bachelor’s degree in Music Education from Allen University in Columbia, South Carolina, a Master’s degree in Human Relations with an emphasis in counselling from The University of Oklahoma, and a Doctorate in Occupational and Adult Education/Human Resource Development from Oklahoma State University.

Last page of the report describes this University of Oklahoma Center:

…Guided by the principles of Positive Psychology, and the right of all members in the community to flourish; we use hope as the theory of change to assess the impact of nonprofit organizations….

Seriously??

2016 Description of U of Oklahoma “Center of Applied Research for Nonprofits” (Tulsa)

Unbelievable — here’s this center (started 2005 another page says) trying to describe itself (complete with poor writing and grammar errors (first para. of page has another one — in the title sentence describing its mission. CLICK for Full-sized.

First paragr. (referenced in annotated image above from same page): “The mission of the University of Oklahoma is to provide the best possible educational experience for students through excellence in teaching, research, creative activity and service to the state and society. The Center of Applied Research for Nonprofit Organizations (Center) focus this mission by collaborating with community agencies to improve program services using sound scientific practice while simultaneously training graduate students in the application of quantitative and qualitative methodologies.”

UNbelievable! Center of Applied Research for Nonprofit Orgs at Univ of OK Tulsa attempting to describe itself (Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 9.43AM)References:  the ONLY reference to anything “domestic violence” other than one to “batterers’ intervention programs (I’ll show both here) was the next one, dated 2016 (!).   Probably, the new (opened 2015 apparently — see my writings above, last 2 pages) FJC in Tulsa based on one from the former City Attorney of “Enron by the Sea” San Diego (bastion on conservatives on the southern tip of California) was fulfilling the “token nod towards domestic violence” in the mix here…

Hellman, C. M., & Gwinn, C. (2016). Camp HOPE as an intervention for children exposed to domestic violence: A program evaluation of hope and strength of character. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 1-8

and ..including several from “Snyder” (who got early references in the “preliminary study”)

Smith, M. E., & Randall, E. J. (2007). Batterer intervention program: The victim’s hope in ending the abuse and maintaining the relationship. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 28, 1045-1063.

Snyder, C. R. (1995). Conceptualizing, measuring, and nurturing hope. Journal of Counseling & Development, 73, 355-360.

Snyder, C. R. (2002). Hope theory: Rainbows of the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13, 249-275.

Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., Highbeger, L., Ribinstein, H., & Stahl, K. J. (1997). The development and validation of the children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22, 399-421.

Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2004). Further validation of the Children’s Hope Scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22, 320-337.

Wan, C. Y., & Schlaug, G. (2010). Music making as a tool for promoting brain plasticity across the life span. Neuroscientist, 16, 566-577.

I included the last one because it referred to music.  (Personal sound-off removed, again).

(Added the next day after publication).  A look at this “Center of Research for Applied Nonprofits” shows Educational Psychology doctorate Chan M. Hellman founded it and directs it, along with three other men (three incl. Hellman with PhDs in educational psychology, one associate professor of psychiatry (work history more than degree identified in bio blurb) and a young man with a BA in philosophy working on his mastsers  (3 men and one woman).  His C.V. is on the site, but (unlike other items) not uploadable, at least I couldn’t. Another page shows his Ph.D. came from Oklahoma State University, and that he was inspired as to the “Positive Psychology” and psychology of hope after contact with a local (unnamed) nonprofit — you can guess possibly which one from this context.   Another publication cited (on that page, not Pocketful of Hope® study:

Hellman, C. M., Johnson, C. V., & Dobson, T. (2010). Taking action to stop violence: A study on readiness to change among male batterers. Journal of Family Violence, 25, 431-438.

(From same general websites), another partnering nonprofit  says:

Since partnering with the OU-Tulsa Center for Applied Research for Nonprofit Organizations, the psychological concept of Hope, as developed by Charles Snyder, has become a guiding principle for our program evaluation activities. This concept is a chief research interest of Dr. Hellman’s and PCCT has found that it fits nicely with our focus on prevention and building on the strengths that our service recipients bring with them when they enter services here. In this conceptualization of hope, three elements are necessary in order for a person to have high hope. The person must have a goal, see pathways to pursue to achieve those goals, and have the mental energy or motivation to travel down the pathways toward the goals despite obstacles. During 2010 PCCT did an agency-wide survey of our clients including gathering information about hope and what we found confirmed that our services make a difference in the lives of the families we serve. We are currently in the process of integrating hope into individual program evaluation activities. (quoted from PCCT:  http://www.parentchildcenter.org/hope-research/)

Charles R. Snyder, 1944-2006 (Wiki), degrees):  obtained his Ph.D from Southern Methodist University, then had doctoral training in clinical psychology at Vanderbilt University, and then postdoctoral training at the Langley Porter Institute.^{[2] (Click to see what LPI is — psychiatric teaching institute in San Francisco, first psychiatric institute in the state of California)}

The spin factor possible through the various layers of philanthropy, nonprofit, incubating nonprofits, and coordinating across borders and sectors is enormous.  It provides major leverage towards social change with or without informed consent of the common people in any country. Others (obviously) who profit from this arrangement would be those employed by the same groups or those subcontracting with them, which is where over time on this blog, I have identified some of the major influences in social policy towards families around today.  I am not among the professional circles of many of these groups, and do not subscribe to (nor could I afford) the professional journals cover-to-cover, year after year.

