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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?…' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Three (or Four) Famous, Privately Controlled Nonprofits Who Just Wanna Transform Public Education (and Urban Populations to Practice On)

with one comment


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”)

Intro added right before hitting “Publish”:

This is a detailed post, under 10,000 words only because I broke off the bottom third (where it started) for separate publication.  It has at least two other spinoff posts one of which was already published on 3/30/2017.  I hope that by publishing several on similar topics in fast sequence, some common sense and raised awareness of just how many, and how deep are the pockets, of the school transformation networks (plural) with their subcontractor friends from the consulting field, in combination with of course proprietary technology platforms, are fully functional and effectively ARE transforming the landscape.  Another term for this would be “development” as it occurs by developed countries upon “under-developed” or developing ones.

We should acknowledge that “the world’s THE stage”;  while these typically operate in the US, their foundation backers often do not.  Many of the concepts for application on the US public schools — a vast resource for testing grounds for this and that pilot, and also representing compulsory consumption of products & services (for most, unless they have the privilege or option of alternate forms of K-12 education under U.S. law) came from England, Germany — from Europe, countries with peerages, titles of honor, and sometimes a national religion going back centuries, which the US does not have.

Careers and career professionals in the field of school transformation do exist, often working for the largest private foundations around (I found another one today, in a different network with, predictably, a doctorate (and B.A. degree) in psychology, government task force positions, and numerous foundation positions, including at the Annie E. Casey Foundation).  The U.S. is being “developed” every bit as much as other countries, but in a more different manner and sold as solving our social problems.  Most troubling to me is attempting to turn local public schools into community centers, rather than giving equal consideration to the possibility that this is a top-heavy, expensive model just too tempting for the profiteers to avoid.

These networks, private influence (non-representational particularly of local people) on school districts and most schools’ continuing, ever-present search for more money and programming which might bring that in or justify it, are here, probably to stay.  I advise becoming well-aware of the proliferating nonprofits while they are still around to be tracked.  (Some are starting to close themselves down, and the track record may not be around forever).

I am not writing from the sidelines on this issue.  Although I may not have lived in many of the states where nonprofits I discuss are headquartered, I have lived in several different states in the USA over the decades, and both East Coast, MidWest, and West Coast.  I am a parent, I know exactly what it is like to be a single parent with a college degree attempting to head my own children in the same direction on scholarships.  Unfortunately, also having had to deal with marital domestic violence, part of this time I also had do this while dealing with the usual choice such (mothers) get:  (a) the abuse itself (if in the relationship) and (b) the family court litigation (if one exits the relationship and becomes in ANY way, sharpe or form involved with the social services in the process, bringing on the child support, marriage/fatherhood factor into the mix in any divorce or custody proceedings).  In this context, I had NO real free time, and became acutely aware of the relative efficiency of different forms of schooling upon the household as well as (which was not even in question at the time) the relative levels of achievement and involvement in so-called “extracurricular” activities my children could be in, given a two-parent household with a commute every single weekend.

In several urban school districts (in more than one region of the country) I was IN the schools, teaching subjects which the budgets had eliminated, at times supported by a nonprofit organization, other times hired directly. I am also a product of public schools (primarily) K-12, but have worked with children from all types of schooling.  As a parent, I am well aware of the difference between private and public situations and its economic and time impact on an individual household, as this became an easy target to attack as soon as I separated from abuse with a restraining order.

Many people without children just do not realize what it takes to prop up and supplement any education when one’s children are in school so long every day, and so many days a year (not to mention, do not realize how hard teachers work OUTside of the school hours for what takes place INside).  In this field, in public education, there is “no free lunch,” even when students may qualify for one and it may be the main meal of the day.  Even in affluent areas, there is constant after-school tutoring or activities which might distinguish their offspring from the many candidates at the colleges they hope those children to have access (including but not limited to Ivy league, or top-notch, private four-year liberal arts colleges).  I have seen (as clients for my services) stay-at-home mothers who were essentially full-time chauffeurs and executive administrators for even just two or three children in some of these areas. Some hire nannies, housekeepers. There are sometimes ads for people to simply pick up the kids and bring them home when parents are working, or kids attend two or more different schools.

The public schools alone ARE an effective caste- and class-preservation device because they are not private schools!  Not everyone agrees they are the “only” solution and should be propped up under the theory / hope of equalizing them or closing achievement gaps or disparities by technicity or gender.   Will this ever be equal to the privileged, private schools of now, and the last century, which also come with social connections)?  

I challenge any reader disturbed by my continuing reporting on these nonprofits to go dig up his or her local school district’s [school district is tied to where you live, kids or no kids in the household..] comprehensive annual financial reports (independently audited) for the last four years, not to mention their local county’s CAFR too, comprehend the basics, and make a record (keep a log) of the assets vs. liabilities (and how recorded).  Then go find, for the same district, how many foundations are also involved in those schools, and record their assets (and leadership’s salaries, expenses, etc.) too, and come up with a figure. At least just GET YOUR FEET WET IN WHERE TO LOOK AND WHAT’S THERE FOR THE LOOKING!

It’s really about who controls the most income-producing assets for the longest, even if the same owners don’t hold them all under the same entity names, financial institutions, or investment vehicles.  What happens when the U.S. government already controls these overall, still wants MORE investments from the public in the same institutions (completely with real estate, buildings, maintenance, insurance, employees, related service industries (food, transportation, security, books, administrative supplies …)

Investments of ANY kind are always about the return on the collective assets (not just one individual holding, such as in a school-transforming nonprofit or for-profit), so when you see the tears for the sad condition of any school, or the violence in them, or the drugs, teenaged pregnancies, or simply under-achieving, take a look at where the money already is IN the area, and (I dare you) ask why so many nonprofits and their big backer foundations, are so enthusiastic about this particular model of school transformation — as opposed to an “open ALL the related books and actually look at the balances” model.

And I do have a question:  HOW MANY NETWORKS OF TAX-EXEMPT 501©3S, WITH RELATED (OR OPPOSING) REFORM MODELS DOES IT TAKE FOR EFFECTIVE SYSTEM CHANGE THROUGHOUT, AND ERASE THE MEMORY OF OTHER OPTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC CONSCIENCE?  One I keep thinking of is, were all the pooled assets of all the spinoff, networked, or public/private run nonprofits for a single year lined up, totaled, and divided by the number of entities (separating the private from the public) – what would those be?  IF those assets and cash flow were retained instead by the parents and residents rather than being extracted up front to go into the schools (discouraging the formation of hundreds of ever-evolving nonprofits), how much better off would the “low-income” households and people be in the first place?

At the bottom of this posts are several links to interviews in the Financial Times (and elsewhere) with Sir Ronald Cohen (whose name came up in the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan discussion — with Omidyar Network Entity involvement (when Omidyar’s report on a 3-month pilot conducted in 2013 referenced it).  He’s called the father of British Venture Capitalism, founded and led an association by the same name (“BVCA”) and is speaking of reducing tax-exemptions on mega-funds, but retaining them on smaller investment funds.  Like the ones he and friends have been forming.  What’s happening in Social Impact Funding in the US seems to relate closely (to mirror) what was happening, this century, in the UK. (See towards the bottom of this post, and some on the continuation one).  A lot of what passes for altruism and concern is, in fact, money seeking to retain power and influence through reduced taxation.  Keeping this up requires continued influence on governments which decide what is and is not taxed, and how much.

