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

This post Schools for Children of the World, Inc. — Great Theme, Now Here are the Forms 990*  is part of a dynamic duo.  I’m publishing both at once (this, second) after about a week’s attempt to run through the convoluted obstacle courses of more outrageous information (it seems, no matter where I looked) on the various involved partners, advisors, collaborators, and subsequently related entities with the “New National Initiative on School Infrastructures.” (*case-sensitive short-link ending “–6Qq”).

The other post’s title describes in part what I’m doing (for fewer organizations) on this page:

About (here, UCB CC+S’s) Partners, Advisors, Initiatives, Task Forces, Related Work Groups and the URGENT Need to Translate ALL Public/Private Partnership Lingo into Meaningful Bottom-Line Language to Answer ONE Question of Partners (etc.) and the Networked Whole: Honest or Dishonest? (case-sensitive short-link ends “-6T9″)

That one also better explains the context of my interest in Schools for Children of the World  (if read all the way) will show why it matters that (at least from my typical  searches on the entity names) no serious “to the contrary” discussions are happening on this particular group of networked entities with a D.C. anchor in a D.C. nonprofit (and Ford Foundation backing) and the West Coast anchor in at a minimum, University of California Berkeley, under one of its centers run, not too surprisingly, by someone with a penchant for working UN stated goals through USA universities, at our (I’m a citizen…) expense, judging by this one.

No question both posts will be revised after publishing.  I just couldn’t run this in one piece down to the one-yard line (or for a touchdown), so decided to kick it out in hopes of a field goal one way or the other.  Reminder:  I have no research associates, interns, partners, or leadership team partners in this material. WYSIWYG!

Also, this post after starting with tax return details (as I recall where the split happened) significant Secretary of State (in more than one state) filings on “Schools for the World” dutifully reports on that MERGER with DeJong-Richter and Dolinka Group, LLC into “Cooperative Strategies, LLC.”

Who I found, because of that extra piece of dutiful “drill-down” satisfying my personal curiosity on the entities whose names came up, selling the futures of California property tax payers, and other taxpayers in exchange for (of course) fees – in the form of Capital Appreciation Bonds.

But my post doesn’t quite start there.  It starts with “Schools for the Children of the World” and what appears to be its mentor (or inspirational) religious nonprofit, “Heart to the Honduras.”  I look at both, and then take more of a microscope to the incredible assertions of the collective DeJong family members* in maintaining a dual-state incorporation for 5 years, and tossing of an excuse “oops, we didn’t notice!” while engaging in planning for the Beverly Hill United School District. *(I should mention, not one woman’s name has come up associated with the DeJong family name yet; from the business filings; it looks to be father and three? sons)

Today’s other post has a lot to say about the 21st Century School Fund also as I dug a little deeper.  A glance at the blog sidebar shows I’m only producing about two posts a week and (“Recent Posts”) for about how long on this UCB CC+S and friends subject matter.  I’m on it every day, without exception, and stunned at how very weak the accountability is in individual members of network after network.

What I just discovered today (May 23) on the other firm DeJong-Richter just merged into, validates my other misgivings.  These are NOT “the good guys” where public interest is concerned.  They are money-makers for their own kind, and “let’ em eat cake” when it comes to payment time — probably not on their watch.  I also believe that this is one reason some entities are so fascinated with making inroads into “underdeveloped” countries with poverty, conflict, and crisis enough such that they might NOT notice the track record in the home country, USA, of their eager globe-trotting benefactors in planning school infrastructure investments.

Schools for Children of the World,  formed in 2003 per its tax returns, is working on a country-wide master plan for educational facilities construction and investments in particularly the Honduras, also working on building or repairing schools in Nigeria,* Tanzania, and Haiti.  The group, despite its inabilities (?) to file internally consistent, accurate (based on other parts of same year’s returns) or even complete tax returns, (says the entity website) formed versions of SCW also in the Honduras in 2004 and Canada in 2006.

The website also says Wm. DeJong (Dr., Sr.) got inspired in 1996 with his son Todd by “Heart for the Honduras,” after having formed DeJong & Associates (an Ohio “Corporation For Profit”) as “Educational Consultants” in 1992.

Probably what’s meant was “Heart to the Honduras” (<=board of directors) (Staff titles are illuminating),  in Xenia, Ohio, and whose number one goal is to “Form Disciples” and after that, Develop Communities, Cross Cultures, Find Partners, Reach NextGen”:

We believe that everything begins with the calling and forming of disciple leaders who serve as catalysts for Kingdom change in their communities. If we don’t get this part right then everything else we do is rather superficial and short-lived. When Jesus calls us to “follow him” his expectation is that the lives we live will transform the world.

Total results: 3. Search Again (The organization website somehow has a Year 2015 Form 990 while apparently the IRS does not?  This database, Foundation Center in San Francisco, grabs images from the IRS, and they have plenty of Year 2015 tax returns for other groups among their data).

Looking at this religious organization and its practices in setting up a Honduran nonprofits it controls, while encouraging volunteerism for the Kingdom and the cause, functioning primarily (per those returns) on contributions and sweat equity (not program service revenues, and not dividends, interests, or profits from those same contributions stewarded over time to produce revenues), and here, sponsoring international travel and pastor-training as a business expense.

(Schools for Children of the World tax returns say it also sponsored fee-based, semi-annual trips to the same country, primarily).