Nor would I want to, except to get a general feel for the rhetoric, which can be obtained when some of the organizations proudly post and retell their stories on-line anyhow, especially if they were the author, or (as it often seems to happen) one of about 5 co-authors on a project.

Instead, whether it’s on a cause or on a specific organization taking positive credit for furthering the cause, I look for and look at — a.k.a. read the tax returns — and at times the audited financial statements, AND of course I also compare what’s on them to the self-portrayals (or mutually supportive organization’s portrayals) on the websites, and when there is a major discrepancy or omission on the latter about the former, I make a point of pointing to it.

“PAYLOAD”

So, this time, reading some of the tax returns and a recent consolidated financial statement of one well-known corporate success story and personality (married couple) which came up, what struck me first was how very self-sustaining it was, although the company behind the wealth was only founded in 1995.

This time, I ran across the Omidyar Network Fund, Inc. only while looking for an article summarizing the about Year 2000 startup of The Bridgespan Group which had been moved by Harvard from my earlier link (in a November 18, 2016, post) from being accessible for free, to accessible — for a half year only — for a fee (first image, below).  Having looked for a similar summary of the relationships between the three famous entities (Harvard University, Bain & Company, and Bridgespan), I found an article posted at TXNP (second image, below), and looked at the overall situation closely for many hours, writing and reading.

Finally I had to move it, including the material reviewing the Bain/Bridgespan “DNA” in practice (FundingUniverse.com and other write-ups, including from Bain.com) from this post, still in draft Three (or Four) Famous, Privately Controlled Nonprofits Who Just Wanna Transform Public Education (and Urban Populations to Practice On) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-6iI”)
to this one here.  Roughly summarized, this post is about:

Omidyar Entities: The Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan Consulting Model (Transform and Help Run — or own — Distressed Assets, LIKE U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS), Rebranded, on Steroids, and Gone Global with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6lm,” (It looks like in all caps that would be 6LM, not 6IM; middle character is a lower-case “l”.)

Click for full-sized pdf

HBS 2000 Abstract on Bain Bradach + Bridgespan startup (2017-03-27 at 6.58PM

The article referencing Omidyar Network Fund support of a new philanthropic resource. Article is BY “The Bridgespan Group” (apparently re-posted on TXNP whether by agreement, Bridgespan’s membership in TXNP, or simply through their data-mining software, I DNK). Notice the date is January 2013. See full-size (with added annotations) HERE.

Searching those terms, I then found a report combining Harvard Business Review, Bridgespan, and other sponsors of a new social enterprise center (on-line resources) as written up in a Texas-based on-line database charging subscription fees which, when the day was done, showed up being one barely visible nonprofit which succeeded an IRS status-revoked private foundation named after the on-line’s founder, Jacqueline Beretta.
Looking up the nonprofit of the organization where this article was found was just follow-through, but on seeing Corporationwiki listing multiple corporations by the same (married) couple in successive years, the latest one in only 2013, I was reminded again not to be awed by ANY on-line presentation or entity name, and when it’s involving a subject I’m researching or attempting to exert major influence (or help others exert major influence) on government or public institutions through privately controlled wealth — which by definition will at least includes maintaining some of that wealth in tax-exempt entities, i.e., reducing taxation is always part of maintaining a group’s (or corporate empire’s) bottom line.  TXNP is almost laughable, but the Bain & Company model going nonprofit with help from Harvard, and being modeled by others (including the Omidyar “empire” or at least collected entities as referenced in combined  audited financial statements for the fund), and turning their sights on the vast marketplace available in the US to run Social Science/Educational R&D upon — now that’s worth some serious attention.

By the end of this post or at least a three-part series (for March 2017) AND those in 4th Quarter 2016 regarding networked school transformation the public/private, for-profit, not-for-profit way WITH a few JPAs (Joint Power Agencies / authorities) along the way, regionalized) I hope readers will be able to, when reading about all the love, sincere genuine concern for the downtrodden and underserved, for the dumbed-down or deprived of the USA children and youth in urban centers, and for gender equity — in other countries, that is — for girls and women, and/or for educating the whole child, holistically, in and out of school, as analyzed and tracked on digital platforms which the same groups (or their “Investees” as the term comes up here) control, have controlled (or sold off for more profit) or will when fully branded and tailored for pushing through public institutions AND “emerging markets” — as voiced by the collected rich, particularly those who became rich through marketing to the world in technology-driven enterprises, and through wealth acquired sometimes at others expenses through the previous generation’s LBOs (leveraged buy-outs), disasters, or simply exploitation.  Being already in possession of collected, networked clout, these humbly (?? ????) seek to save the world — their way, and that’s in a BIG way.