Whatever the solution there should be schooling options which don’t penalize individual families or the public either through forced support of failing schools, or through forcing their kids INTO those failing schools.   Again, if you pay even just income taxes, you are per se on the opposite side of most ledgers to almost any nonprofit, tax-exempt foundation, or government entity.  They pay taxes for their employees, but not on the entity’s revenues (as I understand it).
“Let’s Get Honest” Monday, April 3, 2017.”


From an earlier (11/18/2016) post, (I’ll reference it again below) a theme to remember:

Meanwhile, high position in the highly politicized public education (K-12 and college/university both) system apparently is also part of the gateway to (and from) political power.  And money.

For example:

Constantly demanding more funding for the schools, to put “Communities in Schools“* or to improve them, or expand them, and attempting to close off the exit ramps to something better for low-income parents, as the NAACP submitted a position statement on just this past October, is inappropriate until proper account for what IS going in and HAS gone in is provided in coherent form to the public.  

Speaking of the phrase “Communities in Schools,” here’s another post sub-section for another networked organization and ITS high-powered (more than) subcontractor.**  What, really is going on here? On taking a closer look, I found out that part of that answer is to be found in the organization’s choice of independent subcontractors, a recurring theme in understanding how nonprofits network with power, and how subcontractors sometimes obtain that power.

[Quoting from my own post, https://familycourtmatters.org/2016/11/18/connected-mpr-associates-inc-gary-hoachlander-wested-and-the-us-dept-of-ed-with-help-from-james-irvine-foundation/,  “sub-section” in the quote refers to that post]

*CIS banner (including “Donate”) and Affiliates (in 25 states, whose websites also say “Donate”)

CIS home page viewed 3-26-2017

**Comments on the high-powered (more than) subcontractor [Bridgespan] continued below, right after a light-blue background section on James Irvine Foundation Blog 2006 interview ConnectEd leader Gary Hoachlander…..

This interview having been in 2006 alongside proof that ConnectEd didn’t register as a charity until 2011 (which I provided in the earlier post) proves that the James Irvine Foundation was promoting ConnectEd years before it registered in California, which seems to be a symptom of the field and the in-general arrogant attitude that goes with it:  “when saving the world, or the nation’s children, or engaged in any of (our many) great philanthropic causes “normal rules of accountability– and state laws — don’t apply to us, OR our friends and chosen partners.”

The Bain/Bridgespan “consulting/management/implementation/turnaround We OWN you (until we sell it off)” model (and its Harvard connections), and how many others are following — here, into SCHOOL TRANSFORMATION via DIGITAL-BASED, often TRADEMARKED PROGRAMMING — is important to “get,” to understand.  To study it is to see some of the scope and trends of these times as previously engineered in the 1980s, 1990s and of course first decade of the 21st century, 2000-2010.

We are now 2017, and all this “might” be good to keep in mind when (a) voting, (b) donating (to ANY group), and, if a choice remains, (c ) deciding where your children should go to school, and (d) in general when listening to politicians or reading about great causes and the work of “philanthropic” organizations.

In general, regardless of the application, the reality will be a combination of those now holding significant assets, typically privately — that is the OWNERS of those assets, boards director, family scions or second- third-generation heirs — building partnerships which have in mind power and control:  profits, tax-reduction, and propaganda especially about the long-term and short-term good of the public further ceding control of public institutions, but without full awareness of where we (the public) stand versus where the various or collective “change agents” stand,  to the same.  In general, it’s good to have a few ways to withstand propaganda, or at least recognize it when it’s all around.


If you’re in the habit of looking whether any business or group name is operating as public or privately registered entity (and since when, and where, and, ideally, how large and where are (have been) its assets and revenues coming from and going to), a habit I wasn’t raised with, but did develop under duress and curiosity, it will become easier and easier to detect in any grouping of names (one promoting the other), which is functioning in which capacity.

So, https://familycourtmatters.org/2016/11/18/connected-| mpr-associates-inc-| gary-hoachlander |-wested-| and-the-us-dept-of-ed-| with-help-from-james-irvine-foundation/, among these names, which is which, and who’s who? (I added some dividers in the filename):

  • That 11/18/2016 post title names some parts of the school-transformation network:  “Connected..” (nonprofit, that’s a partial name, but obviously conveys a sense of digital, on-line, connections),
  • MPR Associates (its subcontractor),
  • Gary Hoachlander (running both of the aforesaid and until I believe it was MPR that moved) out of the same address too),
  • WestEd (a Joint Powers Agency, not “Authority”) governed by public entities in several states,
  • …the U.S. Department of Education (federal agency) with help from
  • the James Irvine Foundation (major tax-exempt foundation, considered with the corporation behind it, here “The Irvine Company”).

The parts are public and private.  In the private, the parts come tax-exempt and not tax-exempt (non-profit and for-profit).  Within tax-exempt (and obviously from the for-profit too), they also come older and newer, and larger and smaller.  When they are collaborating on a single project, or a nationwide project, it is a force to be reckoned with and typically an intricate funding trail. I’m still looking for WestEd’s financials.

The older and/or larger can easily set up (fund, or work with colleagues to fund) other entities which will still be impressively large to the common man.  That clout combined with “friend and associates” is impressive also.  Being impressive in that matter, however, doesn’t make it right, legal, or morally or logically justified.  It only makes it highly persuasive, and a force to be dealt with, should they be heading down a path NOT in the public interest, or one that the public might have reason to object to, such as being built on a foundation of inappropriate secrecy (“failure to file”) and violation of basic state law to register timely.

Just found from the James Irvine Foundation blog (dated in 2006) — An Interview with Gary Hoachlander of “ConnectEd…” showing that this foundation was funding an nonprofit entity which didn’t register with state of California as a charity until 2011, speaking in glowing terms of ConnectEd as a “consulting firm.”  In fact, it was a nonprofit and subcontracting to the consulting firm MPR Associates (also run by Hoachlander) in related-entity transactions acknowledged in their first Form 990 filing of 2006 [See annotations on next image].

Click to read annotations; and the other link provided (assuming it’s still valid) to read the whole JIF blog post.

He’s asked (and doesn’t quite answer, although it looks like there may be some missing texts):

Irvine Quarterly: _ Are you already working with specific schools and institutions?

[[That is a Yes/No Question, but neither a Y or a N is provided]]

“Hoachlander: As part of this work, we’ve already identified about a half dozen schools and school districts,) has also strongly supported integrating challenging academics with demanding technical courses. And in the legislature, there’s strong bipartisan interest..”

It looks like some words are missing before “has also” because that doesn’t agree as a verb with “we’ve identified..”  “Identifying” =/= working with.

Having said that, there’s not yet a very coherent, comprehensive vision for how to move this forward, in Sacramento or elsewhere in the state. People are working on pieces of this. They’re intrigued by the possibility of using some form of career and technical education as a way of re-engaging and motivating students. (But) I think everybody’s still thinking in rather traditional ways: Should we put more money into partnership academies or regional occupational programs? These are important first steps, but they do not yet lead to more comprehensive models of blended instruction.

State and local policy could benefit from a more systemic and unifying vision of how all this might work better. I’d like to think that ConnectEd can help that. We’re not claiming that we’ve got it all figured out. But I think ConnectEd can play a role in helping to convene people who have an interest in this and help figure it out.

Again, apparently ConnectEd also wished to do this disconnected from normal rules that apply to 501©3s receiving funds in this state, which, apart from the validity or not of their ideas, reflects on the values of ConnectEd, and specifically, Mr. Hoachlander (and the leadership of The James Irvine Foundation), in that it’s (a) illegal and (b) shows dishonesty.

