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

…Or anyone else want to figure out whose “brilliant” idea this maze was in the first place?

This post delves into both aspects.  The “Challenge” originators here and their close previous relationships gets as interesting as “where’d the money really go, that year?” exercises, which would have to be repeated I gather endlessly — continuously — to keep some checks and balances on this arrangement, but perhaps not from top to bottom to get a sense of how equitable and ethical it is overall.  For that understanding, I continue to take “core sample” drill-downs on financial statements (or tax returns) of key organizations, as well as over time, compiling a timeline for the sector across organizations and individuals setting them up.

I also found, you don’t have to “drill” far at all on the tax returns to find misleading representations of where donations went once distributed, and other disturbing characteristics in funds and cashflow reporting when comparing grantor to grantee statements and IRS forms. In the first example I looked at, a grant amount of $6.68M claimed paid in a certain year was not located in the same year to what is designed as an intermediary organization, “Chicago Annenberg Challenge.”  Not long after this, the CAC organization dissolved voluntarily, having designated a successor fund also in Chicago, formed just four years later.  Why even do that?  Or, to rephrase it, what legitimate, ethical, public-interest purpose does this behavior serve?

One thing that does surface — how political it is from the start, in origin and in execution, and perhaps that’s key to the problem.  The entire public school (departments of education federal, state, county, city) system is so vast, it provides endless temptations to exploit, and too few defenses against exploitation for the public.

Post title: Challenge Fund Circuitry (Anyone ELSE want to look up $52M worth of Challenge Grants from Annenberg Foundation Year 2001?) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6Db”

See next image (link in caption to view full-sized) to see why the word “circuitry” may be appropriate.  The excerpt is labeled as representing a single year’s contributions: 2001. All the colors are just my roughly categorizing recipients by type, including naming convention for the ones named after the Challenge itself.

Annenberg Fndtn FY2001 lists $52M of grants to 15 of the “Challenge Grants (Public Education)” — paid that yr. My annotations are simply sorting grantees by category, informally, and noting that AISR as an entity doesn’t show up among them. These take time to produce — pls. read!

While this image shows $52M “Paid in Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2001” by The Annenberg Foundation, in this post I decided to focus mostly on just one organization out of those 15, one set up specifically to obtain Challenge Grant funding and function (allegedly) as a conduit to the Chicago Public Schools and named after the Public School Challenge.  Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Inc. (“CAC”)

I’m curious in part for its grant size this particular year (see image), in part for it being named (like two others — see brown arrows in the image) after the challenge itself as an entity, and, in significant part seeing the background of some of the interesting individuals involved in its leadership, such as Bill Ayers and the pre-Senator, pre-President Barack Obama, who was chairman of its board 1995-2001.

READER PREVIEW:

The money is often in the training, public/private partnerships are fraught with this type of potential, and the better people monitor (a) the school districts’ financial dealings AND (b) the Form 990s (and financial statements) of often well-known involved nonprofits making headlines for fixing the schools (in this case), and get out the message that (we) will continue to do this, the fewer places there will be to hide this type of behavior.  Some day, perhaps, people will acknowledge my position that this is “endemic” to the entire concept and not fix-able. Expect and demand accountability — how about THAT (as opposed to out-come based public institutions as mediated or adjusted by private non-profit, tax-exempt sector organizations) for an organizing and social change principle?  But, then realize just what one is up against in holding to that point of view, whether LEFT (progressive) or RIGHT (conservative), BOTh wanting to work through and with the largest sources of privately controlled wealth around.

…Just one more quote on this subject from related site, still “The Chicago Reporter”

$20 million no-bid contract raises questions on SUPES Academy By Sarah Karp | July 30, 2013,

…Without fanfare, CPS {{=”Chicago Public Schools”}} board members recently approved a three-year, no-bid $20 million contract to provide extensive professional development for principals and network chiefs in what is being dubbed the Chicago Leadership Academy.

The size and the circumstances surrounding the contract have raised eyebrows among some outside observers. The contract with Wilmette-based Supes Academy is by far the largest no-bid contract awarded in at least the past three years, according to a Catalyst Chicago analysis of board documents. In addition, CEO Barbara Byrd-Bennett worked for the company as a coach up until the time she came on board at CPS as a consultant.

There’s also conflicting information about Byrd-Bennett’s involvement with another company owned by the same individuals who run the Supes Academy. …

READ THIS SECTION! (Click image for rest of article)

Bill Ayers’ prior involvement in the “small schools” movement and with the Bank Street School of Education puts some background color into the overall agenda of this late-1990s Annenberg Public School Challenge also and showing its current (or I should say, more recent 21st century, late 20th century) behavior is consistent with those sharing similar progressive ideology and acceptance of using education of small children as “laboratory” experiments IN education to be combined with teacher-education at the graduate level.  Although in this post you will also see involvement of a Tennessee Republican Senator (and former governor) of conservative longstanding “privatize government” leanings.

In case “Bank Street College of Education” history, philosophy and practices are not familiar, excerpts from its website (various pages) and Wikipedia, are available as a footnote on a separate page.  They are relevant, but I don’t want it cluttering up this post.  Selected excerpts with a bit of connective tissue are found at this page: Bank Street College of Education and School (Fast-Tracking FYI on its 100 year Progressive, Experimental Laboratories involving Young Children, History).  My page will be published, but not particularly advertised on the main blog page (meaning, sidebar).  Some preview here gives a general flavor, and marked by different color background, light-blue, and its pink border.  Some preview material added here may not be on the other page.

A school within a college

…Bank Street School for Children was founded in 1916 in New York City by visionary educator Lucy Sprague Mitchell as The Bureau of Educational Experiments, a laboratory nursery school staffed by teachers, psychologists, and researchers who worked to discover the environments in which children grew and learned to their full potential, and to educate teachers and others how to create these environments.

….Philosophy

The School for Children is an independent demonstration school for Bank Street College and a working model of the College’s approach to learning and teaching. Education at the School is experience-based, interdisciplinary, and collaborative. The emphasis is on educating the whole child—the entire emotional, social, physical, and intellectual being—while at the same time, the child’s integrity as learner, teacher, and classmate is valued and reinforced.