Those who aren’t in on this business model (which, FYI, doesn’t particularly respect United States’ citizens rights for accountability of government funds or institutions) can stand aside and wait for the trickle-down, or get out of the way while wealth obtained and developed, and legally domiciled (originally) in this country, is simply granted or invested out of it.

I think, actually, that sooner or later people on their own MAY figure out what philanthropy actually represents, by definition, in practice and have had enough of it.  By this time, it’s important those who’ve made a career of it, and avoided decades (if not generations) of paying full taxes otherwise on their business and corporate income (as well as personal), have enough connections in other countries to simply DUMP the homeland (so to speak) when it stops producing for them.

Social Resposability Corp (EIN#201421874, website TXNP’org) 2005 Form 990 (67’6Kcontribs, 55’6K membership dues) Screen Shot 2017-03-28 @ 7.20PM

Click here to see Texas-sized Hypocrisy in the Business Name “The Social Responsibility Corporation” as run by chair(wo)man of The Beretta Foundation

re TXNP’org, DomainName owned by BerettaFndtn 237014591) Status IS REvoked@ Nov2010 (NoForm990Ns, last 990PF was Yr2005) Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 6.57PM

March 2017, TXNP still claims Beretta Foundation is contributing to TXNP (same personnel were over both), but the IRS Pub. 78 data says Beretta Foundation was status revoked since Nvo. 2010 and not reinstated since (although a phone call to the IRS would be more accurate, per the site). Still, Beretta Foundation IS a nonprofit and must file (990 or 990-N) and no tax return past 2005 (!) is easily seen, and no Form 990-N postcards ever.

<==One reason these “Contributors” pages on organization websites are often useless — they don’t specify years.  And having not specified years, they are harder to validate (or invalidate), and seem to indicate far more support than may actually be there. Notice also the title there says to “TXNP and LAL”.  “LAL” is a “Learning About Learning” conference which showed up as a line item (revenue or expense, forget which) on the related tax-exempt entity.  LAL doesn’t seem to be an “entity.”

Bridgespan-HBR Jan2013 Partnering Post (referencing Omidyar) as seen on TXNP’org (Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 11.20AM)
(<==for FULL-SIZE ANNOTATED)

The main topic of this post is NOT this Texas On-line, it’s just a “nearby destination” on the road trip represented by the post title.  Which began here, with this article:

Bridgespan-HBR Jan2013 Partnering Post (referencing Omidyar) as seen on TXNP’org (Screen Shot 2017-03-29 at 11.20AM)

Omidyar Network (Pierre Omidyar is founder (1995) of E-bay) likes to do things the for-profit and not-profit way (as part of Omidyar Group), admittedly, but it’s just (like friends who share the values of Humanity United and that philanthropists just wanna make the world a better place — and get the credit for it too) for the good of all:

Omidyar Network (https://www.omidyar.com) is part of Omidyar Group: https://www.omidyargroup.com/the-omidyar-group/  (<=brief profiles of the couple).

A look at entities of this size is always a bit stunning, and of course interesting.  You can notice on page 1 (top return) the significant Contributions (about $184M), and as Schedule B (11 pages just to list individual contributions (noncash) from Pierre M. Omidyar Trust (at the same address), with the two largest chunks ($79.9 and $81.4M each) as #s 63 & 64; while Grants were around $55M and the Program Investments (listed in two parts only) show a major overseas (vs. USA) interest.  If this were a Form 990 (vs. 990PF) filer, it would have to separate the donations to domestic government and orgs (i.e., USA) onto a Sched. I and the overseas onto a Sched. F for easier viewing and totals, but as a Form 990PF (PRIVATE foundation), it doesn’t have to.  They post their financials on the website, but I looked them up at the usual place to show the table.  ALL of this under the control of four individuals (Two Omidyars and two other) and only utilizes investment services from two firms. It’s actually an efficient way to operate:

Total results: 3. Search Again.

[The first-year return was April 21 – Dec. 31, 2004.  It was started up with $57M from his trust, grants of about $8M, and declared of everything, only $1.8M was not invested in exempt-purpose related (stuff).