For more information, see earlier post on “ConnectEd” and my parallel ““DISCONNECTED!” — More on ConnectEd (2006ff nonprofit) and WestEd (1995ff JPA claiming to be since 1966). Can YOU Follow the Connections, Find and Correlate the Financial Statements, and Name the EndGame(s)?” post upcoming.  Or research the network, the charitable registry, and the respective tax returns yourself, but I have looked, and summarized….and provided links to what I’m summarizing there.


Who or what is “WestEd” …. (then I look again at the James Irvine Foundation) (For readers living elsewhere, I’ll bet there’s something comparable and regional for Eastern, MidWest, or Southern/Southeast USA states also, so looking at this example is still worthwhile).

So, the background of two significant players — one representing the “(or Four)” nonprofit referenced in this title — to be found now at: “DISCONNECTED!” — More on ConnectEd (2006ff nonprofit) and WestEd (1995ff JPA claiming to be since 1966). Can YOU Follow the Connections, Find and Correlate the Financial Statements, and Name the EndGame(s)? (case-sensitive shortlink ends “-6k7”).


More on “COMMUNITIES in SCHOOLS” (“CIS”) which would be an “(…or Five)” in this title.  The fourth nonprofit the title referred to was ConnectEd.   Another topic which came up in “Round 1” (this blog) under “Communities in Schools” is one of its well-known subcontractors.  However, this is another look at patterns shown in Form 990 filings.

And by “IRS Filings” I mean for the largest among the network, which is the ‘National’ CIS.

Constantly demanding more funding for the schools, to put “Communities in Schools“* or to improve them, or expand them, and attempting to close off the exit ramps to something better for low-income parents, as the NAACP submitted a position statement on just this past October, is inappropriate until proper account for what IS going in and HAS gone in is provided in coherent form to the public.  

The next “**” relates to the Communities in Schools quote, at top of blog, above, but before looking at that ** regarding the subcontractor comes a look at “the books.”

COMMUNITIES IN SCHOOLS

(Maybe “and a Fifth” Nonprofits, For the Record..)

For a glimpse of the similar but not identically named 501©3s presumably in this network (or, see their main website for an official look).  Know from the Form 990 that the organization purpose is to warmly wrap students with supportive (presumably “community”) services while in school so they can succeed:

SURROUND STUDENTS WITH A COMMUNITY OF SUPPORT AND EMPOWER THEM TO STAY IN SCHOOL AND ACHIEVE IN LIFE

ABOUT THAT CAUSE-based CONCEPT, HOW RELATED ARE THOSE TWO CONCEPTS? IS IT EVEN A COHERENT STATEMENT?  DOES IT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE EXCEPTIONS, OR IS IT ACTUALLY, WITHOUT SAYING SO, PERPETUATING A HISTORIC TREND IN STANDARDIZING AND CONTROLLING US EDUCATION (AND THROUGH IT POPULATION), DESPITE SOME RELAXATION OF THE ORIGINAL MOTIVATION– KEEPING THE POOR AND MINORITIES AWAY FROM THE ELITE, AND KEEPING THE WOMEN OUT OF THE HIGHER-PAYING PROFESSIONS (TOO), PERIOD.

[The section in “Pink, fine print” with a few Wiki (and maybe one other) images came up as an “FYI” — for further consideration when dealing with nationalizing, privatizing, and moving the improvement process into proprietary hands (which these nonprofits, basically all of them, seek to do) — it’s about control of the masses through networked organizations…].  Below the section in light-pink background, I then show the Communities In Schools tax returns (National only — after displaying a taste of how many of them seem to exist), and a closer look with at least 7 annotated images from the tax returns ONLY. These tell a somewhat different story.].

Just to be a little argumentative — but this is making a claim that staying in school and achieving in life are truly related.  Generally speaking, yes.  100%?  Not by a long shot.  What about tech giants entrepreneurs (serial and otherwise), creative sorts including architects, artists, film, and of course musicians?   A reference I found on musicians and the NEA’s 1904 (? or so) “COMMITTEE OF TEN” brings this up again, along with the major reform (involving the AMA) of medical education in the USA, along a model espoused by — this always seems to happen — an industrious, smart, and zealous individual whose own life history did not follow the standard “more schooling = better success.”  In fact, he was the first one in his family of immigrants to graduate from college, and did so at age 19.  But we are graduating people from HIGH school at age 17 and 18, often. Read on…

There’s not necessarily a 1:1 correspondence with staying in school (it also depends on which schools…) and achieving in life (which is also subject to a variety of definitions), however as someone who DID stay in school (although before completing college, I took one year off to work in the field, getting (to be honest) bored with the theoretical pedagogical talks.  I then worked some years, went and got another degree, and then came to California and made an extremely poor choice of spouse, stuck with that as long as I could (safely), including raising children, continued working in the ORIGINAL field again (which had fought to keep viable throughout, including throughout that marriage), and it took a combination of family courts, and a sequence of increasingly felonious acts to force me out of it.  What I’m saying is, some types of people (and I was one — although not in the field of business, but in the arts — who don’t need to “discover themselves” or their life’s work starting somewhere between 18 and 22 years old. Some of (us) know by the time we’re 14 or 15, and others, earlier.

BusinessInsider.com (Jan. 19, 2011, by “Matthew Toren, Young Entrepreneur”) Top 100 Entrepreneurs Who Made Millions without a College Degree (and some without a high school degree either, turns out).  Besides Andrew Carenegie, Henry Ford, John D. Rockefeller, Sr. and Bill Gates (and Ben Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Edison, etc.) this list is still worth a look.  See also:  Larry Ellison, John Mackey (founded Whole Foods), Jay Van Andel (co-founder Amway), Richard DeVos (the other co-founder of Amway — see also “BETSY DeVOS” in this post!…), Michael Dell (Dell Computer), “Richard Branson, billionaire founder of Virgin Records, Virgin Atlantic Airways, Virgin Mobile, and more. Dropped out of high school at 16,” Steve Wozniak (co-founder APPPLE), Theodore Waitt (Gateway computers.  A WAITT Institute against domestic violence noted in this blog, working alongside the FVPF (Futures w/o Violence) model, naturally)… Wolfgang Puck, chef, owner of 16 restaurants and 80 bistros. Quit school at the age of 14.

I noticed a subcontractor for CIS — Ogilvy (Advertising) one year.  Guess who else didn’t complete college: ” David Ogilvy, advertising executive and copywriter . Was expelled from Oxford University at the age of 20.”

Not to mention:  Frank Lloyd Wright (never attended high school!) and George Eastman (inventor of Kodak).  etc.

ANOTHER 2011 Article (just came up in the search results):  Forbes 400 Self-Made Billionaires Who Said No To College (9/23/2011, Contrib. Cheryl Isaac).  Any more lists will continue to have high overlap.  But I think we can notice that most of the formed companies, took the companies public (or didn’t) and at some point in time, also sold one or more of their companies. One thing they were not life-time specialized in: lifetime employment in someone else’s corporation!

While I’m here, about the artist (actor, musician, etc.) dropouts, here’s from “Thinkingmusician.com” (October 2014) which reminds us where the K-12 (with the 8-12 High School) part came from, and in the link to its Wiki, and that Wiki’s “Flexner Report” how doors which were starting to open to US Medical schools for women (and blacks) were slammed, most of them, shut again. The report was early 1900s).