Heart to the Honduras established a controlled, related organization (“Corazon Para Honduras” Honduran “99-5098391,” filed a Form 8979 to go with the Form 990 for U.S. entities), in which the Ohio 501(c )3 ) maintains, FY2015?, per its Sched D, detailing “Other Investments” under “Assets”) a $1.4M interest, revenue FY2015 $1.08M, while it functions primarily as (it says) a grant-making organization.

That is, $642K grants out of over $1M contributed went by “EFT” (Electronic Funds Transfer) to the related Honduran organization, which distributed it there).  Naturally, it also encourages volunteerism (it cites 700 volunteers to 7 employees).

I printed to pdf format Heart to Honduras’ 2015 Form 990 from the organization’s website, mostly to rotate a few horizontal pages, and add some red and blue annotations to make this point. Notice the title (url filename) from its website makes specific reference to “Not Including Sched B” (excess) contributions. Sometimes organizations provide redacted Schedule Bs showing amounts, but not they donors; this time they did not.

SCHOOLS for CHILDREN OF THE WORLD (tax returns):

SCW’s Form 990 FY2010, with page 1, entity address (“address change” but still claiming OH as its legal domicile) and books in ℅

(and directors Wm. DeJong in Bears, MI + Brent DeJong in Houston, TX) simply omits “Prior Year” column figures, probably because in 2009 (first time?) it used Form 990EZ.  Year 2009 shows an entity address and books in ℅

Mary DeVillers, 4945 Bradenton Avenue,Suite B Dublin,Ohio

(Form 990EZ doesn’t prompt for “Principal Officer” on its Header Info, but next and prior years it was Charles Newman in Naperville, IL)

the Dublin, Ohio address matching DeJong-Richter, it filed a Form 990EZ.

A few images (I just looked it up) on Ohio’s DeJong-Richter, LLC in OHIO show it existed 2006-2017 and is now “Dead,” the details page shows (which is known also separately, and I’ve posted) through a merger with an Irvine California LLC which also in the process changed its name to Cooperative Strategies, LLC.

These images will show the 4945 Bradenton, Dublin, OH address as associated with DeJong-Richter (apparently the “Richter” part is more relevant for that address) and that its original registered agent was DeJong & Associates, Inc. (i.e., a C-Corps vs. an LLC), at a different address.  I’m posting because other references to “DeJong & Associates” in the School Facilities Planning (or financing, or building) context come up scattered between two or three of these posts and on others’ tax returns — such as the 21st Century School Fund’s (as I recall).

In fact looking up “DeJong & Associates, Inc.” also in OH, I found it filed in 1992, started filing for trade name simply “DeJong” in 2003 (renewed in 2009) and as of 2009 was at the Bradenton Avenue, Dublin, OH address.  So I’ll add one pdf, a “png” image for that also, and a second “png” image for its Corporate Details Page:

Click if needed to see better (DeJong & Associates, Inc. (for-profit OH corp.) Details page, 1992-2009 filings.

(From the 2003 tradename filing)

OH SOS DeJong&Associates 3pg Detail showing 4945Bradenton addr + 2009 filing for TradeName simply DEJONG, also WmDeJong signed +Business EDUCATION’L CONSULTANTS

(The above pdf on p3. is signed by William DeJong, shows business “Educational Consultants.”)

(Click if needed to view better) annotated CorpDetails page for DeJong-Richter 2006-2017 from SOS Ohio

Follow the SCW $$ amounts 2009 | 2010:

This FY2009 “Schools for Children of the World, Inc.” Form 990EZ showed revenues of $123K all contributions, no Program Service Revenues;$41,000  (Ln 13) expenses professional fees and other contractors, and $105K to “other project expenses” (for which Forms EZ don’t require details), resulting in a deficit, and bringing down their net assets to $91K.

The next year, FY2010, there are almost double the amount of grants ($259K) TO SCW, and it decides to give away, coincidentally?, $91K, in the process of this “detailed” description of program service accomplishments (making total expenses just over the amount of contributions), now that a full-sized Form 990 is being filed again, writes only:

4a (Code ) (Expenses $ 256,530 including grants of $ 91,001 ) (Revenue $

SEMI-ANNUAL TRIPS TO HONDURAS, HAITI AND AFRICA -VOLUNTEERS CONSIST OF ARCHITECTS AND PLANNERS THAT LEND THEIR KNOWLEDGE IN PLANNING, DESIGNING, AND CONSTRUCTING NEW SCHHOLS (sic) AND RENOVATING EXISTING SCHOOLS

$91K to whom?  The Form declines to state, however its Schedule F says that the entire program service expenses were in the Honduras only — not in trips (other returns show several thousand dollars charged for such trips, whether $41K, $58K dep. on the year), and $91,001 was wired there (next two images):

SCW Form 990 FY2010. Clicking image leads to the whole tax return; image is of Sched F Pt I (Activities outside the US) (only line -item that page)Columns b+ c (“Number of offices in the region” + Number of employees or agents in region or independent contractors”) are left blank.

SCW Form 990 FY2010. Clicking image leads to the whole tax return; image is of Sched F Pt II ( Grants and Other Assistance to Organizations or Entities Outside the United States ) (only line -item that page)Columns a + b (” NAME OF ORGANIZATION” + “IRS Section and EIN# if applicable” are left blank! (By having chosen Pt II, not Pt III (individuals) the filer is saying, 91K shown by check went to some org. or entity.  So, who was the payee?