Of the $8M, first year, almost $1M went overseas — of this $775K to London and $225 to Phnom Penh, Cambodia.  The London amount was “Institute for Social and Ethical Accountability” (or similar name: see company website financials page to view 2004 990PF).  (The page was aligned vertical; here are some images as I tried to look at that initial return and continued to remark that having founded eBay certainly gives one a lot of capital to move (here, $57M for starters) between tax-exempt entities for tax (and other) reasons while building one’s reputation as global saviour and purchasing relationships or other equity investments along the way (All this set is from year 2004 Form 990PF only). The first link is to the whole 28 pages, the second and 3rd to full-sized views of the two images provided:

OmyidaNetwork, Inc first year Return 990PF (not full 12 months) ON 990-PF 2004_1 |~| p24 GRANTS OmyidarNetwork, Inc first Yr (2004) 990PF (not full 12 months) |~| p25of28 0gainloss on sale of contributed EBay Stock 57’745’831 USD OmyidarNetwkInc (EIN# 211866 first year 2004 990PF (8 months only) [oops, that’s a partial /incorrect EIN#.  Full# is shown above…20-1173866]

(From their 2014-2015 consolidated audited financial statements):

Omidyar Network (https://www.omidyar.com/offices) has offices in:  Silicon Valley (Redwood City), California, Johannesburg, S. Africa, Mumbai, India, London, England (UK), and of course, Washington, D.C.  It believes in good things and open government, property rights, things sustainable (being as an entity WAY more than self-sustaining), and of course open societies.  They just wanna help “advance” entire sectors — while retaining an ownership stake in, apparently, all of them, and retaining these assets through trusts and foundations which reduce the Omidyar’s personal income taxes to the US government (and reduced excise taxes) along the way.

At Omidyar Network, we believe market forces can be a potent driver for positive social change. That’s why we invest in both for-profit businesses and nonprofit organizations, whose complementary roles can advance entire sectors.  Our efforts are focused in five key areas that strengthen prosperous, stable, and open societies: Education, Emerging Tech, Financial Inclusion, Governance & Citizen Engagement, and Property Rights.

Investing in for-profit businesses while noble, is also property acquisition, globally.  List of investees (nicely laid out on the page) specifically omits LOCATION in many (not all) the short blurbs identifying the programming.  Again, I realize the internet is the internet, but when a BUSINESS is invested in, that business has a home legal domicile.  Where, is obscured on that page. Even in the United States (see “AltSchool”) AltSchool is a for-profit company soliciting “partners schools” and apparently has some in:  San Francisco, Chicago and New York.  They work with educators for the “whole child” in part like this:

https://www.altschool.com/partner-schools/overview&nbsp; ….”through creating a digital representation of each child based on digital and non-digital experiences…”

Omidyar Investee “AltSchool”‘s fall 2018 cohort (you want your school to become a partner?) is so far, US-only.

On closer look, AltSchool started (only in 2013) with private, tuition-based “lab schools” and then transitioned through “partner school” model to larger public school systems later (sounds like, Fall, 2016).  They are operating as a “Public Benefit Corporation” and the background report shows business solicitation at a Teach for America summit, and a MAJOR digital technology B2B type conference (I blogged it late 2016 in context of sale of CMP Media, LLC in 1999 for $120M by the Leeds patriarch, some of which was then channeled into Alliance for Excellent Education (and other projects) by the next-gen heirs of this wealth.  Following what was done with CMP Media, LLC, I found a major force in the UK (CMP Media was sold to a Brit) who then over the years continued to consoidate and now has “ULM Media” divided in to global regions and specializing in sponsoring major events (trade conferences) around the world.  In this context, SXSWedu came up as a similarly large event for technology experts, startups, marketers, etc.

AltSchool currently runs a network of tuition-funded pre-kindergarten through 8th-grade lab schools throughout the San Francisco Bay Area, New York, and soon, Chicago. Our schools range in size from 35 to 120 students and offer mixed-aged learning environments where technology helps educators create personalized, foundational knowledge and project-based learning experiences focused on developing the whole child.

…and from description of their “public benefit corporation” report (access from main website):

A Plan for Growth

How do you go from small private schools to the largest public school systems in the U.S.? AltSchool approaches growth in three phases:

– Phase 1: Open and operate outstanding lab schools to build and test AltSchool’s platform. – Phase 2: Offer AltSchool’s platform to a small group of partner schools, while continuing  to operate outstanding lab schools.
– Phase 3: Offer AltSchool’s platform to a broader range of private, independent, and public schools, while continuing to operate outstanding lab schools.

AltSchool is currently entering the second phase of this plan, achieved through a conscious and forward-thinking strategy that attempts to mediate the historical challenges of edtech companies introducing technology into educational environments.

In early 2016, founder Max Ventilla was invited to be a featured speaker at two of the most prestigious educator-focused conferences in the country: Teach for America’s 25th Anniversary Summit and SXSWedu. At these conferences, he opened a call to schools and educators nationwide to partner with AltSchool. During the subsequent six months, AltSchool’s newly formed AltSchool Open team met with and evaluated each and every inquiry to select org- anizations that would become the first cohort of partner schools. That cohort was publicly announced in October 2016.