(Wiki) “The Committee of Ten was a working group of educators that, in 1892, recommended the standardization of American high school curriculum. …

In the United States, by the late 1800s, a desire for educational standardization had manifested across the country.[1] Across the nation and within communities, there were competing academic philosophies which the Committee of Ten aimed to resolve. One philosophy favored rote memorization, whereas another favored critical thinking. One philosophy designated American high schools as institutions that would divide students into college-bound and working-trades groups from the start; these institutions sometimes further divided students based on race or ethnic background. Another philosophy attempted to provide standardized courses for all students. Somewhat similarly, another philosophy promoted classic Latin/Greek studies, whereas other philosophies stressed practical studies.

Membership of the Committee of Ten[edit]
To resolve these issues, the National Education Association formed The 1892 Committee of Ten. The committee was largely composed of representatives of higher education. Its subgroups, consisting of eight to ten members each, were convened by the following individuals:[2]

 

Charles William Eliot, President of Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts Chairman (Harvard admitted women WHEN? after 1960….)
William T. Harris, Commissioner of Education, Washington, D.C.

James B. Angell, President of the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
John Tetlow, Head Master of the Girls’ High School, Boston, Massachusetts
James M. Taylor, President of Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, New York  [Vassar, all-women 1861 – 1969 was an answer to Yale’s emphatic “NO, we’re NOT going co-ed”] (Until the 1960s…].   It was still an elite college, see “Seven Sisters” (Ivy League), etc.

Oscar D. Robinson, Principal of the High School, Albany, New York
James H. Baker, President of the University of Colorado, Boulder, Colorado
Richard Henry Jesse, President of the University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
James C. Mackenzie, Head Master of the Lawrenceville School, Lawrenceville, New Jersey  [Private all-boys, near Princeton]
Henry C. King, Professor in Oberlin College, Oberlin, Ohio  [[probably the only private, co-ed college at the time on the list, Also known for its longstanding music conservatory… early and since..]].

SEE ALSO:   Flexner Report (1910, Carnegie sponsorship)…MEDICAL EDUCATION in the U.S.

The Flexner Report[1] is a book-length study of medical education in the United States and Canada, written by Abraham Flexner and published in 1910 under the aegis of the Carnegie Foundation. Many aspects of the present-day American medical profession stem from the Flexner Report and its aftermath.

The Report (also called Carnegie Foundation Bulletin Number Four) called on American medical schools to enact higher admission and graduation standards, and to adhere strictly to the protocols of mainstream science in their teaching and research. Many American medical schools fell short of the standard advocated in the Flexner Report and, subsequent to its publication, nearly half of such schools merged or were closed outright. Colleges in electrotherapy were closed. The Report also concluded that there were too many medical schools in the USA, and that too many doctors were being trained. A repercussion of the Flexner Report, resulting from the closure or consolidation of university training, was reversion of American universities to male-only admittance programs to accommodate a smaller admission pool. Universities had begun opening and expanding female admissions as part of women’s and co-educational facilities only in the mid-to-latter part of the 19th century with the founding of co-educational Oberlin College in 1833 and private colleges such as Vassar College and Pembroke College.

The Flexner Report as encouraged by the CME (Council on Medical Education), organized by the AMA (American Medical Association)…..Abraham Flexner’s own education (He had less, rather than more, education, but financed those of his brothers):
Generally speaking, the council strove to improve the quality of medical students, looking to draw from the society of upperclass, educated students.[3] In 1908, the CME asked the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching to survey American medical education, so as to promote the CME’s reformist agenda and hasten the elimination of medical schools that failed to meet the CME’s standards. The president of the Carnegie Foundation, Henry Pritchett, a staunch advocate of medical school reform, chose Abraham Flexner to conduct the survey. Flexner was not a physician, scientist, or a medical educator, although he held a bachelor of arts degree and operated a for-profit school in Louisville, Kentucky.[4]
See also theory that the poor and Negros were a threat to middle-class whites because they were dirty and germ-infested.  The page (right below this expert) goes on to describe subsequent sponsorship from the Rockefeller Foundation.
Abraham Flexner was the first in his family to complete college (6th of 9 children of German Immigrants).  Among his many successes including (with help from his own private, for-profit experimental school, apparently) helped get his brothers AND sister to college (Bryn Mawyr) after graduating himself with a bachelors’ at only age 19.  He also was one of the founders of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (IAS).

Wiki on Abraham Flexner (whose 1910 “Flexner Report” sponsored by Carnegie Foundation (for AMA’s CME) helped reform American (esp. USA) medical education.

“[FLEXNER’s page shows his book frequently quoted Henry Pritchett of Carnegie; they eventualy met.]After graduating from Johns Hopkins University in two years with a degree in classics, Flexner returned to Louisville to teach classics at Louisville Male High School. Four years later, Flexner founded a private school in which he would test his growing ideas about education. Flexner opposed the standard model of education that focused on mental discipline and a rigid structure. Moreover, “Mr. Flexner’s School” did not give out traditional grades, used no standard curriculum, refused to impose examinations on students, and kept no academic record of students. Instead, it promoted small learning groups, individual development, and a more hands-on approach to education. Graduates of his school were soon accepted at leading colleges, and his teaching style began to attract considerable attention.[2] [It doesn’t say, but was this private school ALSO all-male?]

Wiki on Abraham Flexner — approaching Bambergers to help start the IAS and bring over Nazi- persecuted Jews (see also eventually Albert Einstein)

While prejudice against Jews was wrong, according to this, against blacks it was OK.  Again, it was Carnegie, Rockefeller, and obviously AMA/CME support of Flexner which facilitated this medical school reform, implicit with the premises of racial inferiority (let alone gender issues):

Impact on African-American doctors and patients[edit]

Flexner viewed blacks as inferior and advocated closing all but two of the historically black medical schools. His opinions were followed and only Howard and Meharry were left open, while five other schools were closed. His perspective was that black doctors should only treat black patients and should serve roles subservient to white physicians. The closure of these schools and the fact that black students were not admitted to many medical schools in the USA for 50 years after Flexner has contributed to the low numbers of American born physicians of color and the ramifications are still felt more than a 100 years later.[14]

 Committee of Seven, American Historical Association, 1896-1898  (from “Committee of Ten” Wiki, above).
—–

SO, when I am writing not about the medical schools, or colleges, but about a 21st (not 20th, although it started obviously then, too) push to standardize — using the new technology available for this — the US education system (primarily PUBLIC), and a tax-exempt says, “we just wanna support students and help them achieve in school and life” this encompassing statement doesn’t address the historic and powerful segregation of (the powerful) the women, the minorities, and the poor, from the elite and destined to come up with the ideas to run the planet.


Flexner himself ran a proprietary college prep school, which helped himself and his family in life.

Yet when it came to medical schools, he wanted the proprietary ones shut down.  On the other hand, in the US, Johns Hopkins (Baltimore area, FYI) — which he’d got his undergraduate at, and another sibling had attended — met the qualifications.  American universities were t copy the European ones.

Are the “movers and shakers” in this country now enlightened, had a change of heart, reformed, and no longer into preservation of the elite of society, with a caste-preserving plan for training some, but ensuring less (rather than more) competition at the highest echelons of intergenerational transmission of corporate, global wealth preservation?

If LESS, not MORE schooling worked so well for those with the guts, grits, and (face it) making or taking opportunity where it was found — why is MORE schooling (but improved according to this business model, or paradigm shift) — such a great idea for everyone else?

Anyhow, now for the CIS (National) tax returns…..




I had to specify “(National)” because there is a network of similarly named entities, and the National is obviously (at least a certain year I looked -2011) helping support many of them financially.  It also is the largest, and is legal domicile Georgia with a Virginia address (per its returns).