FY2010 is marked “address change” (to Colorado) at the top, attributes $160K (57%) of its functional expenses to “Pt. IX Line 11g** Other professional Services” which are supposed to be explained if over 10%.” (Actually, I see this phrase showing up around 2013, but am not taking time to further research now:

**The form seems hand-produced, in that a normal Form 990 Pt. IX for that year would show Line 11 title with lines a,b,c,d,e,f,g blank.  This version, there is no category title (Professional fees, non-employees) and the Line # shown is 10, not 11.  Example from a different organization, same year, same IRS Form 990:

SCW FY2010 just skips a line# (and its title), goes from 10 to 12. Would you like any entity building schools for kids to just mis-count, not proof their own work? How’d it happen?[Clicking image leads to the whole Form 990 + its schedules]

This is 21stCSchools Fund showing Line count 10, 11 (Fees for services, non-employees) by pre-typed categories a,b,c,d,e,f,g “Other”)

Perhaps the “Other Professional Services” there represents another family entity, “Alpine Solutions, LLC” however no $$ amount is given.  In spending $256K total all in the Honduras, this includes $91,000 grants which is wired there — but no organization is named as recipient where the IRS form prompts this but, “schoolsforchildren.org” says there was an SCW: Honduras since 2004).

(More 2010 tax return cont’d. below)

Schedule L, FY2010:  “Business Transactions with Interested Persons” prompts for a description of the transaction (per Schedule title!).  Instead, it gets a description of the company listed (Alpine Solutions, LLC — no address, state, or other identifier) and the “transaction description” “Family member” which doesn’t describe, of whom):

Sched L SCW FY2010, “Alpine Solutions LLC” “Family Member” avoids answering question about a transaction. Click image to see better if needed

FY2014 appears to be “Missing in Action” when searched at the Foundation Center database (which grabs them from the IRS, it says).

*Nigeria shows up in FY2012, as Program Service Accomplishment 4d (described in Schedule O attachment); that year started with $178K surplus and ended with a $178K deficit, and between the board of directors and its Sched. L “Business Transactions with Interested Persons” covers three DeJongs (William, Matt, and Brent), which doesn’t include Todd (another son), who comes up below in this post when it comes to the Avon, Colorado version of where Schools for Children of the World actually holds its legal domicile (over the years, tax returns have reported OH, KS and CO. A five-year overlap of double-registration (both claiming it was “domestic” to those states) in OH and CO is shown on the secretary of state filings, and was admitted by SCW-Ohio finally in April, 2017).

(Excerpt from 2006 return (my image “24”) showing its grants to implement Honduras Master Plan.  Or FY

In fact, here’s its (handwritten) Initial Return 2003 showing minimal contributions ($22K) and already $351K revenues for the “master plan,” which was mostly spent, about $100K on employees ($97K + benefits= ca. $116K) and $100K on travel, with a Board of Directors two in Ohio, one in Illinois, and one in Canada.

(bottom of pg1 FY2003) showing $374KRevs – $242.9K expenses = $129.5K excess (profits) that year.

Clicking image accesses whole FY2003 SCW tax return (nearby images are excerpts)

Judging by what’s being done here — what’s being done there?

After looking at the tangled and overlapping business entity filings in two states (OH and CO) while the tax returns say, alternately CO and KS, I might have added “and corporate filings” to the post title.

Here are a few brief “equations” to navigate the next few paragraphs and their related explanatory screenprints.  For each statement, a phrase before or after a “+” or “=” can be mentally labeled “A”  “B” or “C.”  For example (1) A + B = C.  Let that describe a recent merger, where A, B, and C are company names (two before and just one after).  After that, (2) is a general character description of “A” and “B” and (3) goes into some more detail on the context at least of entity “A” as it relates to my recent posts on the UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools and (among other collaborators) the 21st Century School Fund, located in Washington, D.C.

(1) DeJong-Richter, LLC of Ohio (cf. nonprofit Schools for the Children of the World) + Dolinka Group (Benjamin Dolinka CEO),LLC of California @ Oct. 2016 = “Cooperative Strategies, LLC.”

(2) A + B above = (apparently) seriously flawed, if not corrupt entities based on practices.

[This one doesn’t really lend itself to an equation, but states a situation involving companies A & B above]: Before merger, both Schools for Children of the World (per my drill-downs and at least one admission), which involved at least 3 DeJongs (William, Todd, and tax returns also say, a Brett) and, I see the Dolinka Group and its President/CEO, appear to have both competence, credibility, and honesty problems.  I noticed from my drill-down research, but others have blogged both LLCs previously, and I will show shortly how Dolinka Group, copying and expanding upon some fund-raising (capital bonds) for educational facilitates renovation techniques devised in Michigan, in last 1980s-early 1990s until exposed by a Detroit Free Press writer (who also followed the practice in California) five years ago, and subsequently outlawed, in part as screwing the property owners and taxpayers with exploding interest on long-term debt.

Click image for link (this is about p3), will be repeated larger further down in the post. (“citiesandschools.berkeley.edu’s “PK_12 Infrastructure Plan Process (WG Overviews)“)

(Not clickable this time, but is p1 showing “The Leadership Team”) other images is clickable.