Over the next two years, we will continue to gain feedback and build out our platform, learning from the needs, goals and data of this broader community of educators and students. Our first partner schools will likely be quite similar to our own schools: small, private, independent schools focused on whole-child, personalization using established approaches such as Montessori and Reggio Emilia

Like I say in the title, everyone needs someone to practice on.  While the tuition-based lab schools may not exactly be from urban, low-income centers, sooner or later those will be the targets in the USA _- after which, the experience with low-income, conflict-ridden can be translated into other countries (not that Omidyar isn’t already funding similar things, probably, on other continents — see “Investees” list or its Form 990PF, including the “grants” part).  As I expected from the label “public benefit corporation” this is a new type of corporation legitimized in Delaware (where Omidyar Network Fund, Inc. also claims legal domicile). This report isn’t even based on their website, but on Amazon:  https://s3.amazonaws.com/altschool-cdn/info/AltSchool+2016+Benefit+Corporation+Report.pdf

‘Our Investors” (2nd image below, white on teal background) reads:  AltSchool is backed by Founders Fund, Andreessen Horowitz, Emerson Collective, First Round Capital, Harrison Metal, John Doerr, Jonathan Sackler, Learn Capital, Omidyar Network, Mark Zuckerberg and Priscilla Chan’s donor-advised fund at Silicon Valley Community Foundation, and other leading investors.

Also interesting about AtSchool– the two of the three co-founders (one seems much younger than the other) were both Yale University graduates (also, all three are men).

I’ve had the initial (tax) return of the “Silicon Valley Community Foundation” (<=EIN#205205488) an open window on my computer for many weeks; I think it may have some connection to the entities in Ohio I was reporting on.  Its first year 2006 showed assets of $1.1B — understandable, as it was formed from the merger of two community foundations (different names, different EIN#s each of them) working in the same general area.  It’s now over $5B which, if you see the tax returns, includes supplementation by no less than a pageful (15) “related tax-exempt entities) See “Schedule R Part II in the most current available return, from table below). A few screenprints from tax return 2006 show, “if you’ve got it, you’ve got it.”  Although this foundation probably bears its own post, soon enough.  I only provided 2 “pdfs” this time.  I still have some questions on their #s, notice the VERY well-paid leadership (Emmet D. Carson — $645K salary — plus benefits, and he’s not alone in being supported in an upper-middle-class lifestyle from this foundation formed to help the poor, globally.).

|~#1~| 2 SVCF (SiliconValleyCommFndtn) EIN#205205488, @2006 by Merger of 2 other fndtns) Form990 excerpts, mostlyInitial Filing- Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 2.40.26 PM |~#2~| SVCF IRS 990 FY2013 (EIN#20520588 formed 2006 by merger) Invests Other Sec (113M hedge funds 61M priv Equity 61M Priv Real estate 35M Commodities = 283’8M total OTHER investmts (Sc

Also shown — the major purpose is grantmaking, and they are as it says above, engaged in Donor-Advised Funds (“DAFs”).  Is anyone encouraged to skim, scan or compare the $318M grants (latest years shown, which is only FYr 2013)? Although its main purpose IS stated as grantmaking, specifically in 5 core focus areas (including closing the middle-school achievement gap, i.e., Education), the grants are spit out ONE per PAGE on Schedule I!!  Somehow they can use actual IRS forms, several rows per page for their Schedule R, but not for their Schedule I data.

Having started back at the Harvard Business School “Bridgespan/TXNP” article, a look at “TXNP”):

Looking quickly at TXNP.org (About, History, Founder, Mission, etc.) , I find (not surprisingly) a recent startup organized to expand and accelerate philanthropic network, and a Texas blueblood with privileged education (National Cathedral School for Girls, Trinity University – London School of Economics) who claims to be a direct descendant of the sister of “the Father of Texas.” It took me a while (and looking off-site) to discover the legal business name (I looked up the PO Box) of “TexasNonprofits® which is “The Social Responsibility Corporation.”  I wonder if this Ms. Beretta  has any relationship to the firearm of the same last name.  I mean, it being Texas, that’s a reasonable question (she’s also Chairperson of The Beretta Foundation):

Jacqueline Beretta has 36 years of professional work experience in the nonprofit world. She is Chairman of the Beretta Foundation in San Antonio. She is also Chairman of the Social Responsibility Corporation and the creator and inspiration for TexasNonprofits….*** .In 2007 Beretta was invited to join the Communications Network in Chicago, working with national foundations on how to strategically use communciations to strengthen the voice of philanthropy in America. Her book, Fugitive Letters – 1829 to 1836 – Stephen F. Austin to David G. Burnett, 1981, won the prestigious Texas Historical Commission Award for Best Local History and received a Letter of Merit from the Daughters of the Republic of Texas. Beretta is a direct decendant of Moses Austin’s daughter Emily Austin Perry whose brother Stephen Fuller Austin is known as the “Father of Texas“. Jackie is a chef, a writer, enjoys boxing (not humans!), movies, writing fiction, needlepointing, reading and hiking. She is married to Ben Rodriguez and has three children – J.B. in Texas, and Emily and Alice in Los Angeles. Not to be forgotten is her precious silver dapple dachshund, Clockie.