[Guess parents were replaceable or optional in this model, and for some, are still considered optional…]

Briefly, the Bank Street College of Education Wikipedia also reminds us that among its partnerships are some with educational media corporations, and a few more details, such as its founder having been Dean of Women at UCalifornia Berkeley, when it got $1million for mental health (appropriate to the times, 1950), and that only in 1995 did it finally get its first woman, or black, president, Dr. Augusta Souza Kappner, who had existing ties to the federal USDOE, and helped raise capital.  She was President 1995-2008.  The year 1995 brings Bank Street (in NYC) up to when the Chicago Annenberg Challenge incorporated.  “Leading Black Educator Chosen to Head Bank Street“** (NYT 8/16/1995), and a time when education reform organizations (such as the Coalition of Essential Schools) were becoming more commonplace. (From that article):

**Dr. Kappner, in an interview yesterday, lauded the cultural diversity of the teaching staff at Bank Street, which is regarded as one of the nation’s leading education schools.

“What’s going on at Bank Street is very much in the process of translating into a broader movement across the country,” she said. “The institution is involved in school systems in several other cities.”

Founded in 1916, the college offers master’s programs in education, runs a demonstration school and family center, conducts research on early childhood and produces educational books and computer software.

The graduate student enrollment at Bank Street, at 610 West 112th Street, is 900. The school and the family center have 450 students, from prekindergarten through eighth grade.

From Bank St College of Ed “Past Presidents” page viewed Apr 2017

The current Bank Street College of Education leadership (President) is Shael Polakow-Suransky, who came there July 1, 2014, from being second-in-command just before then to NYC Public School system, and having referenced (a) being a Bank Street alum and (b) having been mentored by Ted Sizer at Brown University! Read more info on his decision, as a former Bloomberg-era person now under a new (Catherine Farina) leadership (Jan. 21, 2014 at “Chalkbeat”

…Polakow-Suransky’s shift may also portend a tighter partnership between the city and the college. As Mayor Bill de Blasio continues to hash out plans for a universal pre-kindergarten program, both Fariña and Bank Street—which has traditionally placed special emphasis on training teachers and leaders in early childhood education—said that they could work together in the future. …

Polakow-Suransky joined the city school system as a teacher in 1994 after graduating from Brown University, where he studied education and urban studies. After teaching math and history at Crossroads Middle School in Manhattan, he moved to Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School,** then left to found the Bronx International High School in 2001. || He joined the Department of Education’s central administration three years later, [only 2004] first in the Office of New Schools, which oversaw the opening of more than 200 new small schools during his time there.

Several paragraphs below, starting with “In other words,” I am referring back to this quote on Polakow-Suransky’s academic and work history. The material inbetween relates to the Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School.

Curious after learning more about this man’s own background (he attended an alternative high school, ‘school without walls,” in the 1970s in Michigan himself; see the “wiki”), I looked for the unusually-named “Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School” that he left (after a stint, for how many years unknown, there, his second school appointment apparently and first high school appointment):

USNews.com “Best US High Schools” At Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School, the student body makeup is 60 percent male and 40 percent female, and the total minority enrollment is 100 percent. Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School is 1 of 522 high schools in the New York City Public Schools.

NYDailyNews, March 14, 2013, by Michael Feeney:  Students defend failing Bread and Roses High School but blame their classmates for phaseout; ‘The teachers do everything they can,’ said one, ‘but if we don’t care this is what happens.’

“Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School on Edgecombe Ave. near W. 135th St. is one of four uptown schools – and 22 citywide – slated for phaseout or closure by the Department of Education. (MARIELA LOMBARD/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS)”

…Bread and Roses was one of three uptown public schools slated for phaseout by the Panel for Educational Policy this week, along with the Choir Academy of Harlem and J.H.S. 013 Jackie Robinson.

A fourth school, MS 45/STARS Prep Academy, a Grade 6 to 8 school in East Harlem, will close at the end of the school year, the panel decided. It was one of two schools that will be closed in June. ….

In the fall, the Eagle Academy for Young Men of Harlem will begin teaching its first class in the Bread and Roses building on Edgecombe Ave. near W. 135th St.

The all-boys school will start with a sixth-grade class and expand each year until Bread and Roses is phased out.

The NYDailynews article quoted a parent from its parent association saying they were led to believe this was a “turnaround” school, but instead it was just dumped.

Closure would be 4th change in three years for Bread & Roses HS Feb. 14, 2013 by Joanna Seow in “Chalkbeat.org:

The school received an “F” on its last city report card, with only 41 percent of students graduating in four years compared to a citywide four-year graduation rate of more than 65 percent.  About 100 students, teachers and parents protested the phase-out plan in a two-hour hearing Wednesday night in the school auditorium, with many arguing that Bread and Roses was never given the opportunity to follow through or finish an improvement process before starting a new one.  The school has been put through the “transformation” model, which was supposed to change school leadership, bring in extra support services, and experiment with longer school days and new teacher training; the “restart” model, in which school operations are handed over to an independent education organization; and then the proposed “turnaround” model — all within the last three years.

It is 78% “disadvantaged” and (currently viewed, not two decades ago!) its is just below 40% and math just above 40%, both below state and further below national averages.  In addition, a 2013-2014 “High School Quality Snapshot” produced by the NYSDOE rated this small school (274 students) Poor or Fair (not a single “Good”) in key areas (see chart), with a graduation rate far below city average:

Bread and Roses Integrated Arts HS Quality Snapshot 2013-2014 (click for the rest of pdf)

Bread and Roses Integrated Arts High School Scores (per USNews.com viewed Apr2017)

In other words, his undergraduate study at Ivy League Brown, while Ted Sizer was there (Polakow-Suransky is younger — b. 1972 — and Sizer supervised his masters’ dissertation).  There appears to be no PhD level in this career educator now college of education president.  The “CES” model was “gearing up” (but before CES bothered to incorporate and legitimize itself at Brown!) focused on the areas being emphasized at the time; Polakow-Suansky then taught for only about 10 years before moving into administration — with, apparently, a “Small Schools” emphasis, which also ties him in purpose to Ayers and others, as well as to the CES philosophy in general.