Here’s a printout of a simple 990-search of “Communities in Schools,” then sorted (just click on column header) large to small by Total (Gross) assets held.  The National Office comes up on top, but look how many there are, with assets over 2 or 3 million.  Where are those assets being held by these privately controlled, 501©3s (presumably), these nonprofits?  And who’s sponsoring them, by and large?

Searched 990finder on April 1, 2017, then sorted by assets. No years filter (there will be some repetition), and this is just page 1 of results (in two parts). Org. name links not active — repeat the search yourself for active links. Use any “Search Again” link in this post.


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


The National Office (labeled Virginia (VA) but the form says legal domicile GA, and around since 1977) is decreasing in assets probably because of a decrease in receipts to prop it up — last three years (the most recent year shown, also, is only FY 2014) under the same principal officer (p.1 Header listing) Daniel J. Cardinali, showed $46M, $24M, then $21M gross receipts.

Total results: 3Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR Form PP TOTAL
ASSETS
EIN
Communities in Schools National Office VA 2015 990 39 $51,376,312 58-1289174
Communities in Schools National Office VA 2014 990 39 $54,342,908 58-1289174
Communities in Schools National Office VA 2013 990 33 $56,148,386 58-1289174

A series of images matched by corresponding links to the matching “pdf” (for full-size viewing if necessary) will be numbered, but not separately inserted under each caption.  They should be self-explanatory, as they are Annotated…Many of these are looking at the bottom rows (FY2012) return, not the top one, and at least one looks at FYr2011 (which had $8M in grants distributed out to other CIS nonprofits in the network):

1 CIS (Nat’l, EIN#581289174) Yr2012 Revs-Expns~SeePrior v Current ##s (LL8-19) 2017-04-01 at 11.53AM <>

1 CIS Revs+Exps (Lns 8-19) Yr 2012

2 CIS Nat’l (EIN#581289174) FYr2012 IRS PtX ASSETS (ll7-16 only, see Line 11 PublicTraded) 2017-04-01 at 12.39PM <>

2 CIS PtX Balance Sheet, ASSETS (Lns 7-16 only, Note Line 11) Yr 2012

3 CIS Nat’l (EIN#581289174) YR 2012 showing 1.6M Officers (3, one got 350K) + emp’ees (6 more)(2017-04-01 at 11.54AM<>

3 CIS Yr 2012 Pt VIIA Officers ($1.6M total, one got $350K)

4 CIS Nat’l (EIN#581289174) YR 2012 showing VIIB IndepContractors (MDRC ca 471K + Wm Milliken 197K) + VIII Line1 (Private contribs 31’8M, govt 5’6M, noncash 1M)(ScreenShot 2017-04-01@12. <>

4 CIS Nat’l Yr 2012, Pt VIIB Subcontractors – VIII Line 1 (showing$31.8 Priv, $5.6M Govt) annotated!

 



 

 

 

 

 

5-CIS Nat’l (EIN# 581289174)IRS SchedA (Suppt over 5yrs) showing $50M [L5-col(f)] out of $122M was private ~exceeds 2%~ (ScrnShot 2017-APR-01 @12.37PM <>

5 CIS Nat’l SCHED A (support over 5 yrs showing $50M of $122M is Private Persons In Excess of 2% Contribs, also a doubling in size in just 2 yrs

6-CIS Nat’l (EIN# 581289174 )Sched D(?) Endowmt Fund (Grew mostly thru contribs fr $1M to $29M in 3 yrs, per 2012 IRS return)(2017APR01@ 12.38PM <>

 

6- CIS (Yr2012) Sched D – showing Endowmt Fund grew $1m to $29M in just 3 yrs (!)

Sched-I is ~See Add’tl Data Table~ (Yr2011 total is $8M grants!) for CIS Nat’l (VA, EIN#518912794) Screen Shot 2017-04-01 at 2.49PM <>

Sched I (form) CIS Yr 2012 they’ve done a “See Add”tl Table — and will spit out 2-3 grants per page covering $8M of donations (Yr 2012)! (See also complete pdf of grantees annotated cover   page of the same as a png.)

 

 

 

 

CIS Annotat’d (Comm’ties In Schools Nat’l~ EIN#581289174) SchedI 8MM Grants (pp26-59 spat out 1-3@pg) MOST to CIS (affiliate entities) Return sorts Grant Dlrs Large~>Small (Viewed Apr1 2 (<==pp. 26-59 are Here)

Sched I (re: $8M of grantees) CIS Yr 2011, from “Additional Table”) Page 1 only shows two largest for +/- $750K each.  Related pdf (link) shows them all, <=with first pg (p.26) only annotated)




NOW, ABOUT THAT SUBCONTRACTOR

**Speaking of high-powered contractors: that earlier (11/18/2016) post, is where I found and looked into more about “Bridgespan.”  Bridgespan as a subcontractor profits from the “let’s transform education” process as run through nonprofits.
It might be good to review that post and the background of the profits in consulting (as a nonprofit) to the nonprofits (targeting public schools transformation) agenda involved:  Dominate each upcoming field of specialization by creating the field was part of the strategy of Bridgespan’s investment (in leading-edge nonprofits, i.e., philanthropy) business model, taken by Bill Bain & associates from a page or several in the Boston Consulting Group (“BCG”) playbook.  Sort investments into how well they produce, (“cash cows, stars, questions marks and dogs”); dump the dogs, keep the [rock] stars….  And, get at least one of consulting group’s personnel onto the taken-over company (here, nonprofit) on the board of directors or top management position, advise on the implementation of the recommended solutions, not just marketing them.  
[That last sentence added from original description:  it’s part of the model, and it comes from “LBO” takeover days.  While this may look like philanthropy, from a financial perspective, it looks a lot like ownership and basically, still primarily personal profit for leadership of the consulting firms].

(**I brought in that background-color just to remind it relates to the first quote of this post, which was referring to “Communities In Schools”…)

 

THIS NEXT SHORT SECTION Introduces what I moved to its own post, under the title:

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 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”.)


This post was published first (March 30, 2017; I am writing April 2) so what follows may be a review or pre/view — but the material is not identical.  I have more on the On-line in which the connection to Omidyar Entities (with the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan consulting model, apparently), which itself is more than “odd,” and a reminder to, in general, ALWAYS be aware when reading on-line, of which entity is sponsoring the website, and possibly why.  WHY are they so intent, often as a nonprofit, on promoting the field (in this case, in Texas) of nonprofits.  And if this is coming at us, sponsored, from all angles (“how great it is,”), does another possible interpretation than love of mankind and altruisem, exist?

Does perhaps tax-avoidance and or complete tax-evasion exist?  IS concealment of certain networks as having such a purpose individually and collectively a major part of the nonprofit sector itself?    Is it worth taking a look at what’s there if that is even remotely possible? (I say, yes).

My original “Yes,” came from seeing the influence of this sector on fairness of family court proceedings, the set-up of “out-come based” hearings where justice and due process was not the overall means, but “increased noncustodial parenting time” allegedly “to increase child support payments” allegedly to “reduce the burden on the public of all those welfare recipients.”

That’s how I first became aware of it, and the closer one looks, the more oddities and less accountability surfaces, to the point it has shown itself to be a basic, a foundational issue.


BCG utilizing this strategy under its leader Henderson was then raided by one of its “lieutenants,” Bill Bain, from which came Bain & Company.  For more information, FundingUniverse (understanding this will generally only cover up to year 2000 for any company) Bain & Company and Boston Consulting Group.  