***This makes it sound like two different entities, however the Guidestar “Partner Report” then says “The Social Responsibility Corporation, also known as TexasNonprofits® (TXNP), strengthens Texas communities by providing up-to-date data and other resources and support via the Internet to help build stronger and bigger nonprofits that can perform and operate professionally, efficiently, and with greater accountability; TXNP also strives to facilitate and encourage connections between charitable causes and potential contributors.”

Well, Well, Well.  “TexasNonprofits® (TXNP) is tiny (under $25K and filing Form 990EZs), while WHOIS (actually from my perspective, a PO Box search p.2 of results) shows that the domain name is registered to the Beretta Foundation — which isn’t showing a return since 2005??  See next set of visuals, including a link to the “Who-Is” (Ownership of Domain name.  Registrar is Network Solutions, LLC):

Total results: 3. Search Again.

JacquelineBeretta (<==That’s the WHOis Domainname pdf — take a quick look to see connection to Beretta Foundation):

Total results: 3. Search Again.

A fast trip through this situation clarified it, rather quickly!

It is also fairly recent in development, and using the phrase “teach a nonprofit to fish..” (!)….

Why was it founded? 

Jacqueline Beretta saw gaps in the marketplace – a technology gap and a gap between donors and charitable causes. TXNP was designed to fill the gap, deliver current and up to date resource tools in a fast and efficient way, and make valuable connections between donors and nonprofits.

In that model, the beneficiaries are not directly connected the “donors,” but the “nonprofits” are.  By extension of that “making connections” practice, adding a layer of administration (and financing) between the big fish and the intermediate fish feeding “the people,” it’s the nonprofits that, apparently, need to be fed better:

There was a time where we fell into the trap of give a man a fish and feed him for a day versus teach a man to fish and feed him for a lifetime.** So we chose to change our model to teaching people how to fish, but we saw the opportunity to use technology to help nonprofits learn how to fish better. Basic and Premium Members of TexasNonprofits benefit from being part of the TXNP family.

There was also a saying, give a man a fish and you’ve fed a man.  In changing the model from “a man” to “people” the next step is “nonprofits.” Join the “let’s make a better world the tax-exempt way” family.  Funny how she didn’t pick up on the “Teach a Woman to Fish” as is making the OxFam and other rounds; (2014 book by founder Ritu Sharma of “WomenThrive” is still talking in development and philanthropic terms, but having traveled, noticed of the women (This is a book review).

…According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, “women reinvest about 90 percent of their income in their children rather than in themselves…” That being said, Sharma’s underlying mantra throughout her narrative holds true: “When you teach a woman to fish, everyone eats. Development aid projects that overlook women miss their best opportunity to end the cycle of poverty.”…

Ritu Sharma is a leading voice on international women’s issues and US foreign policy. She is co-founder of Women Thrive Worldwide, a non-profit that places the concerns of women and girls living in poverty at the forefront of US international assistance. She lives in Annapolis, Maryland. Visit her website. .

Even the Walmart Foundation (Walmart has been sued for sex-discrimination against its woman employees in this country), this writer points out, wants its philanthropic image to be woman-friendly.  Back to TXNP, however.…

Beretta also wanted to create a community of shared values where people could tell success stories and build relationships that lead to greater participation and transformation. Every day we take small steps to solve big problems. And every day we believe in sharing positive news about the good works in Texas.

In February 2007 TXNP hosted it’s (sic) first event titled The “State” of Education in Texas. About 200 educators, funders, corporations, and concerned citizens gathered to hear Dr. Mike Moses, Dr. Bill Reaves, Dr. Steve Murdock, and Valleau Wilke speak on current trends and needs in education in Texas. On February 7, 2008, the event was called Learning About Learning and the theme was “Who owns the Challenge of Keeping Our Children in School” …

The “transforming our schools” field is clearly getting crowded.

According to company lore, it was in the fall of 1965, when the business housed about a dozen consultants, that Henderson announced at a staff meeting that they needed a way to find a specialty to distinguish themselves from their larger, better financed rivals. After dismissing a number of suggestions, he offered “business strategy.” The immediate objection was that executives would have no idea what they were talking about. “That’s the beauty of it,” was his response. “We’ll define it.” …  ….

Ultimately, the [experience-curve advantage] concept led to the conclusion that it was imperative to enter a new field first and to grab as much market share as possible in order to lock in an experience-curve advantage over late-arriving competitors. Another major tool introduced in the 1960s was the product portfolio matrix, which pictured a conglomerate as a box with four quadrants: cash cows, dogs, stars, or question marks. The goal was to achieve a balanced mix of cash cows, stars, and question marks, and to sell off the dogs. The terms cash cow and dog quickly became fixtures in the business lexicon.

Years later, Bain & Company incubated “Bridgespan” which is heavily involved in (among other things) transformational leadership at public schools (not just in the USA) as a nonprofit consultant to the nonprofit sector.

Another part of the corporate culture included taking control of the investments and helping implement it:

Boston-based Bain & Company is one of the world’s leading corporate consulting companies, the pioneer in the concept that consultants should help implement strategies not just make recommendations. The Bain approach is often called relationship consulting, especially known for forging strong bonds with chief executive officers. For most of its history, the company has opted to take on a single client in a particular industry as a way of more fully aligning itself with the client’s goals. More recently, Bain has begun accepting equity as part of its payment in order to again tie its own success to achieving tangible results for its clients

So, how do you think that might work — are the public school systems ALLOWED to give a major consulting company “equity” in them?  Should private consulting companies be running the national school systems?

…Rather than just rely on fees to provide growth, Bain began to look for direct investment in companies, which ultimately led to the acceptance of equity as part of its compensation, not only to more closely align its interest with the clients but also to reap the rewards of its successful strategies. In 1983, the firm acquired Salt Lake City-based Key Air Lines Inc., a local commuter carrier, and assigned several staff members to manage it. In 1984, it created Bain Capital, a limited partnership headed by W. Mitt Romney, son of politician George Romney, which invested in start-up companies and buyouts that could be readily improved. According to The New York Times, Bain Capital “has managed to steer clear of conflicts of interest by having Bain & Company retain veto power over investments. But it is not entirely a neutral operation.” Nonetheless, Bain maintained that Bain Capital was not a sister company or a division but rather a completely separate company that simply shared a similar approach to producing results. The firm was, however, housed in the same building as Bain & Company and its employees shared the same cafeteria.

Bain Capital provided an investment opportunity for Bain partners who were becoming increasing disenchanted with the partnership agreement. In 1985, to help redress their longstanding grievances, Bain was incorporated ((versus just being a partnership I guess)), and over the course of the next two years Bill Bain and seven senior executives sold off 30 percent of their equity to two Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP) for $200 million, the payout funded by debt that, because of the high valuation of the deals, saddled the firm with burdensome annual interest payments to the tune of $25 million. … ….

Even re-reading this, we can see a trail of trouble with this company, with or without Mitt Romney’s direct involvement.  One of its clients they maintained a “relationship investment” with   (Guiness plc) on following Bain’s advice, went to jail when the British regulators caught wind of some of its tactics in attempting another major purchase of a hard liquor distillery:

 In 1987, the firm endured a public relations nightmare when it became entangled in a scandal involving one of its clients, Guinness plc, which had been one of Bain’s notable success stories. The relationship began in 1981, at a time when Guinness shares were trading at penny stock levels after a decade of diversification efforts that took the company far from its core business. After selling off some 150 companies, Guinness’ head, Ernest Saunders, then took Bain’s advice and looked to move into the hard liquor market by acquiring two scot whiskey producers: Arthur Bell & Sons and Distillers Inc. By the end of fiscal 1986, Guinness and Bain were flying high, with the client posting profits of nearly $400 million, a six-fold increase since contracting Bain, while at the same time the company’s stock reached a high of $5.75 per share. In December 1986, however, Britain’s Department of Trade and Industry began to investigate the $3.8 billion stock acquisition of Distillers, masterminded by a “war cabinet” that included a Bain associate named Olivier Roux, who had been “lent” to Saunders and became one of his top aides. At issue were acts taken by Guinness to illegally inflate the price of its stock to fend off a competing offer from Argyll Group, including the charge that Guinness bought its own stock during the offering period and indemnified other companies against loss if they purchased stock on behalf of Guinness. In the end, Saunders went to jail for his part in the scheme, and although Bain escaped unscathed legally, the revelation of the company’s conduct in the affair led several top clients to drop the firm or to at least cut back on their contracts. Hurt further by a sluggish economy, in addition to its high debt service, Bain was forced to cut its staff by 10 percent in 1988.

What about the 1990s?  (Because “Bridgespan” that contracted with “Communities in Schools,” (CIS) above only came into being around 1998, 2000)….

According to Forbes,there was now considerable friction between Bain professionals: “Infighting became intense and the split between the graybeards and the young Turks grew as the younger partners worried their bonuses would get squeezed.” To help revitalize the company’s fortunes and make up for the defection of key rainmakers, Bain hired Peter Dawkins, a former U.S. Army general and Heisman Trophy winner for his college football exploits. Dawkins may have had impressive contacts in the corporate world, but he lacked experience in consulting and proved ill suited as the head of North American operations. Even more turmoil developed within the ranks of Bain, and many talented people opted to leave the company. In the fall of 1990, Bill Bain attempted to sell the company but found no buyer. Another 200 consultants were terminated, resulting in even more discontent from the younger partners. To bring peace to the situation, Mitt Romney was brought in to replace Bill Bain as the head the company. Moreover, the founding partners returned about $100 million to the firm by dissolving Bain Holdings, an investment fund that was partially funded by the ESOP. A recapitalization plan was also instituted by which the founding partners turned back the 70 percent stake in the company they held, so that the firm’s 75 younger partners now owned 60 percent of the business and the ESOP the remaining 40 percent. Other than some stock in the ESOP, Bill Bain no longer owned any of the company that continued to bear his name.

Point in case every one seems to have assets — Bain Holdings, Bain Capital, Bain ESOP….The same is true for public entities, FYI….  They’re just not so widely advertised…..

New Leadership in 1993

Although Bain had ironed out its internal difficulties, it now faced the daunting task of convincing potential clients to contract its services when it had so clearly mismanaged its own affairs. A major step in the revitalization of Bain’s fortunes came in 1993 when one of the younger partners, Orit Gadiesh, was named the new chairman, becoming the first female head of a major consulting firm. She had been a key player in preventing senior partners from abandoning the firm. Born in Israel, she earned a degree in psychology from Hebrew University, then spent two years in the Israeli army, serving in military intelligence, before earning a degree from the Harvard Business School, where she graduated in the top 5 percent of her class despite the handicap of simultaneously mastering English. When Romney left to pursue politics, Gadiesh continued the revitalization of Bain that he had initiated. Financially, the company regained lost ground, and it loosened its guidelines so that it could work for more than one company in a particular industry, thereby making the firm less dependent on a limited roster of clients. Bain also began to expand the number of offices it maintained around the world. Finally, in the summer of 2000, Bain opened an office in New York City in an effort to accommodate talented people who wanted to work for the firm but preferred to live in New York.

and the last chapter in this FundingUniverse.com history:

To meet a changing business environment and to keep pace with rival consulting firms that were tending towards specialization, Bain began to adjust the services it offered in the late 1990s and early years of the new century. It looked to the Internet in 1999, establishing bainlab to serve as an incubator to help entrepreneurs with Internet-based business plans. Later, bainlab began to work with venture capital firms to help them improve the value of the Internet and technology companies in their portfolios. One of bainlab’s first initiatives was Ideaforest.com, an online seller of arts and crafts products and kits. Also in 2000, Bain launched BainNet in conjunction with several high-tech companies to help clients implement technology-driven strategies. In that same year, Bain founded The Bridge Group to aid non-profit corporations, as well as to provide a place where Bain associates could take time out, up to six months, to do volunteer work. As the economy began to struggle in the early years of the new century, Bain, like other management consultant firms, attempted to change its approach, offering such specific services as managing supply chains and engendering the loyalty effect in customers. Nevertheless, Bain remained dedicated to the generalist approach to strategy consulting.   […Source:  International Directory of Companies, St. James Press, 2003]

Some of my links on the other post are broken, but “Bridgespan” is still searchable at “Bain & Company”; the connect is acknowledged.   Jan. 2011, “Bain DNA at Bridgespan making an impact on nonprofits”  (after this brief descriptors, you are then prompted to sign up for free for another on-line (Consulting Magazine, ALM Media)): ”

[Teach for America, a nonprofit began (it says) with a 1989 thesis of Wendy Koop at Princeton.  By 1993, it had become a chapter of “AmeriCorps” and 2006, there was a global version). Still scanning “Bain & Company” on this topic, we see another report (whether it’s dated January 2016 or 2015 is unclear, as both dates show up in the title):

New research finds U.S. Public schools need a different model that deploys more leaders with repsonsibility (sic) for developing teachers and improving student outcomes

January 13, 2016
NEW RESEARCH FINDS U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS NEED A DIFFERENT MODEL THAT DEPLOYS MORE LEADERS WITH REPSONSIBILITY FOR DEVELOPING TEACHERS AND IMPROVING STUDENT OUTCOMES

Bain & Company research concludes that schools should design and deploy a ‘management structure’ that distributes leadership responsibilities across teams of educators

New York – Jan. 13, 2015 – There is broad agreement across U.S. school systems that highly effective leadership at the school level is essential to achieving great student outcomes. While many school districts are investing in programs to develop stronger principals, assistant principals (APs), and teacher-leaders, there is rarely a plan in place to deploy these people effectively. As a result, teacher development efforts are fragmented, principals are overwhelmed, and teachers lack the critical support they need to progress as educators.

These are the findings from the latest education report from Bain & Company, which builds on the firm’s previous study, How to develop the next generation of transformational school leaders. Its latest research, conducted in collaboration with the Bridgespan Group and 12 school systems nationwide, ….

Bain & Company is an international consulting firm.  It incubated Bridgespan Group (1998 or so?) which is a nonprofit consulting firm focused on nonprofits.  Both are now working together, with other nonprofits, to transform the schools.  They will thus show up as subcontractors to either some nonprofits, or to school districts and are part of the overall public costs of change-agents at the system level.