Current Bank Street College of Educ President bio blurb (@July1, 2014) shows predecessor position was second in command at NYCity (not “State”) DOE! Also read pp.2

Meanwhile, it’s April 2017 and Bank Street College of Education has not yet uploaded its FY2015 (which ended 6/30/2016, almost one year ago) tax return — and he’s President.  No “related” organizations are reported at Bank Street, and from what I can tell, this should not be a complex tax return to file, either.

In case this isn’t clear yet, there is a “Bank Street/Brown University (CES Sizer, Small Schools, etc.) AND, as it turns out in Polakow-Suransky’s career path, a “Broad Academy” (as in two Eli-Broad-Foundation-funded training entities, spanning 2001-current, with the “switchout” around 2005/2006) connection between movements, nonprofits, and professional training “academies” not to mention colleges of education (whether at Brown or at Bank Street).

For more, again, go to the separate page: Bank Street College of Education and School (Fast-Tracking FYI on its 100 year Progressive, Experimental Laboratories involving Young Children, History)

NOW ABOUT THAT ANNENBERG CHALLENGE FUNDING CIRCUITRY:

For the fiscal year ending June 30, 2001 (which obviously could include the latter half of 2000), Annenberg Foundation claims to have paid Chicago Annenberg Challenge (“CAC”) $6,685,200.  That would be nice to document from the recipient end, but — I can’t without a (so far) missing tax return from CAC for ITS fiscal year 2000, representing what would have been the first half of Annenberg Foundation’s Fiscal Year 2000, but labeled here “Year Ending June 30, 2001” as the image shows.  They were on different fiscal years.

Looks like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Inc. existed just about 8 short years, from 1995? until it closed down in 2003, fizzling out like this.  Again, one might ask:  Why?  (Actually Illinois Corporate record shows even briefer existence — 4/27/1995 through 1/30/2002 voluntary dissolution, less than seven years)

(see IL Cyberdrive LLC/Corporate search site)

The numbers under Total Assets (from this source) always represent Year-End Total Gross Assets (not “net” which may be smaller) and do not reflect all activity during the year, but obviously the last three tax returns show an organization that is shutting itself down.

The bottom row represents fiscal year 2001 for this entity, which as you can see, isn’t showing even $1M of assets (but $452K) at year-end, or $1M of contributions (but only $1.9K).

It also had an address change this year to Northfield, Illinois (back again to Chicago for 2002), and didn’t acknowledge even $2,000 contributions from anywhere, and stated it was not required to file a Schedule B (which would report “Excess Contributions” such as $6M from Annenberg).

The next screenprint shows it did acknowledge $1.9K ($1,954) contributions on line 1. So, we have a logistical problem — what is the explanation for the ($6,685,200 – $1,954) difference between claimed contributions and acknowledged on the recipient tax return?

A “Schedule A” of Support showing the prior four years for some entities might solve the problem, however, no “Schedule A” shows for year 2001, or Year 2002 (which amended return was stamped with three different 2006 dates, and which details the dissolution of the CAC). I recommend readers scroll through at least the “CAC” returns for Years 2001 and 2002 above, to see (for 2001) particularly how grants are not identifying the actual grantees in the main schedule, but an addendum further shows which “grantee” went to an actual “grantee” by a different name. For example, grants which may have looked like they were going to actual public schools, many times were instead going to universities, or other “systems-change” nonprofits — not that (this being a Form 990PF versus public charity filer) this form provided EIN#s (which a Form 990 prompts for, at least current versions of it) for ANY entity than the designated successor one (see next table for “CPEF”).

Finding a Year 2000 tax return if, for example, Annenberg had dumped the entire $6.68M to the CAC before  or on 12/31/2000 (Annenberg’s statement is labeled by the Year ENDING date as 2001 while CAC the recipient’s Fiscal Year = Calendar Year) might show this — but I don’t have ready access to it.  Anyone else who might find that on-line?

2001, Chicago Annenberg Challenge only admits receiving a bit over $1K contributions…Notice column titles (for next image).

Bottom half of FY2001 CAC Form 990PF, annotated to show odd classification of distributions (Lns 26) and resultant $1.8M deficit “per the books” vs. none, “cash basis. See Column titles seen on top of page 1 image, above. Click for Full-sized.

I’m seeing details on the 2001 (Amended) Tax return here that aren’t too hard to understand, but weighing whether it would be worthwhile to print, annotate, upload, narrate, and otherwise document right now — For example, the millions of dollars distributed are listed (Yr 2001) under right-hand column “cash” and not left-hand (of the $$ figure columns) under Revenues and Expenses per the books (see colorfully annotated image of p.1)

Next link, also in the image caption, labels the annotated image showing just a piece of the many “anomalies” or oddities showing up on that return: Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC, EIN#364016426) FY2001 990PF Part I bottom half showing total revs $80K Ln24 Total Expenses (per the books) Ln26b $1’8M but (Ln26d, rh column-CashBasis, $6’9M

From the same Illinois Cyberdrive Search site, this one says, Business ID# 60326282, Formed 1999, and ‘Not in Good Standing’.

CPEF, Entity#60326282, Formed 1999, “Not Good Standing” as viewed 4/2017

Interesting:   this was first funded (it says) in 1999 with about $1 million.  The Year 2000 return lists some “Schedule B” (Excess) Contributors (or perhaps back then it was a different schedule), just one page of them, however the numbering begins not with “1” but with “30.”  And while there are two or three $20K or $25K contributors, and $200K from “The Chicago Tribune,” there is a noticeable $995K from “The Annenberg Foundation” that year.  (See link provided, I did not “image”).  A closer look at CAC grantees Yr 2001 shows that some were was already going to this entity Chicago Public Education Fund.

Actually, the Year 2000 tax return of the CPEF above, IS relevant to discuss — after I noticed that even on its “Page 5 of 6 Schedule B Pt. I Excess Contributions” — obviously not ALL the “Excess Contributions for the year” as totaled, still added up (just page 5 only) to about $200K more than is reported on the IRS Form in Part I Summary.  Page 1 total Contributions:  $1,031,406 or $1.03M.  Page5 of 6 (not even taking into account what might have been on pp. 1-4 or p.6 which isn’t uploaded either!) total as written is $1,226,816 or $1.22M (per cell phone calculator).  Their CEO that year received a salary of $142,000 + benefits (as the only paid officer or one working FT) for this type of internal discrepancy re: correcting the substandard math & english of Chicago Public School systems!!

The five CPEF images below (may not annotated; you can follow the sequence I’m sure) are:

• #1 Part I, Page 1 top for Year 2000 (understand that this represents only the second year of operation:  Fiscal year = Calendar year)
• #2 Excess Contributions (page 5 of 6) top part up through Annenberg Foundation $995K contribution (Annenberg Foundation also bears an usual address in Evanston, IL)
• #3 Excess Contributions (page 5 of 6) bottom part (which overlaps with the Annenberg $995K to show it’s the same document, and bears a footer.
• #4 & 5 One or two images showing to whom the $881K of grants went that year; note: the first column “Classification” =/= grantee name.  Look at the amounts and grantee names.

Because I’m not annotating them, I’m also not printing to pdf for each image  You have the link to the tax return above if the images don’t display large enough to read.  As I said near top of this post, you don’t have to drill down that far to see discrepancies!

CPEF (EIN#36-4279013) Yr2000 Form 990 Pg1 top (Image 1 of 5) Total Contribs $1.03M

CPEF (EIN#36-4279013) Yr2000 Form 990 SchedB Excess Contribs, p5 TOP (Image 2 of 5)

CPEF (EIN#36-4279013) Yr2000 Form 990 SchedB Excess Contribs, p5 BOTTOM (Image 3 of 5, overlaps 2 rows with Image 2)

CPEF (EIN#36-4279013) Yr2000 Form 990 Statemt of Grants FROM, TOP (Image 4 of 5)

CPEF (EIN#36-4279013) Yr2000 Form 990 Statemt of Grants FROM, TOP, showing Total was $881K (Image 5 of 5)

Wikipedia on Chicago Annenberg Challenge is somewhat short and sweet (suggest — read it!) and answered another question I had in reviewing several tax returns — it was on the “to do list” — look up who is Vartan Gregorian, who showed up on Forms 990PF.   That and other questions may be answered in this short spiel on how the Public School Challenge came to be:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) was a Chicago public school reform project from 1995 to 2001 that worked with half of Chicago’s public schools and was funded by a $49.2 million, 2-to-1 matching challenge grant over five years from the Annenberg Foundation. The grant was contingent on being matched by $49.2 million in private donations and $49.2 million in public money. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was one of 18 locally designed Annenberg Challenge project sites that received $387 million over five years as part of Walter Annenberg‘s gift of $500 million over five years to support public school reform. The Chicago Annenberg Challenge helped create a successor organization, the Chicago Public Education Fund (CPEF), committing $2 million in June 1998 as the first donor to Chicago’s first community foundation for education.

Annenberg Foundation doesn’t list an address in Evanston, IL, which is a wealthy (and 91% white per “Blockshopper”) suburb of Chicago (and where Northwestern University, most of it, is located) that I’m aware of, however Kenneth B. Rolling and a “Community Learning Partnership” (*.org) does at 2308 Park Place, Evanston, IL — the address from which nearly $1M was granted TO the Chicago Public Education Fund from Annenberg in FY2000, above…

It doesn’t take too long looking at the website (which may or may not have been there in 2000) to see that this is organizing for social change (in fact, certifications working with community colleges in key cities) along the PICO, IAF, (ACORN?) etc. model.  I’m not exploring this thoroughly here, just referencing it as an out-of-place detail on a tax return.  I simply knew that Annenberg wasn’t featuring its Evanston, IL offices on their main site (or tax returns) over the years… I have a sense that in general, this is also what the Public School Challenge is about as well — at least from the perspective of its progressive adherents.

The “history” page of the nonprofit listed at this street address references a “Center for Community Change” which is searchable on this blog and as I recall (probably) has Open Society Foundations connections.

KenRolling@2308ParkPlaceEvanston IL shows yet another Community Organizing Nonprofit (cf Annenberg Fndtn grants to CPEF per its SchedB FY2000) From that website:
Read the rest of this entry »

This sprang un-mid-wifed (?) from the belly of another post,** where it’d grown submerged under that post’s main identity until ready to burst forth into a free-breathing, distinct publication from the other, as itself, and at a different street address (url) on the same blog.  I have been pregnant (and carried to term; they’re young adults now), so I do know what it feels like getting around the last few months: cumbersome. That’s how the other post was getting.

**the post (published 4/17/2017) which gestated (? incubated) this one:

Others talk so freely about conceiving, founding, launching and incubating various projects (or nonprofits) under some larger fiscal agent, or donor-advised-funds community foundations until they are “spun off” or “born,” I figure I can talk about having “given birth” to another post every now and then.   🙂  Sometimes, when I’m tangling too close with certain subject matter (here, the University of Pennsylvania and University of Southern California’s “Annenberg School of Communications” Trusts, not to mention the Annenberg Foundation itself) unpremeditated offspring are conceived.

So, this one being my “baby” I gave it a nice long name, in the  family (“FamilyCourtMatters)”tradition:

The first several paragraphs here overlap from the originating post, before I “get into it,” scrutinizing some of the Forms 990PF and relationships between various Annenberg projects and their main foundation. *** [see below next para. and link]

As previously explained (on the last post, above), this is a large family foundation (well, at least one) whose primary wealth came from ownership of publications/media field — the sale of “Triangle Publications,” by a second-generation business success, Walter H. Annenberg.

As much as I might want to elaborate more on this, after starting to do so here, I ‘re-allocated’ this into a spin-off post, which is now (a day later) complete and ready to go when this one is, under the name:

***And whose family style of philanthropy, prior generation and the new one (daughter Wallis), tends to put its name on the things it funds and endows — like entire schools within at least two universities, and to advertise about the amazing, large-scale things it has accomplished by the sheer scope and size of commitments.  No question this philanthropy is appreciated by the recipients, especially the art museums, but I do have a “show-us-the money” (financial reports) issue with the private-university-located entity which not only seeks to transform the US Public School system but also I gather to privately steer how, and in what direction, and to do this nonprofit and somewhat fiscally underground.

I also believe it’s time to start questioning the university homes (here, private universities) who help hide the cashflow involved while publicizing the program and project aspects, both this one, and other related ones.   

In this post, “AISR” stands for one of the advertised projects for which I’m having some trouble locating financial reports (showing gross receipts, program-related revenues and expenses (payments to others, including subcontractors), plus annual reporting of a balance sheet, showing where are its investments), despite how popularly and widely it is referenced both by the involved universities and some of the funded nonprofits, some of which are either themselves networked, or helped start one (i.e., “Coalition for Essential Schools.”

If there IS no such Form 990-filing entity by the legitimate name AISR (written out), thing, then I would question why a corporation by that name was ever set up, which, as I established in my last post, Rhode Island Corporations Division says does exist; it has a business entity and listed board of directors, is classified as a nonprofit, and a start date is listed.

“AISR” represents “The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University” which is in the USA’s smallest state: Rhode Island or as the Secretary of State/Corporations Division website says “Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations.”

Here’s a street sign for the AISR but who can find its tax return (EIN#)?  I see there is a corporate filing for it.  Donations to it are coming (mostly) direct to Brown University EIN#; Brown being a private nonprofit, files its own Form 990s:

Street Sign for AISR (partially obscured by foliage) from VictorianWeb

Ramifications: IF there is no proper EIN# (for example, if AISR is an UNregistered trademark of Brown University, or some other explanation), then what does that say about the famous Annenberg Foundation whose $500M to public education — and $50M of this to this institute named after the donors — is displayed on their website and recited faithfully in histories of the respective institutions?

If, by contrast (however) the secrecy and “catch-us-if-you-can” aspects of the cash flow TO the AISR is symptomatic of Brown University only, not the Annenberg Foundation whose claim is to have committed $50M gift to it months after its first $5M gift (and this in 1993), then PERHAPS the donee may be found by starting at the Annenberg Foundation end and working downwards as to the Public Challenge Grantees.

I cannot easily access EIN#s before this century, but early in this century did find a list of some of those grantees (but not named AISR and representing any EIN# outside of Brown U’s main #). Will show it below. This all will make more sense if you read the annotated images, not just the narratives around them.

Website “http://www.annenberginstitute.org/what-we-do/projects/children-and-youth-cabinet-providence” (read the fine print!)

What’s more, when a major foundation IS claiming to donate money which cannot be readily found on a financial report to an institute within a private university not subject to (or complying with requirements to) file — I figured perhaps it might be good to identify, in this situation, the OTHER “Challenge Grantees” specifically and see if, as a group, they are doing any better.  Perhaps also it is a symptom that something might be radically wrong with the entire picture; whether or not should be identified and whatever is wrong should be corrected. Where, for example, are the checks and balances?

CYC (found at AISR Brown University) Notice “Cradle to Career” is the goal.

At all points, when public schools major institutions are targeted for systemic change as sponsored by untrackable, or hard to follow private money, (projects of school districts across the country, who as specialized, special-purpose government entities, must maintain their pension funds, facilities management, maintenance, construction and acquisition at times (i.e. real estate), staff, administrative overhead, support staff, school security, books, computers and consumable classroom supplies, not to mention supply of properly qualified teachers, and security-screened for criminal backgrounds at all levels too — should we not already have familiarized ourselves with at least our own school districts’ financial statements too, how they are put together, and be able to tell when any unethical, immoral, or potential racketeering influence (RICO) might be operational?    And be talking about those financial statements with each other, as opposed to devouring the press and funded public relations material (only) about them?

If the school districts — and their projects, the schools —  are collectively a major “distressed asset” in which foundations wish to personally invest (or, have the public “divest” more and more) — shouldn’t we be able to see where they are dealing with the private contractors seeking to reform them in coordinated fashion based on theories from, for example, specific Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia University, Princeton or Ivy League models?  [This maroon font marks three paragraphs not on original post, in the “overlap” section].

From ANNENBERG FNDTN WEBSITE About Page 1989 – 1993 (School Reform) + 1958 School for Communciation at U of P (Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 1.32PM (Goes with next image):

The School Reform challenge is featured on Annenberg Fndtn’s own summary of itself, along with establishing schools of communication in 3 institutions, and substantial contributions to art museums and endowed chairs at universities. It also gives a size reference for the initial funding of the foundation — sale of a media empire (Triangle) for, judging by this, $3.6 billion, presenting another major problem to be solved — federal taxes on capital gains! And, public image vis a vis the less well-endowed (i.e., the working poor and middle class).

The foundation still has a Pennsylvania Address, although its surviving Annenberg family members and some of the staff/contractors seem to be more in Southern California (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, etc.).

Timeline FAQs from its “Who We Are” (after identifying as a family foundation).  Notice the years, please.

• 1989 The Annenberg Foundation begins operations on July 1 with $1.2 billion in assets. [see also annotated image to left]
• 1990 To focus attention on the needs of historically black colleges, the Annenberg Foundation makes a $50 million challenge gift in what becomes, at the time, the most successful fundraising drive ever by the United Negro College Fund.
• 1993 The Annenberg Foundation makes a $25 million grant to Harvard University. The grant will be used for scholarships, seminar programs and renovations to historic Memorial Hall, including the creation of a freshman dining facility named for the Ambassador’s son, Roger Annenberg.
• 1993 The Annenberg Foundation makes a historic commitment to public education with the $500 million Annenberg Challenge. The Annenberg Challenge is one of the largest gifts in philanthropic history and works to revive and inspire school reform efforts across the nation. Eighteen locally designed Challenge projects operated in 35 states,** funding 2,400 public schools that served more than 1.5 million students and 80,000 teachers. [[More on how it identifies (or doesn’t) these projects, below, look for the “**”]]
• 1993 The Annenberg Foundation grants $120 million to the University of Pennsylvania.## The grant endows the Annenberg School for Communication and creates the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which conducts research and convenes discussions on the critical intersection of media, communication and public policy.

“**” and “##” mark two footnotes I’m making to the organization’s summary page.  “##” is addressed first, and several paragraphs below that, and likely next to an image, “**.” Look for both the symbols and titles in those two colors to tell one from the other.

## Annenberg School of Communication Financial Relations with the University of Pennsylvania and the Annenbergs:  

This 1993 $120M endowment for the (pre-existing since 1958, per description above) Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania (“ASC at UofP” for convenience here) becomes interesting when eight years later, the UofP endows a trust whose income goes to the school, but is still controlled by Annenberg and their historic financial and legal managers from other foundations or trusts.

I found a 2002-funded Trust which was initially funded with $100M (even) FROM the University of Pennsylvania [currently held in the UofP’s “AIF” and possibly from it in the first place] which was from the start under the control of (a) a Dean or Director from the ASC at UofP, Annenberg Family Members (originally Leonore + Wallis; Leonore the mother died in 2009, her famous spouse Walter H. in 2002), some lawyers from (as the Form 990PFs show) from a Philadelphia Law firm Dilworth Paxson also known for handling other Annenberg financial and estate matters.  One of these men (Wm. J. Henrich) was previously successor to Triangle Publications when its owner (Ambassador Annenberg) stepped down in, I believe the NYT article showed, 1984.

Closer looks at some of the respective tax return details reveals operation practices and the larger strategy.

(Shown again below:   tinyurl.com/1984Nov16NYTHenrichSuccdsAnnbg.  Not too long after, Triangle Publications was sold?)

“AIF” is a term I found on the tax return, and as seen on a financial statement (at university site) must stand for Affiliated Investment Funds” managed by a third party, it says:

“AIF is Associated Investments Fund third-parties-managed, then 2’8B (excerpt from FY2001 UofP Financial Statemt)” (<==click for full-sized).

I will post more on this below; I’m still trying to understand it and wrap my head around how a university as large as the University of Pennsylvania, around since 1740 (!!), could be operating as a private nonprofit, and not as is seen in other states whose similarly-named universities ARE often state corporations or instrumentalities, or may have started as land-grants, but going by the name “University of Pennsylvania” similar to other states   Apparently.

This would mean that Annenberg has chosen two PRIVATE universities for Schools of Communications (here, and Univ. of Southern California) and private university Brown for its AISR.

The interesting feature to me here is that what I considered a state university, and would expect to be subject to “CAFR” filings, is apparently (judging by the size and description of “Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania) instead, just a humongous 501©3, that is, a private, nonprofit.  Each state may do its state-supported university systems in its own way, but that was a real surprise for me.  The ramifications?  It may not have to produce the type of detailed reports that other government entities have to.  For a contrast, I’m working on a separate post looking at the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s CAFRs, not that this topic hasn’t been covered on this blog (and a related one) in earlier years.

Take a look! You’ll have to ignore the wrong name supplied by the FoundationCenter, again; the EIN# represented belongs to the “Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania” which a small image from the IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check” search page also shows.  Or, just click on any oddly named organization in the table here to see the Form 990 attached to it.

Total results: 3. Search Again.

The IRS “Exempt Organizations Select” check search site verifies that contributions here are tax-deductible and who actually owns that EIN#:  “Trustees of the University of Philadelphia.”

$17 BILLION dollars of assets of course includes buildings, and liabilities to go with them.  BUT, a closer look shows it includes substantial investments and related companies (foreign and domestic).

Click to read Annotations and view full-sized (Sched E self-identification by U of P on its tax return)

The Annenberg Foundation “About Us” summary fails to mention that after it gave UofP $120M to endow the school named after the family and setting up another “Center” with the family name, eight years later, in 2002, the UofP then set up a trust controlled by ASC leadership and Annenberg family leadership, starting with $100M — and not too many years later, doubling in size, which income was to go to back to the University of Pennsylvania (i.e., the terms of the trust strictly controlled where its revenues went).  However, someone had to administer this, and over time I saw that the, or an independent subcontractor investment management firm (Bessemer) also had funds titled after itself in which the assets were invested, as well as being paid (as a subcontractors, plus separately, there would be also more “investment management fees”).

About Bessemer — this firm began when Phipps, who helped found Carnegie Steel, sold his share and (obviously) than had some investments to manage.  The investment company (1907 started) continued privately controlled, but by the 1970s began inviting in some of their kind (wealthy families, foundations, or trusts) to work with them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_Trust.  Still run by a Phipps descendant (as of this “Wiki”), it manages over $100 billion assets for its 2,300 clients, has offices all over the US in major cities, and the Cayman Islands, and London.  In 2001, this Bessemer Trust formed a partnership with someone from Morgan Stanley aimed at “middle market equity.” See next image:

Minimum investments to get involved in Bessemer Trust, if they want you, is $10M.

Guess what the 2001-formed partnership middle-market partnership specialized in?

“Lindsay Goldberg is an American private equity firm focused on leveraged buyout and growth capital investments in middle-market companies in such sectors as consumer products, commodity-based manufacturing, energy services, business services, financial services, energy transmission and waste disposal.^[2]

The firm, which is based in New York City, was founded in 2001 by Alan Goldberg, who had previously served as chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley Private Equity (later Metalmark Capital) and Robert Lindsay, who played a central role in the Bessemer Trust private equity business, serving most recently as Managing General Partner since 1991. Goldberg and Lindsay had worked together in the 1980s at Morgan Stanley and were founding members of the private equity business in 1984.

The firm has raised approximately $13 billion since inception, across four funds. The firm raised $2 billion for its first fund in 2002.^[3] In 2006, the firm completed fundraising for its second fund with $3.1 billion of investor commitments.^[4][5] In 2008, Lindsay Goldberg commenced raising its third fund with a target of $4.0 billion. As of November 2015, $3.4 billion had been raised toward its fourth fund.^[6]“

Leveraged buyouts and growth capital.  Per this (brief) Wiki, there was also some press over a controversy regarding one of the projects, Duff Capital Advisors, which lasted about one year, period, 2008-2009.

Investment in Duff Capital Advisors[edit]

In 2009, Lindsay Goldberg received media coverage for controversies related to its investment of $500 million in seed capital in Duff Capital Advisors.^[8][9] Launched by former Morgan Stanley CFO Phil Duff, Duff Capital was led by financial services executive Eileen Murray, who served as its Co-Chief Executive Officer and President.^[10] Duff Capital Advisors started in March 2008 and shut down in May 2009 prior to moving into the 43,400 square feet of office space, complete with food court, showers, and other amenities, which the company had leased in an office park in Greenwich, Connecticut.^[11][12] Subsequent to the closure of Duff Capital Advisors, Phillip Duff formed Massif Partners, another hedge fund; however, Lindsay Goldberg declined to make an investment in this enterprise.^[13] Massif Partners went on to encounter similar challenges to Duff Capital.^[14]

(For timeline comparison, the alteration in the UofP / Annenberg School of Communications financial setup involved moving $100M into a trust “fbo” (for the benefit) of UofP in 2002 and another one “fbo” USC (University of Southern California), looks like the same amount or close to it, also about the same time.)  However, they weren’t involved with the partnership, just Bessemer Trusts.  BUT, later on, you can see the investments are in funds named “Bessemer” part of the time.  [I do not recall on which tax return, but remember seeing this.  Perhaps it was on the foundation proper and not one of the ASC Trusts…Anyone is free to review; I’ve provided the EIN#s…]

But here’s an image from a UoP tax return showing that EIN# as part of its overall “related entity” operations.  I’ll show the table for the same EIN# below.

Trustees of Univ of PN EIN# 231352685 FY2014 990 Excerpt showing ASC Trust as supporting entity.  Meanwhile, see also the corresponding entity’s filing (the ASC Trust at U of PENN) FY2014 Form 990 acknowledging the Univ of Pennsylvania as its own Schedule R Related Entity (and the only one, in fact):

** Annenberg Public Education Challenge (footnote to the Foundation’s summary page)

(**18 projects in 35 states by definition indicates crossing state jurisdiction lines, which helps break down accountability with the departments of education and school districts within each state involved.  But that’s nothing particularly new in the field of public/private partnerships…)

Question:  Where are the Foundation’s Forms and audited statements for year 2015? I can understand why 2016 may not be out yet — but why not 2015? (2015 return has not shown up yet on the FoundationCenter search, either) — this is the latest year showing as of now, April 2017.  They are two to three years behind in reporting to their own openly transparent website.

Above represents FY2014 because at this point their FYr.=Calendar Yr. That means FY2015 isn’t posted yet, at least here (also not on their website).

Just a word on the relationship with the University of Pennsylvania and Annenberg School for Communications (started in 1958) and its endowment (and new name, Center for Public Policy) — who funded whom, and who controls whom, gets a little complicated when I read an Annenberg Foundation 2002 return stating that the “[Ann’brg.] School for Communications” had converted into a private trust. I looked up the private trust and found its initial return (2002) which shows a $100M contribution TO this trust:

Read the rest of this entry »

This post,

(1) Fund for Educational Excellence. (2) Foundation for Excellence in Education (or ExcelEd).  (3) Alliance for Excellent Education, and (4) ConnectEd (Note the backers) and I just showed (5) Communities in Schools (Remember the subcontractors). Also Consider (6) Brown University’s AISR ~Smart Education Systems~ based on Ted [Yale, Harvard]+Nancy Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools. (case-sensitive short-link ending in “-6pr”),

continues from the bottom of

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”) (just published, with a long introduction, April 3, 2017 mid-day),

and represents where the writing started after deciding on that title and subject matter.

Among other questions, I first remind us (and I have the standing as a parent, former teacher across a variety of systems, and more recently, investigative blogger of nonprofits and public/private partnerships and their self-reporting of programming while concealing, withholding, or delaying until forced to, their books — i.e., holdings (cashflow, etc.) to say this with confidence):

Controlling the education (esp. public school system) = controlling the next generation = controlling the nation, including the revenue-producing options of those same generations.

By “controlling” I mean “restricting” in order to keep most of the nation in its assigned places in society — NOT in the top echelon who control the investments, and steer the systems, and train their own offspring, marrying into each others’ family, to continue doing the same generation after generation.

Look for the matching questions I have about this agenda in similar-styled box quote below.  There is a discussion and several paragraphs inbetween.

Along these topical lines, you’ll hear a lot about “closing the achievement gap.” It may come from groups pushing charter schools and more choice,* or those opposed to the same.

From generic (Google) search results, 1st and 2nd page, you can easily see the variety of domain names discussing this, from NEA (National Education Association), to PBS to Www2.ed.gov (federal Dept. of Education), to what would seem to be product-specific domain names, and others, state-specific.  I looked at several of them, and no matter where I looked, I found those so enthusiastic about closing it were operating either as tax-exempts backed by other tax-exempts — or public/private partnerships, and when debating the issue of charter schools (as I just said, above), on closer look whether those for or those against, both are recommending more investments for systems change, and typically involving digital learning platforms.

Again, this conversation also tends to be partisan, with progressives complaining about conservatives and vice-versa.  Everyone seems eager to discuss the “big bucks foundations” backing the OTHER side, or blast for-profit schools — but neither side is discussing the tax-exempt sector AS a networked sector, drawing both finances, sponsored voices, and collections of assets available for investment (wherever the privately controlled group chooses) towards that sector and away from the low-income, poor people.   [Example in this 2013 document focused on Massachusetts, [“Threat from the Right focused on Massachusetts”] but see its pp.76ff discussion of “Foundation for Excellence in Education” w/ references to Betsy DeVos and the DeVos family, Bush, Broad, Gates, and others].  From reading it, one would think there was no substantial sponsorship of education reform from progressive foundations — but I’ve seen and posted on it at the highest levels (Open Society Foundations, Omidyar Fund Network, etc.).

It seems to be off the radar to discuss that the tax-exempt status itself might be a contributing factor — as opposed to a solution — to poverty in the USA, which has now passed its 100th anniversary in taxing all individuals except those able to drastically reduce, legally evade, or illegally, dodge accountability and paying it. IF that discussion were ever to be held fairly, as I through this blog consistently have intended for it to be, whether court-connected, or gender-war-connected (both sides), or as we have here, public-education-reform-connected, the fingerpointing would be equally at both political parties.

~ ~ ~ I’ll talk more about the Achievement Gap-Closing Group Debates, reviewing some of the top-level search results on the phrase, separately. Some fascinating data on the sponsors continues to surface (well, after I dug into the Form 990s) ~ ~ ~ (link active now, but accurate only when it’s published: “Tax-Exempts Against the Achievement Gap (Accounting Details ALWAYS provide a fascinating backdrop to the Cause-connected and Controlled-Debates SPONSORED Rhetoric) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6zO” as in “October” not as in the symbol for “zero”)“) ~ ~ ~

This “closing the achievement gap” talk does NOT refer primarily to the significant gap between the schooling of those of inherited or significant (entrepreneurially-acquired) wealth, typically private schooling from grade or high school forward and the public schools, BUT INSTEAD basically achievement gaps within and across public school systems, according to defined demographic (racial, gender) or geographic (i.e., urban/inner-city or not) sectors and with a view to eventual utilization across country lines, too.

In this sphere of discussion, schooling in USA inner-city, impoverished, disadvantaged, low-income (etc) urban areas is compared for potential program application for schooling in conflict-ridden, violent zones in other countries. Programs have been and still are being developed with a view of working internationally, not just in the USA. There is a profit and self-propagation motive, which pushes back against the actual intention to solve poverty in the USA.

What we tend to forget: public schools as fantastic market testing place (just like the family courts also have been — so many people getting divorced, forced-consumption-of services on an unprecedented scale also, just like welfare reform — it’s a remarkable market niche for those with their eyes on it.

The USA just happens to provide (to people of this mindset) an irresistably wonderful, and wonderfully large testing ground in its massive school system, and (unlike some other countries) significant public education funding too. Our compulsory education laws K-12 and our Department of Education (Federal and state levels) with corresponding budgets, and supportive, supplemental “education foundations” are already and for decades (over a century) established;  common practice.  And, we are a large country.

Having filled themselves up well here as corporate entities with wealth poured into tax-exempt foundations (family, private operating, or public charity) and through social and class connections, able to fly around for conferences and networking to (spawn) more nonprofits, many nonprofits and their backers (working closely with for-profits providing the digital or other platformed, often proprietary) are eager to spread the good news in countries where there’s less competition with educational choice [private incl. some legal forms of homeschooling; public, parochial or other religious] or savvy middle and professional classes who might over here see the profit motive involved in school-reform entities operating primarily tax-exempt.

FOR AN EXAMPLE (of US Schools being used as educational laboratories): I have recently been hunting for WestEd‘s comprehensive, annual financial reports (audited) covering ALL its activities and stating ALL is assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses to date, for a specific year as, being a Joint Powers Agency, it has to produce.  Anyone who can locate such a report more current than, let’s say 2010 (WestEd was formed in 1996), please submit a link in a comment!

WestEd (a JPA formed from two previously-existing JPAs under California’s Joint Powers Authority Act; roughly translated, it’s a government entity under which citizens have no direct rights, although it is public-funded, probably mostly public-funded). runs an REL (Research) Regional Education Laboratories).  (The image this time = the link, also).

WestEd has been subjected to at least two negative audits I found while looking for their CAFR.  One, from 1998 (USDOE OIG) I already posted.  Here’s another one from the NSF: Audit Report OI8-08-1-011:

Attached is the final audit report, prepared by Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C., an independent public accounting firm, on the audit of NSF award number ESI-0119790 awarded to WestEd. The audit covers NSF-funded costs claimed from September 1, 2001 to June 30, 2007, aggregating to approximately $11.05 million of NSF direct funded costs and $1.25 million of claimed cost sharing. NSF requested and OIG agreed to conduct an audit at WestEd because of findings in prior A-133 and other NSF audits that identified that the policies and procedures WestEd used were inadequate to monitor and track award activity for subawards, cost sharing, and participant support.

The auditors identified four significant compliance and internal control deficiencies in WestEd’s financial management practice that contributed to the questioned costs, of which we consider the first to be a material weakness. Additionally, the first three of these control weaknesses were previously identified and reported in NSF OIG and A-133 single audit reports. Given the systemic and continuing nature of these compliance and internal control deficiencies it is likely that NSF’s eleven other current awards amounting to $13.6 million, as well as future awards are impacted by the same weaknesses.

…In case there was any question whether the US public school system, at public cost, is being subjected to “R&D” monitored by government agencies who have questionable internal control (reporting weaknesses).  SO DO MANY OF THE NONPROFIT NETWORKS WISHING TO FIX THE SCHOOLS, but the only real auditor of this sector as a sector seems to be the IRS, and public who get around to figuring out it might be a good idea to research.

This all seems obvious to me, but readers who question this are welcome to submit comments.

For more indicators of school-reform as “development” in conflict-ridden places (USA, Mexico, or on other continents) — also resembling the Boston Consulting Group, as I call it, “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan” philosophy (see recent post with that phrase in it) of being the first or among the first in some new field and so able to define the terms and dominate it, as well as employ the “LBO” (Leveraged Buy-Out) practice on public institutions (by getting on the decision-making groups — for a private corporation it’d be board of directors; but for public institutions, it would require having councils to steer those “public/private collaborations” (or if more official, “partnerships”)  —  please review some of my earlier posts (2016) on the International Institute for Peace at Rutgers (http://iip.rutgers.edu), which lists the Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative (or similar title) in Southern California associated with it.  Notice the language.
Read the rest of this entry »