See also HERE (Harvard Business School “Case Study” abstract) to acknowledge the Bridgespan/Bain startup involved a Harvard Professor (Jeff Bradach) who took time off Harvard to help start it up.  In mid-November 2016 post I had linked (link now broken) I believe it was to this 21-page case study (Year 2000, by Allen Grossman; John Kalafatas) in my prior post.  The link is since invalid, and this version is selling six months of access to it for $8.95 (!) unless, perhaps you are an “Educator.”

Click for full-sized pdf of “HBS 2000 Abstract on Bain Bradach + Bridgespan startup” (HBS=Harvard Business School)

Looking for another version or similar article, I found a Texas “NONPROFITS” announcing a HBR (Harvard Business Review) / Bridgespan partnership in “Online Insight Center” with other partners (see list) including the Omidyar Network.  This is from 2013 and is still talking about accelerating social impact philanthropy:

Harvard Business Review, The Bridgespan Group Partner to Launch Online Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact (at TXNP.org, Article #15493)
The Bridgespan Group January, 2013

The Bridgespan Group and Harvard Business Review [[“HBR”]] today announced the launch of the Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact, an online resource published on HBR.org that will feature the latest and best thinking on social enterprise. Supported by the Omidyar Network, this partnership will provide a platform for the field’s global leaders to share stories and lessons on the relationship between for-profit ventures and social change. The Insight Center will feature blogs, full-length articles, and interactive webinars from prominent names in the industry.

Yes, it is indeed an “industry…”

Among the organizations that will be contributing content to the site in addition to Harvard Business Review and The Bridgespan Group are Omidyar Network, IBM, Center for Effective Philanthropy, Harvard Business School’s Social Enterprise Initiative, INSEAD’s Social Enterprise Center, World Business Council on Sustainable Development, Duke’s CASE program, Intel, General Electric and a host of nonprofits, foundations, and individuals who have worked on both sides of the private sector and nonprofit aisles. Topics will cover a range of issues including: how impact investing is about to evolve; how crowdsourcing is changing funding for social change; how nonprofit startup challenges differ from for-profit startups; and discussions on prevailing ways to measure social value.

<> INSEAD = “The Business School for the World” with campuses in Europe (France), Asia (Singapore) and Middle East (Abu Dhabi) and alliances with top institutions.  Since 1998 there is also a “Foundation INSEAD,” (Honorary President, Olivier Gisdard d’Estaing: “The ‘Fondation INSEAD’ was created in 1998 and since its inception pursues the aim of fostering in-depth business knowledge and ensuring its diffusion to the public on an international scale. The foundation contributes to the excellence and development of the school by acting in several areas such as funding research programmes, granting scholarships to INSEAD candidates, and disseminating research findings to an international audience.”

Here’s some press from OmidyarNetwork.com — after three months of the project.  Hardly surprising, a well-known British Venture Capitalist, Sir Roger Cohen (Roger Mourad Cohen to be more precise) is quoted on promoting the idea, reminding me of a years-old post on another of my blogs (though this is the oldest continuing one), “From Oxford to Harvard to D.C. — Healing Fueling, Feeding (and Vaccinating) the World” (or similar title, at Cold, Hard.Fact$; it should be listed on the top banner). Also reminds me of a much more recent one here, “Should the USA really join the Commonwealth of Nations?

{From my 10/25/2012 post on the other blog, where I’d actually been doing a drill-down on one of the largest DC-based nonprofits I could find (to make a point about nonprofits) (GAVI Campaign or Alliance), which turned out to be involved with vaccines, pharmaceuticals (obviously), hardware to get the vaccines inside people (PowderJect) and a major industry trade organization (BIO).  Looking at Powderject led me to the Brit Lord Paul Drayson, who had (eventually) a position at the fledgling SAID school of business (first image), and a quick look at that school (second image), which quickly led to a former Harvard economics and MBA grad (and professor there of 22 yrs? see image), Peter Tufano.  I’m saying this before quoting a section from a SAID Case Study on “BSC” (Big Society Capital).  You can notice in bottom of fine print on second image (excerpt from my earlier post) that they are (of course) problem-solving what to do with the poor and speculating on the investment sector available in “low-income households.”  It shouldn’t be very hard to speculate how ‘SIF funding” came “Across the Pond” in this context!

Two images (one excerpt above the other) from this post (it’s my writing, except where being quoted). Notice the former positions of the British Lord Drayson (below), and the benefactor of the business school (above) with Peter Tufano reference. In reverse order in actual post, no significance to which is posted here first:

Kate Milway of Bridgespan, Dec. 2012, I guess gets to capitalize on her gender — they’re “Birthing” a new public information space:

The babe’s name is The “HBR-Bridgespan Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact” — a blog-centric digital space. Here, voices from the for-profit and nonprofit sectors have equal footing in the interest of raising the most important questions related to strategy, funding, talent, and technology that propel social innovation. Here, leading lights in impact investing can be in conversation with the next generation of leaders in social enterprise around questions such as:

Not even consulted — people not in those social circles.  They are the ones about to be collaborated (practiced) upon.  What about plain old employees who don’t, in the normal course of life, subscribe to Harvard Business Review, or may not have (yet) caught onto Bridgespan, or even that the US Government is into the “Social Innovation Fund” with big-payers = big players = accelerated social change OUR way…?  (see next image):

Bridgespan’s “Birth Alert” on the Insight Center

On-line Announcement of Completed 3-month pilot

<>1-InsightCtr on Scaling Social Impact PILOT (OmidyarNtwk Apr 15 2013 announcemt) (2017Apr02 at 1.49PM) <> 2-InsightCtr on Scaling Social Impact PILOT (OmidyarNtwk Apr 15 2013 announcemt) (2017Apr02 at 1.50PM) (next two images, plus 3rd is page footer)

1- Insight Center (Omidyar Network re Pilot Project @ April 15, 2013 referencing Brit VC entrepreneur Sir Ronald Cohen)

Funny, the first link of the article, named after the article content, leads to a broken link at HBR (only 4 yrs later!).  No redirect.  Why?  This was the link, try yourself!

https://hbr.org/special-collections/insight/scaling-social-impact
What I just got on clicking:

Broken link for OmidyarNetwork link to a HBR on-line resource it was promoting: https://hbr.org/special-collections/insight/scaling-social-impact

2-Insight Cntr (OmidyarNtwk announcemt April 15, 2013)

Footer page to above article “Newsroom”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sir Ronald Cohen (he’s famous in investment, including in social innovation, circles; there are plenty of articles.  Several are by FT.com (The Financial Times which, as I understand it, is a UK publication).  Among them, an interview explaining his family history, how he came to England after crackdown in Egypt, how he got to Oxford, and later Harvard, and (current?) interests in investing in the West Bank (Palestine).  I ran out of my “Pageviews without subscriptions” but readers of this blog, searching, may get to a few of them.  Accordingly, I put up some non-FT sources also.

FT.com doesn’t like extensive quotes, or cut-and-paste, but this next link from a 2007 article shows again, so much of this is about taxation.  (Read it — self-explanatory!) Here, Sir Cohen is called “Buy Out Chief” and, though wealth is major, he’s working with a smaller venture capital fund.  Naturally, the mega-funds maybe should have their incentives (reduced capital gains taxes from 40 to 10 percent) — but not the smaller funds.  He said this with a background representing, in good part, the industry, and at a time it was coming under government scrutiny for, I gather, exorbitant profits while being subsidized/incentivized through tax breaks.

…Under his aegis, Apax invested in start-ups including PPL Therapeutical, which cloned Dolly the sheep, and the computing group Autonomy, as well as the Virgin Radio and Waterstone’s book chain buyouts.