(3) “Bill DeJong, Senior Advisor to DeJong-Richter, LLC of Ohio and co-founder of Schools for the Children of the World” = one of several members of a cross-sector Educational Facilities Planning Workgroup called (i.e., honored) by “The Leadership Team” at a 2016 PK Infrastructure Planning Initiative, as posted at the UCB Center for Cities and Schools (see two tiny images).  As it turns out in this post (far below) the 21st Century School Fund tax returns early on already had some “DeJong” involvements. Without stopping to explain, here are two links from 21CSF’s Year 2000 (EIN#522139122) tax return; filename Image “7” shows income-producing activity, and Image “12” program service accomplishments, plus expenses — in similar amounts.  A planning software “FORMAT-Pro®” is involved in both, and amount spent is similar to revenue produced on the two separate links.

(from page 1): Working Group leaders and innovators who have heart, experience and creativity will work together to develop a menu of systemic reforms and innovations that are both game-changing and incremental solutions for the status quo problems of inadequate and inequitable school facilities.

(from this WorkGroup, p.3 or so) Addressing the structural and legacy inequities nationwide in PK-12 infrastructure requires sound PK-12 facilities planning. Educational facilities planning is essential to get the best value for facilities spending regularly budgeted; to ensure equitable facilities for all children; to transform inadequate school facilities into healthy, safe and educationally appropriate buildings and grounds; and to leverage the district investments so they contribute to broader health, environmental, neighborhood use, and economic development goals of communities. Sound planning is a key element of a well managed capital improvement program. It supports the other key elements: accurate information, effective decision making, skilled management, adequate and equitable funding, and appropriate accountability.

Educ. Work Group had 4 conference calls over 2 months, and in early Dec. 2016, a National Summit Dinner + Summit.

The Educational Facilities Planning Working Group will craft a Problem Statement that identifies the key causes for shortcomings in PK-12 educational facilities planning and identity a Menu of Solutions to these problems. [[as facilitated by two from The Leadership Team, one from UCB the other from 21stCentury School Fund in D.C.)]].

Really?

The next few paragraphs with some images describing significant mix-ups, inadvertent omissions, and avoidance/incompetence? behaviors by DeJong-Richter (associated with “Schools for Children of the World”) while (I just discovered) a series of articles on the other educational facilities planning firm it just last summer merged into, forming “Cooperative Strategies, LLC” in Irvine, CA, (Dolinka Group, LLC former name, with President and CEO Benjamin Dolinka), show significant and it seems, well-earned negative press around CABs (Capital Appreciation Bonds).

This was noticed in part by a retired writer for the Detroit Free Press who’d exposed similar behavior in Michigan) for promoting “CABs” with a 21-year delay on payments, resulting in term interest payments of 10 times the price of principal.  This was called, alternately, slimy, dishonest, screwing the people, and raising the questions of what school board officials were possibly paid in “freebies” and whether recall elections would be appropriate.

And that was back in 2012!

Meanwhile, the entity co-located (per dissolution papers) with the 2003 version of Schools for Children of the World, Inc. (“SCW”) in Ohio (formerly “DeJong-Richter.com”) I found, belatedly (through street address search) doing long-range master planning for the Beverly Hills Unified School District which between 2000 and 2010 was approximately 82% white, and (as you might guess) probably not exactly an urban, low-income neighborhood. …

Click image for better view.

See annotations on next image, which I found after reading the April 27, 2017 (i.e., just last month) dissolution papers for “SCW,” on an address search. While SCW Ohio proclaimed the double-filing in OH and CO was “inadvertent” (and 2012 Colorado filing has attached to it a strangely contradictory paper about its 2003 Ohio “domestic nonprofit” status), the Beverly Hills USD Contract may be another motivation to not use an OH address.

Click image if needed to see better; it also has a llink.

Meanwhile DeJong-Richter.com had already merged into a California LLC, both of them changing their names to “Cooperative Strategies LLC.”

Educational Planning Firms Announce Merger Cooperative Strategies, LLC and DeJONG-RICHTER Unite | NEWS PROVIDED BY Cooperative Strategies, LLC  26 Oct, 2016, 11:00 ET  [The date format suggests this was published outside the US]

---

IRVINE, Calif., Oct. 26, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — Cooperative Strategies, LLC, an educational consulting firm headquartered in Irvine, California, and DeJONG-RICHTER, LLC of Hilliard, Ohio are excited to announce their merger into one firm focused on the planning and financing of schools nationwide. The merger comes after careful consideration of how to utilize the firms’ individual expertise in a collaborative manner to provide public school districts and other local educational agencies with the best tools and resources available. The combined firms will operate under the Cooperative Strategies name. || Formerly Dolinka Group, LLC, Cooperative Strategies was renamed in July 2016 as the result of newly defined company values,** a transition from an individually owned company to a partner-owned organization, and expansion to provide services nationwide. For more than two decades, the firm has focused on providing California school districts with comprehensive services for the planning and financing of facilities construction and improvements.

**Or potentially other reasons — a quick look for one of the “Cooperative Strategies, LLC” board members, Benjamin Dolinka, proved “newsworthy” or at least, recent enough results which might, on that group’s behalf, inspire a new company name:

Poway Unified School District board balks at using CAB-linked firms (Sept. 23, 2015, by Emily Sorensen in The San Diego Union-Tribune.