Few have done so much to establish private equity as Cohen, who throws fabulous parties at his homes in Notting Hill, Manhattan and Cannes. Jon Moulton, another founder, says: “People either like him or hate him. But at the very least you have to say that he was the most effective chairman of the British Venture Capital Association.”

When Cohen and three friends set up Apax in 1971, he was just 26 and private financiers were regarded as risk-taking corporate raiders. While vestiges of this reputation remain, private equity – used to buy struggling firms as well as provide seed-financing for new ones – now attracts hundreds of millions in pension fund and other institutional money. As Cohen says: “It has moved from the periphery to the mainstream.”

[Para. out of order, from higher in article]: “I left [Apax] in order to devote my efforts to social investment, among other things.”

The “other things” include an effort to help the Middle East crisis by funding Palestinian businesses, an attempt to “work out where the investment management business is going”, and a book aimed at helping entrepreneurs avoid common pitfalls. Worth some £250m, he is a major Labour donor. And next week he is set to announce the results of an official review into the £5bn left unclaimed in British bank accounts.

This link, I would follow-up separately.  I already made a note of the SAID School of Business (a donor-funded-startup school at Oxford University), (Long and Winding Rhodes Nov. 2012, section referencing “From Oxford to Harvard to D.C.” October 25 post) and have been (actually) sounding the alarm in the US on the ramifications of “SIF” (Social Impact Funding” on this country.

Oxford University’s vision for a business school was made possible by a landmark donation by Mr Wafic Saïd. Mr Saïd, through the Saïd Business School Foundation, remains a generous supporter of the School having made further significant donations for the Thatcher Business Education Centre the establishment of a Strategic Development Fund and ongoing support for scholarships.

Other founding benefactors include: (see link to read; includes some American).

History and vision: (Its doors opened in 1996… combination of donations making possible the facilities).

Saïd Business School was founded in 1996, and since then has become one of the highest ranking business schools in the world with a reputation for entrepreneurship and innovative business education. The history of business at Oxford dates back to 1965 when the Oxford Centre for Management Studies, later Templeton College and now Green-Templeton College, was founded.

In 1988, a committee chaired by Sir Claus Moser recommended that the University create a new School of Management Studies and in 1990 the University passed a resolution establishing the School. The first Director was Dr Clark Brundin who had previously been Vice-Chancellor of Warwick University and he, together with a number of newly appointed faculty and staff members, including the first professor, Colin Mayer, helped to establish the embryonic School.

A new joint undergraduate degree in economics and management was launched in 1994 and in 1996 Saïd Business School opened its doors to its first MBA students in the Radcliffe Infirmary while it was still a fully operating hospital in the centre of Oxford.

We now have two sites: Park End Street and Egrove Park.

Our city centre, Park End Street building was constructed on the site of the Oxford Rewley Road Railway Station (pictured above) which dates back to 1844. It opened in 2001 as the result of a £23 million benefaction from businessman and philanthropist Wafic Saïd.  More recently, a new wing of the school was opened in late 2012 and was formally inaugurated by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales on 4th February 2013.

The state-of-art design of Park End Street is the work of leading architects, Jeremy Dixon and Edward Jones, also responsible for the Royal Opera House in London.  …

Our Egrove Park campus is located on a bucolic farm setting and is used for Executive Education.  Built in 1967, in a modernist style, the campus has a combination of teaching, conference, residential, and recreational spaces.

I had learned about this first (probably) when the name Peter Tufano came up:

From SAID School of Business

 

An October 2016 article under the SAID School, talk about “Big Society Capital” (BSC) which is a wholesale social investment bank.  It seems well-written, and (like I do sometimes) rather than interviewing people for in-hindsight, looks at some of the players as the thing developed.  Sir Ronald Cohen’s name — in positions of authority — is all over this one. Putting the link here is also a way of keeping it in public view.

Excerpts show:  government investment, use of intermediaries, the plan was set in place by those in high, influential positions, and in a way, in secrecy, before beginning operations in 2012. It is hoped that other countries will follow this model (looks like the US already has adopted it…)

[BSC] acts as a wholesale institution, making capital investment into social investment finance intermediaries (SIFIs) that then go on to invest in frontline SSOs. After a significant period of planning, BSC began operations in April 2012. Since then, BSC has played a key role in developing the UK social investment market, both as market participant and market champion. Despite owing its existence to significant government policy support, BSC is an independent financial institution operating separately from the UK Government. BSC represents the first wholesale social investment bank in the world and has created a model that a number of other countries are looking to follow. This case study tells this story of the development and design of BSC.

BSC came into being as the consequence of more than a decade of work by a group of individuals on both the inside and outside of government. This work was undertaken by a committed and persistent group of individuals through a variety of initiatives. Many of these individuals were well established in their own fields, were powerful and well connected and, in some cases, had influence at the highest levels of British politics.  (several pages later…)

PART 1: FROM 2000 TO 2010 The Emergence of Social Investment

As well as the story of BSC as an institution, this case study is the story of the growth of social investment as a new capital market model that has gained traction over the past 10-15 years. The broader concept of social investment has been a feature of the UK policy context since at least 2000. The early incarnations of the idea were concerned with the need to build the capacity of SSOs in the UK to take on more contract-based delivery of public services.

(i.e., privatization of government services, as outsourced to companies, or “Organizations”). Before there was the bank, there was of course the task force.  This SITF was headed by (guess who) and lasted 10 years, with a focuse on (guess what –starting to sound familiar to events in the USA yet?) welfare interventions, intervening earlier, and then building capacity for said interventions.  The key term being “welfare.”:

In wider social policy discourses, ‘social investment’ was understood to mean investing in welfare interventions early to have greater long-term effects. Aligned to this, social investment also became associated with models of investing that aimed to build capacity among what, at the time, was called the ‘third sector’.

One of the flagship initiatives developing this strand of work was the Social Investment Task Force (SITF), which was established in 2000. The SITF was an initiative chaired by Sir Ronald Cohen, the Chairman of Apax Partners and de facto founding father of the Venture Capital industry in the UK as well as a notable philanthropist. The SITF was formed in response to a call from the then Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown for a re-assessment of the role of finance and economics in community development. Specifically, SITF was set up to undertake:

An urgent but considered assessment of the ways in which the UK can achieve a radical improvement in its capacity to create wealth, economic growth, employment and an improved social fabric in its most under-invested, that is to say its poorest, communities.1  [that footnote:  “Social Investment Taskforce (2000), Enterprising Communities: Wealth Beyond Welfare, SITF, p.2 ”  [Next footnote shows there was a 2005 update, and a 2010 “Final Report” under the same title.

Among the strategies or vehicles was CDVF (Community Development Venture Funds), with Bridges Ventures being one of the first.

According to subsequent reports from SITF,2 the Task Force had mixed success in achieving these objectives. The most successful areas of activity were as follows:

  • The first CDVF, Bridges Ventures, was set up in 2002 with £20m of matched investment from the Government. Bridges went on to attract tens of millions of pounds of further investment from the private sector
  • The Charity Commission issued guidance in 2001 and 2002 lending its support to social investment and clarifying the situations in which charities are able to make social investments
  • In 2002 a trade association for CDFIs was established, the Community Development Finance Association (CDFA), which came to represent the majority of CDFIs.

From the WSWS (World Socialist Website, OK, I know, I know, but — talking about sales of peerages), the last paragraph puts a date and time (and regarding the above SITF appointment) to this knighthood:

“[then PM Tony] Blair questioned in cash for peerages probe Dec. 6, 2006 by Chris Marsden.