[Poway USD] board members were divided at the monthly board meeting on Sept. 16 over several issues concerning financial advisors, consultants and underwriters.  || The shadow of the Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) came back to haunt the district as board members expressed an unwillingness to work with companies associated with the maligned bonds again.

An agenda item asking the board to approve of the appointment of several financial consultants for the sale of Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 15 (Del Sur East) Improvement Area ‘C’ special tax bonds failed after much discussion due to the inclusion of the Dolinka Group, a firm that was involved in the sale of the CABs in 2011 … Dolinka Group’s Benjamin Dolinka was the district’s financial advisor during the 2011 CABs, which will cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion over the next 40 years.

The district has a five-year, $600,000-plus contract with the Dolinka Group for Benjamin Dolinka to act as the district’s special tax consultant. It was unknown as of the meeting the terms of the contract and if the district was required to use Dolinka.                      [[“||” = para. separation]]

An earlier article (2012) claims that the CAB (Capital Appreciation Bond) with its high interest over 40 years was somewhat “sprung” on San Diegoans, and gives more background on who is Dolinka Group, and what’s been going on, in the “Poway Patch” (which may be a blog, or a paper, I DNR which). “OC” in the title, in this context, means “Orange County, California.”

OC Firm Behind Poway School Bond Advises Other SoCal Districts | Benjamin Dolinka, who advised the Poway Unified School District on the bond deal, isn’t speaking, but other finance gurus are chiming in on the deal.

By Tom York (Patch Poster) – August 24, 2012 7:22 pm ET 

Until the first week of August, Poway residents knew little about the behind-the-scenes maneuvering of local school finance. || That’s when the San Diego-based news site about Poway school officials using CABs, or ultra-long-term capital appreciation bonds, to complete renovation of a number of schools in the district.

Now residents know more than they ever wanted about the high interest rates they’ll have to pay over the next 40 years for those renovations. They’ll have to pay 10 times the original principal amount because the bonds can’t be repaid early.

…The strategy of using CABs came at the recommendation of Irvine-based consulting firm Dolinka Group. Benjamin Dolinka is listed as the president and CEO, and several published sources say he has been advising schools for the past two decades. He did not respond to requests for comments regarding the Poway bonds. ….Dolinka’s apparently familiar with local school officials up and down the state — his firm is frequently hired to consult with districts on the best way to pay for such things as school construction projects…..Dolinka and bond manager Stone & Youngberg, a unit of Wall Street financial firm Stifel Nicolaus & Co., are receiving a total of $1.4 million in fees for their services to the Poway school district, according to Fox News.

“Disaster Shadows Poway“ Posted on May 10, 2012 by hro50ta1 By Joel Thurtell from “Joel-on-the-road” blog. “Joel,” it says, was a reporter at the Detroit Free Press (I’ve quoted it on the blog), until he retired in 2007. Sounds like my kind of guy (<==read! meaning, investigative reporter, lifelong, at least since 1981).

I thought Michigan was bad.

Back in 1993, when I was writing about Michigan school debt, I was astonished to find school districts taking on debt with interest costs at two, three and in one case almost six times the amount of principal they borrowed.

But California always does us one better.  || Think 575 percent interest is bad? || How about 1000 percent?

---

Slimy as it was, nothing in Michigan approached the level of depravity achieved by the Poway Unified School District in San Diego when it borrowed last year to pay for building renovations, computers, fences, security equipment and other purchases deemed necessary to create an educational showplace.  The vehicle for this enormous debt was an innocuous-sounding financial instrument known as the Capital Appreciation Bond. || In August 2011, Poway issued $105 million of Capital Appreciation Bonds. || For 21 years, no payment is due.

Then, in 2033, the first property taxes will be levied to pay $30.5 million due that year. In 2034, $47 million will come due. ||  So it goes, with interest approaching and then exceeding $50 million a year until the final payment is due in 2051. By that year, principal will be down to $2.2 million. || The interest due on that small remaining principal, however, will be $55 million.

Total cost of paying off $105 million in CABs? || $981,562,328. (There is ambiguity, though. Another, figure is possible: $1,075,645,000.) ||  Let’s just round it to a billion smackers

[There was ONE responding pingback listed:  Pingback: Dayton Public Policy Institute, a project of Labor Issues Solutions, LLC » Reporter Behind Michigan’s 1994 Prohibition of Capital Appreciation Bonds (CABs) Watches and Writes about the CAB Frenzy at California School Districts

As I understand this (on just a quick read) –a state law reduced the percent required to pass (yet another) bond issue from 66.66% to 55% BUT capped the interest rates.  CABs were a way to get around it, i.e., speculating that by the time the interest comes due, (California) property values will have increased by 300%, 400%, etc. .  In case the article at that pingback (it’s by Kevin Dayton, the LLC is labeled), here it is in two screenprints.

Image 1 of 2; if related link no longer active, click image to view this “Printed to pdf” version of same page for active links to the other Joel on the Road articles on CAB!

Image 2 of 2 (for same pingback page), image here not clickable — use Image 1.

So… This Schools for Children of the World topic continues a discussion at the bottom of the second of two posts I published May 15, 2017, on the UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools  (“CC&S” or “UCB CC+S” for short) and its various () partners, () advisory board members, and () initiatives.

That discussion involved one nonprofit affiliation of one workgroup participant of one of the UCB Center’s Initiatives listed at the top of their web pages, each with its own colorful, headline-filled graphic.

Those posts: 

1st, UCB’s Center for Cities + Schools (Kellogg Foundation-sponsored) 2016 PK-12 Infrastructure Planning (Education Work Group Details) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-6Lh”).

2nd, UCB’s CC+S (Kellogg Foundation-sponsored) 2016 PK-12 Infrastructure Planning (Education Work Group Details) ~~> Cont’d. , (short-link ends “-6P8“).

These two May 15 posts focused more on the Partners and Advisory Board members” than the specific initiatives, as well as on the larger context.  A third post published May 17 (“Fascinating Genealogy”) had referred to a different UCB CC+S initiative labeled “Strong Cities, Successful Young People,” and so is not included here as to the topic “Schools for Children of the World,” or the initiative from which that reference came.

This post is Schools for Children of the World, Inc. — Great Theme, Now Here are the Forms 990. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-6Qq”)

The problem:

Can you imagine going consistently through all the fiscal history of all the members of all the workgroups of even just one initiative and attempting to translate this into language concise enough language meaningful to the public, explaining its (“our”) position as the bottom-line unacknowledged stakeholder in where its (“our”) government invests and how it accounts for expenditure of the receipts garnished or sent in from wages (and other places)?   Especially when some of these members aren’t filing timely and once filing, aren’t reporting accurately, and others start up then disappear?  In addition, most people seem conditioned to sorting good/bad, I support or I suppose, according to the political (or gender, religious, etc.) divide argumentation for a cartoon-like presentation of even things economic, while here comes “Let’s Get Honest,” a blogger talking about things not brought up on the evening news, AND not featured (if it’s even brought up) on most other blogs even considering the subject matter of the family courts. And without even a PhD or a 501©3 on her coat-tail to make it easier to assess or dismiss what she has to say.  (Yes, I’m a “she.”)…  

This blog (690 posts and counting, plus the pages) is full of examples of what happens –what can be found — when you pry into the identity of advertised initiatives in the public interest, and their collaborating partners and advisors as identified on initiative website.  Often, more slimy situations causing one to question the genuine concerns and assertions on the front pages. And, laying out is painstaking, takes time, and obviously things covered up under multiple websites look neater than their contents spread, end-to-end or strand-by-strand on linear posts such as I write.  BUT, the websites are a collection of symbols and verbiage to symbolize and signify contents.  But what are the actual contents (for example, relationships between “partners”) is a whole different vocabulary.

The last two posts exemplified just some prodding from the entrance point of ONE center at UCBerkeley’s IURD (Institute of Urban and Regional Design), that IURD at this point showing four centers.  Sure, “it’s complicated” — but a sensible language to look at and categorize it helps! That is NOT the language we are supposed to be thinking and talking in, however, judging by what’s up on the many websites.

When I picked one initiative, a recent (late 2016) publication, to explore, and one workgroup, and one member of that workgroup, I quickly found some craziness in self-reporting, and some others who had caught onto the “master shtick” (their words) of evaluate — school closures — build a newer larger school, and we have just the professionals to recommend of what seems to be a family working in separate parts of a single vertically aligned plan to get those prized public dollars. And, one year it was legal domicile Colorado, the next Kansas, (but principal officer in Naperville, Illinois) then back again — huh?  That’s why I continued the discussion.

EIN# 562358076 – Schools for the Children of the World.  Not to mention, where is the return for FY 2014? (FY=Calendar Year here); per “prior year” figures on FY 2015, they didn’t qualify to file just a Form 990-N postcard (and, I just looked for one on the IRS site, too).

Total results: 3. Search Again.

RE: Will the real Legal Domicile Please Stand Up? (note:  this search results table doesn’t need to signify legal domicile, but the tax returns do, and there is a discrepancy, which I showed at bottom of my May 15th post; it’s on the Header info, part M if you click through.  Also remember, detailed searches or not, most Secretary of State websites also comes with disclaimers…)

IS IT KANSAS? NO.

Kansas “BESS” (Business Entity Search Site):  (not found.  It only returns the first 400 results, but a search on “schools” only turned up 14 results, of which 5 are still active (!); others Merged Out, Withdrawn, Forfeited, etc.  I found one located at the KSU School of Education…Kansas provides pdfs of some filed images, which is helpful.

IS IT REGISTERED IN ILLINOIS (Never claimed, but that’s where its principal officer is)?:  NO.

Corporation/LLC Search (Illinois)  (“cyberdriveillinois.com” website, which redirects to https://www.ilsos.gov/corporatellc/CorporateLlcController).  The entity is not found in IL.

IS IT REGISTERED IN COLORADO?  Yes — but only since 2012, often delinquent and at a street address with multiple other also shifting LLCs and trade names (connected to the name “DeJong”) also often delinquent.  Where was it between 2003 (claimed start date) and 2012? In Ohio?

Ohio Business Entity search found (as a “Dead” Nonprofit in Dublin (Franklin County), Ohio.

SCW Ohio Search Results (no expanded image provided)

SCW Ohio Corp Details Page (showing Cert of Cont’d Existence only req’d every 5 years/) + Dissolutn (Click image for better viewing)

SCW final page of April 2017 dissolution claiming double-state incorporation under same EIN# was inadvertent. “OOPS!”) (click to see better)

SCW Ohio Entity #1391206 co-located at DeJong-Richter’com in Dublin) Dissolves 4-27-2017 claiming its Colorado 2012 ~double-incorporation under same EIN#~was inadvertent – (Multi-page pdf of dissolution doc’ts, no matching image):

Business Entity Search Colorado finds this entity (but only since 2012 — its tax returns say, since 2003) and shows a namechange and “statement curing delinquency). It also filed in Colorado, with first registered agent Todd DeJong,  as an Ohio nonprofit since 2003. The electronic filing with pdf of by-laws isn’t dated or signed or stamped, but does show its purpose (B/W image).

2012 filing showing 2003 Articles of Inc. for (SCW). Click image; if results not saved, repeat this search (click away after results obtained) at Colorado SOS Business Entity Search

Schools for the Children of the World 2015 Statemt Curing Delinquency (in CO) ~Jurisd Colorado~

SCW in Avon CO (SOS business filing shows St address and 2012 date, POB 1157) Click if needed for better viewing

Avon.org (Town Planning/Zoning Commiss’n Mtg 11/18/2014) DeJong Special Permit Request for SCW Street address (zoned Light Ind + Commercial)

Avon.org (Town Planning/Zoning Commiss’n Mtg 11/18/2014), p2, explains purpose of ADU for Lone Star Security Employees to use during large events in nearby Vail)(click image if needed to see)

Entity filing history:
It registered in Colorado 8/2012, didn’t file (despite warnings) 2013 or 2014 and was pronounced delinquent.  “No problem” — pay the $100 fine and file a statement curing delinquency in 2015 — and claiming now the jurisdiction in which it was formed was Colorado, not Ohio (B/W image with lime green annotation, below), and another (2016, not shown) also changing the registered agent.The street address (see image of current Colorado filing) also matches “Alpine Security LLC,” one of three locations listed under “FamilyFireArms” (for sales probably) in Colorado Springs. Alpine Security LLC was filed in 2010 when, after years of “badly behaving and again delinquent since 2011” Lone Star Security and Services, LLC, a statement curing delinquency (for 2010 — didn’t last long) by Todd DeJong was accompanied also in 2010 by filing for “Lone Star Security and Services” as a Trade name — for the recently filed “Alpine Security LLC — along with two more trade names filed last summer, I found by doing a registered agent search… (!)Obviously there is a major tactical/strategic accountability problem here IF accountability is expected for us — meaning, most adult individuals in the USA subjected to taxation and/or forced consumption of government services just to exist by default — to make some basic judgments about appropriate or inappropriate use of public resources which justify our continued taxation.  

In a just and honest world, we could trust all team members, but this post (as many of my posts on the blog) again show, many entities are just not individually trustworthy, while others involved aren’t somehow, taking this to heart and finding better friends, partners, and advisors to work with.  Or maybe other group members’ financial filing and reporting honesty for advisors, partners and collaborators just isn’t really on the collaborating, partnering, coalition-making group radar.  With missionary (or, salesmanship) zeal, pursuing success (adoption) of each and every group-promoted initiative and branding of the group as worthy of channeling some more down various pipelines, seemingly is. But — when these are public/private collaborations that includes access to public funds, assets, or institutions. However, trustworthiness — honesty — of collaborating entities centers (etc.) should be on  ours.

I believe that nationally networked groups taking aim at systems-change on public institutions under state control to (1) increase public investments or (2) commandeer control of how to use what’s already been allocated) that quickly show ongoing misleading information or strange reporting information by their participants should be on the mental (and I believe, shared) watch list for that behavior.  Even if the projects hold some benefits, it’s not in the public interest long-term to hold the door open (through apathy, or ignorance) for crooks or dishonest leadership. Crooks or dishonest leadership already being rewarded for it rarely self-correct; it’s up to others to get involved — expose and report the operational reality of any such network, and where they are engaged with others in perhaps different causes, but similar agenda.  

UCB CC+S language of “Our Partners, Advisors and Initiatives” presentation complicates efforts to dredge out the financial and reporting details.  

It is of course the language of cause — not of accountability for operations involving public funds. It uses colors, graphics, some animated (slideshow, that is), photos, and many names (many with logos) to build credibility.  

Although UCB CC+S has about six initiatives (?) sliding by the top of the main page they have divided the Center’s main activities, I guess, into just three parts representing presumably what they want to happen, shown in blue, orange and green (earth, grass, and sky-themed?) tones: PLUS, Y-PLAN, and Policy Research. 

Policy Research subtitle “spreading solutions at the intersection of education and urban policy” sounds more like PR (Public Relations) than policy research itself. If they are researching, then they should be objective and neutral. If the purpose is “spreading solutions” that’s advertising and implementation.  It also seems to be a 3-step process:  Collaborate, Bring in the Youth (helps promote) and Propagate.

“CC+S promotes high quality education as an essential component of urban and metropolitan vitality to )))) equitable, healthy and sustainable communities for all.”

Let’s talk TERMS:

What “Partner” or “Advisor” (Advisory Board member) may represent might change depending on who uses it. If a Form 990-filing (vs. Form 990PF) nonprofit is talking, it should show its “Related Entities” on a Schedule.  It probably has no obligation to show “advisory board” membership, or even list its employees.  But UCB CC&S isn’t an entity — it’s a Center at another, actually, government entity (The Berkeley Campus of University of California).

The CC&S is certainly promoting and collaborating on some initiatives. Let’s review that term “initiatives”

Please remember that any “initiative”  (project, program, campaign, are similar words) does not have corporate personhood, it’s “inanimate” and describes that which is initiated, not who’s doing it — no matter how compelling the name is.  It’s basically the direct object of a sentence; the “initiators” (partners) are the subjects of that sentence, and are responsible for its action.  Next section in blue borders takes some examples from a different field; I thought I’d keep it also relative to this blog’s domain-name (“familycourtmatters”) topic for any readers I still have who are following for that purpose! As usual, it encompasses social science R&D on low-income couples/families, and writing this up at university centers afterwards, with major help from federal agency HHS.

The word “initiative” of course can and does occur used as part of a proper noun referring to a business entity — for example, “National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc.”(<=link to its store shows NFI is still selling downloadable, trademarked curricula; its “About” says it’s a 501©3). The proper noun of the business “person” contains the word “initiative.”

Another example: “Healthy Family Initiatives, Inc.” (<=2008 Form 990, EIN# 76-0066782, Houston, TX “since 1982), who is found “Building Strong Families” (<== an ACF/HHS link describing this 2002-2013 BSF project, administered by Mathematica, Inc. (Princeton, NJ), and the identity-stripped data later stored at an “inter-university consortium” housed at UMichigan**) at a profit, Program Service Accomplishment Line 4c) until time, interest, or capacity apparently ran out around year 2010 (last tax return found, and total assets visibly drained by then).  I see that it was status-revoked by the IRS in May 2014, which was posted Aug 2014, and doesn’t show reinstatement since.  It simply “ceased to be.” (IRS Exempt Select search set to “Revoked” option, just enter its EIN#,760066782, and click “Search”).

See next few images for a quick description of how public AND private were this project’s multiple players until the entity stopped filing returns.  That tiny sliver of part of a tax return lists several. Its main CEO started at $67K and ended at salary $118K or so, while the entity implementing their BSF project (Healthy Families San Angelo) is still up and (as this one was) running fatherhood programs.  Healthy Families San Angelo in addition is marketing parenting curricula internationally and to the US Navy, and pushing Home Visitations. Though website ends *.com, but it is a nonprofit (EIN# 75-2012206, since 1985 it says) and 90% gov’t grants-funded; but direct contribs are forwarded to The San Angelo Area Foundation (established only in 2001, focused on Donor-Advised Funds), ONE paid principal officer, NO independent subcontractors shown, etc.).  I provided two HFSA image here, but did look further on seeing 30% markup of curriculum costs, judging by a tax return.

HFSanAngelo Curric Costs (click Image if needed)

H F San Angelo Services/Curricula (Click Image if needed)

“Healthy Family Initiatives” was obviously running social science R&D on poor people with young children, while having no employees, few subcontractors listed, one year I saw 50% of its expenses “leased employees,” and parts of its tax return missing (Schedule O required to explain excess expenses under Pt IX Line 11g, Other).   It also filed inconsistently first one, then another, part if Sched A of support, such that the latter choice avoided reporting program service revenue (which towards the end was the major part of all revenues), and if I remember it right, had substantial “excess” of 2% contributions shown.  

Click Image for easier reading of HFI. This website now down (as well as its prior one), Org. cites 1982 start date and name change a version of “CAPN” (Child Abuse Prevention Network). Clickable image is much easier reading…This entity lists (yellow portion) how many Social Science R&D programs it was running AT A PROFIT in 2008, working with Healthy Families San Angelo (still going).

**I’m not kidding, pardon the interjection,but here it is, “ICPSR,” “Social Science in the Public Interest” and around since 1962.  Over 750 government agencies or other organizations are members (no individual memberships, it looks like) (images) ===>

Know that the “P in ICPSR stands for “Political.” http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/files/ICPSR/fifty/Miller-Likert.pdf (1962 typed letter to the ISR describing the great demand for survey sample results from the Social Science community (SSRC) and referencing grants from Carnegie & Rockefeller Foundations…).

 

---

Corporate “personhood” involving some kinds of trusts can get complex (I learned recently — the hard way, somewhat in hindsight and while under duress — that trusts are not always business entities, although they are legal entities, which means sometimes they can’t sue or be sued — the trust must be sued in the name of the trustee), however at any rate, an initiative in general usage is not an animate business “person” and so cannot be a “partner.” It is “inanimate,” and not a free agent. 

So when we’re reading or hearing about any “initiative,” mind the grammar and please don’t “fall asleep at the wheel.”

As initiatives are constantly being written up (throughout the country and internationally), reading them usually tells part (not the whole story) of who initiated each one in terms of leadership, collaboration, and of course funding.

While I’m concerned with what the initiatives are, always, I’m usually more concerned about who’s involved.  

We in general already know that initiatives are rarely free and that to get any one of significance going, some revenues are going to be changing hands, whether as formal gifts (“contributions” for a nonprofit) or in exchange for services rendered (“program service revenues” for a nonprofit) — how many hands and whether the many named hands pulling together for the great cause of the initiatives have un-announced previous connections which might constitute conflicts of interest with the public interest.