The interviewing of Prime Minister Tony Blair by two police officers in an ongoing criminal investigation into the alleged sale of honours is historically unprecedented.

Blair tried to conceal his embarrassment by scheduling his meeting to coincide with the release of the long-awaited report by Lord Stevens of the inquiry into the death of Princess Diana. Blair’s advisors have stressed that he acted as a witness and not a suspect. And his apologists in the media have stressed that he was not under caution and that this proves that no prosecution is likely. But whatever damage limitation is attempted, nothing can conceal the stench of corruption and sleaze that surrounds the Labour government. …

The criminal investigation of the “cash for peerages” scandal headed by Assistant Commissioner John Yates, of Scotland Yard, centres on whether millions in secret loans from a number of wealthy businessmen were secured through actual promises of seats in the House of Lords—Britain’s unelected second chamber comprising hereditary peers and life peers nominated by the government and opposition parties. Though political appointees are accepted practice, the blatant sale of peerages would contravene 1925 laws prohibiting the sale of honours and carrying a possible two-year prison sentence.

In the run-up to the 2005 general election, Labour secured around £14 million from rich benefactors as commercial loans, bypassing (or so the party calculated) legislation brought in by the government in 2001. (To prevent this kind of undue influence).

The Treasury has also been implicated in its own honours for favours scandal. Sir Ronald Cohen, a close friend of the chancellor, received a title for “services to the venture capital industry” in 2000. According to Channel 4 News, a “senior Whitehall insider” said officials did not want him to be knighted but given a lesser award. In the same year he received his knighthood, he was appointed by Brown to head the Social Investment Task Force.

Well, isn’t that something….



(A BIT) ABOUT TWO (“ITTY-BITTY”) TEXAS NONPROFITS ANNOUNCING THE BIG HARVARD B.R./BRIDGESPAN/OMIDYAR PARTNERSHIP.  ONE AFTER THE OTHER, OWNERSHIP IN COMMON, AND A “dba” to throw off investigators?

This is all very interesting (and I spent half a day on some of the larger ones — like Omidyar)  but, at the end of the day “WHOis” “TXNP,” the remaining piece of this puzzle was the “clinker.” (Or, it went “clank” in the face of responsibility, corporate or any other ways).  But, I think that’s another post…. It also puts the “Bain/Bridgespan” model in the current (15 years after startup) perspective in this digital age.

One individual, originally her husband, and from time to time a 3rd person ran the Beretta Foundation (until it went status revoked for not filing three years in a row, before which it was showing major negative assets, including one year when Ms. Beretta — showing allegedly an elite prepschool education and time at London School of Economics (or so it’s said) and descended from a famous Texan — paid herself (so says that return) $269K salary; another year, TexasNonprofits® (TXNP) (legal business name, “The Social Responsibility Corporation”) received $300K as the only Donee from The Beretta Foundation, although amazingly they were at the same street address.  [[<==fact-check.  Very few TBF tax returns available to see.  I remember seeing it once, DNF on second look. Screenprints available.].

Total results: 3Search Again.
(Click on the column headers to sort.)

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Beretta Foundation, The TX 2005 990PF 18 $1,078,908.00 23-7014591
Beretta Foundation, The TX 2004 990PF 35 $1,088,338.00 23-7014591
Beretta Foundation, The TX 2003 990PF 24 $1,135,175.00 23-7014591

[Four filename links for four images below]:

Beretta Fndtn (EIN#23014591) Yr 2002 p6 PtVIII OFFICERS — JRB Trustee paid $268K (!!) Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 6.14M

Beretta Fndtn Yr 2002 Jacqueline claims a $268K salary though entity is hemorrhaging money fast and memberships only $10K (6:14pm png)

Beretta Fndtn #237014591 Yr 2002 calls Educational Website an 866,278-value Other Assets (Statemt12) (2017-03-31 at 6.29PM

Showing that the educational database is considered an “other assets” of this foundation (which will quit filing 3 yrs later and get status revoked, but start up a new one with dba “TXNP.org” to represent the database, then talk about how its founder was chairperson of The Beretta Foundatn (claim still up there in 2017…)

Beretta Fndtn Stmt 7 (total) ~Less [414,174] Capitilized Costs to WebSIGHT~explains how it got a Negative 285,860 under Pt1Ln23 Other Exps (EIN#237014591)(2017-03-31 at 6.18PM

How do you get a NEGATIVE “Other Expenses”? “Capitilize” $414K to the “Websight”

Beretta Fndtn Yr2002 Return analyze Exempt-Purpose Income — Membership Dues 10’4K (Only), XVI-B Line# missing, explains this is its charitable purpose 2017-03-31 at 6.16PM

Beretta Fndtn – Purpose & Dues (6:16pm) Charitable Database on Texas Charities for Charitable Organization which support the Charitable purpose of THIS organization …. (red underlines)

The small Beretta Foundation (Beretta and her husband Benjamin Rodriguez, for some years) was feeding the even smaller (under $25K/year) “The Social Responsibility Corporation” from a smallish assets base (under $3M), and charging membership dues.  I was fooled at first because the website is complex and has many articles on it, and of course referencing Harvard, Bridgespan, and some other big-shot philanthropies looks good on the page.   But check out that CorporationWiki (on Jacqueline R. Beretta) including the street addresses (corresponds at least two of them to the nonprofits)  and you’ll find a few more entities by the same person, mostly inactive; apparently they’re getting formed every few years or so and on a rotating business, actually sticking their noses above ground.

Also check out this IRS Revocation of the one entity (for not filing 3 years in a row, as of Nov. 2010.  I couldn’t find a tax return after 2005, so it might have been 4 years in a row before revocation, not posted until 2011.  At the Corporationwiki above, I notice another entity was formed in 2011.  Meanwhile, the ONE entity that’s still active (but has almost no assets, despite charging hefty membership fees, per its website), CorpWiki says started up only in 2004, which the tax returns and org. website seems to confirm.  In fact, I see another one just formed April 9, 2013 (“Dotcom, inc.”) same people, same address (one of them), take a quick look:

<==Dot Com Inc Company Info (TXNP and Friends (a 2013 entity with H-Wife Rodriquez+Beretta) Screen Shot 2017-03-28 at 8.29PM

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

 

 

 

THAT WAS JUST AN ON-LINE,… MOVING ON …..

The Omidyar Network Inc. (formed only in 2004) representing the founders of eBay, is also very much into consulting for the “school transformation” field here and abroad, and is worthy of attention in this context and for following the “Bain/Bridgespan” model of investment, or philanthropy, or in fact, both at the same time.

WHICH I GIVE IT, IN THIS POST (link active; post was published 3/30/2017 and supplemented the next day by about ⅓ more (exploring the first, largest ($4M out of $8M) grantee of the newly formed foundation…Grameen Foundation USA):
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 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”.) 

THE SUBJECT MATTTER OF THIS POST’s TITLE IS BEING CONTINUED ON (WAS MOVED TO):  “(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…) (case-sensitive short-link ending in “-6pr”)” which I am now working to finalize.

(The above material, written later, I felt took priority.  Thank you for patience.  The comments fields at the top of every post remain available for feedback, if relevant to the subject matter.  Whether presenting a personal story or general opinion including “to-the-contrary,” points of reference and/or links to other well-written blogs or sources helps).


One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Reblogged this on World Peace Forum.

    daveyone1

    April 3, 2017 at 3:21 pm


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?...' (posted 3/23 & 3/5/2014). Over 680 posts, Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

iakovos alhadeff

Anti-Propaganda

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

Mom & Kids Need "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: