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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014**, split in three; this part published June 30, 2017]

with one comment

This post was first written October 25, 2014, about 30,000 words covering the above theme and an extended section, after pointing out the type of organization, looking closer at “NASMHPD” and “Mental Health America,” not to mention showing basic ABA (American Bar Association) and APA (American Psychological Association) Forms 990O, 990 (respectively) tax returns for a glimpse at organization size,** and some of their history, from its own timeline, (**Originally, not including their known related entities, formed much later than the original associations, also.  In the update, I showed and discussed some of those, however).

…not to mention, again taking on the (il)logic of the “Broken Courts” theme for which conference, Amazon books and university-based resources are still active on-line and which also are being promoted in part with foundation backing and via various nonprofits, particularly two from California  associated for years as presenters or participants in the “BMCC” (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) on the East Coast (New York, and in more recent years, Washington, D.C.)

Original/full post title: Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”.

These reflect key topics of the blog as a whole — developing a better awareness of this type of nonprofit, professional trade association (not just one or two of them) as an organized tool by those who form them, to push private purposes and theories upon the often-unsuspecting public — because the public typically doesn’t focus on the networked nonprofit sector, let alone the networked nonprofit sector with words implying “government entity” in their names, when they actually aren’t (in other words, functioning something like squatters in public office, to add weight and importance), they are operating in the privately controlled nonprofit sphere,##


developing an awareness of the means and consequences of having “mental hygiene/illness/health” theme promoted upon the population at large with a focus on screening everyone possible, or claims (by another organization whose original legal name had the word “national” in it, but was not of this type I’m discussing here as referenced in the post title), that is NAMI, that 1 in 5 Americans live(s) with a “mental health condition,” and (shown below and in subsequent post/s from this one’s split) that this also can and has led (through one of the named organizations above) to excessive and harmful promotion of medications (Rx) and paid-for “expert consensus” on which ones to use, when, resulting in harmful side-effects, such as suicide and other causes of death, and other destructive, life-altering conditions.  Key phrases there include:  patented atypical antipsychotics. 

The promotion of organizations and themes focusing on prevalence of mental illness, early prevention and services to promote mental health,  and attempts to turn many basic public institutions — such as the superior courts under state jurisdiction — into behavioral health (modification, training, indoctrination, re-setting of personal values, etc.) revolving doors diverting people who walk through those doors into “community resources” is pervasive and is also reflected in practices and by design, intents, of the family courts.

##That comment may seem harsh, but I believe it’s true and relevant.

Towards the bottom of this post, I had earlier referenced a career attorney working first for in child support Tennessee, but later for Policy Studies, Inc. (deeply involved in the field), and after a long stint there, then for Maximus.  Maximus bought Policy Studies Inc. (one source said) ca. 2012.   Regarding my harsh comment about these organizations, and although Maximus isn’t in the same category, while talking about government privatization with outsized contractors, Maximus has a horrid, fraud-ridden, and frequently-sued record in the US, THEN got contracts for government services in the UK, and continued, allegedly, manipulating the data and falsifying records to the point of harming those the government’s charge was to help, that is, the most vulnerable.  This was debated 2/9/2016 in the UK Parliament (House), which I quoted.  It acknowledged the problem with accountability to the public when the purpose is contracting out services.  In the U.S., “Sourcewatch.org” also reported extensively on Maximus disgraceful track record — yet somehow, it’s still in business.

What I’m looking at here is not just what’s being done (the cause promoted) but the leverage provided by the networked nonprofits intent on pushing the cause — or any other cause they may agree upon, once the mechanism for promoting/pushing it is in place.  These are nets; they are intended to catch people, and they are referred to among the fishers as helpful, good, beneficial and for public service.  I’ve looked closely at the nets, and been caught in some of them, and do not believe this should be the purpose of public institutions.

I’m not a fish!! or somehow less knowledgeable about my own life simply from holding a different position, profession, or place in society, than those who operate in these circles. But, collectively, the public is being treated, if not literally farmed, like fish, that is, simply exploited, under pretty flimsy pretenses, without legitimate argument (that is, OPEN argumentation) and once the infrastructures are well set, privately, in privately networked circles, like the institution and attitudes to match it of, say, slavery, it’s hard to change the dynamics, or channels we (the public) get chased into.

I found it interesting that NAMI (formerly The National Alliance of Mental Illness, Inc.) was only formed, by one account in 1980 (IRS exemption only obtained in 1985), and with an initial statement of focus on mental illness in general, but also seeking biological “causes and treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.” (That image and more images and discussion, especially of how NAMI organized and “reproduced” nationwide, further below), a tactic and approach shared by other do-good, cause-promoting organizations (this topic continued, below).



I’d thought this had been published. In fact, throughout the second half of 2014 and all of 2015, I’d taken time off publishing posts on the blog (see my TOC page), not time off researching and writing it up, just posting, mostly because my personal situation had heated up (legally) and was in major life transition.

Somehow after resuming it in 2016 and focusing on present tasks, and getting the Table of Contents page organized, I thought — probably because had worked extensively on it, and on the theme, that this post had been published. (See image showing revision dates from administrative part of the blog).  Once involved in a post, or a study theme, I am intensely involved and focused on it; once things are written, they tend to be somewhat off my mind unless related to the current theme, with, of course, all of them building on each other.

Having discovered the error after trying to quote this post, I decided to correct the situation and get it published.  This required splitting it into segments (three), and involved, as it always does, further reflection and some updates on the subject matter.  The updates are mostly shown as “preview” sections.  I also cleaned up the formatting some (paragraph breaks had been lost) and used a font and post format which has since become more standard on this blog).  As usual this process took about a week, and deepened my current internal, mental awareness* “database” of knowledge on, and understanding of, specific organizations and topics. (*And saving the evidence electronically for future reference of course.)

Original/Full Post Title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}.

The basic concept, as one of its “tags” says, is “national nonprofit trade associations with civil servant boards of directors and memberships.” If you can think of a two- or three-word phrase describing this, which would apply to those mentioned above and others in the category, please help out – submit a comment! (Input at the bottom of any post.) A shorter sound-byte to convey the essence is needed.

In function, and as to at least the NGA (only one I’m aware of) in classification, these are not just ordinary nonprofits or 501©3s (or “©6s”) because of their boards, memberships, and chosen names representing several aspects of public office but most of them, by type, seem to be registered as straightforward 501©3s or ©6s.  (The NGA is classified as “deemed to be an instrumentality” per its consolidated financial statements and earlier tax returns; now it’s simply labeled “nonprofit”).

However organized except for the defined “instrumentalities,” it’s their restricted memberships and boards of directors as reflected in the names, and the sense /aura of right, that is governmental jurisdiction, which seems to set them apart and empower them to do things which local legislatures ideally responsive to their state populations only, or having to deal more directly with them, might not get passed.

Some of these organizations have been around a LONG time, others not so long, but we must face that this has been part of the way the US operates since at least the invention of tax-exempt status that seems to have coincided with “tax almost everyone” around 1913, not to mention further changes in the 1930s (between the wars) and yet more after World War II.  That is, these are NOT, for the most part, as associations, Constitutionally mandated or warranted, whether U.S. Constitution or state/territories’ constitutions.

If and when some were set up by an Act of Congress (or other administrative order, if by President or Chief Justice of the US, comes to mind), they are STILL functioning primarily in the private area, and are as such privately controlled, and can legislate as nonprofit to accept direct bribes  contributions by supporting (corporate) partnerships, and exclude whoever they want from memberships.  They are essentially private-equity, private membership clubs (associations) who want to govern, and have been doing it, but more as “squatters”  and by consent through apathy, than by informed consent of those governed.

And the plan is for unified, coordinated forms of control by agreement among the professional associations, apparently, how to recommend handling all sorts of governmental programs, in discussions NOT typically soliciting or receiving input from the lowest form, apparently, of US life, the common citizen, and strategically unaligned (other than perhaps with a political party) person.

Not all in the post’s title list have fully-restricted member eligibility or boards of director eligibility as civil servant-only, but those that don’t (NCJFCJ, NCCD [National Council on Crime & Delinquency], NACC [National Association of Counsel for Children] for example) still tend to focus on public-office and public institutions, or spheres of operation, as their names reflect — and their boards often DO have people fulfilling simultaneous dual-purpose (one, public, the other technically and in reality, private) functions.

By providing dual (public in one role, private in another) contemporary roles for:  Governors (NGA), Lieutenant Governors, State Courts (NCSC), Judges (several, but one entity similar, but not identical to the others focused on two types of courts: juvenile and family (FYI, juvenile came first historically)  would be the NCJFCJ), State Legislatures (NCSL), Attorney Generals, Mayors (US Conference of Mayors),  AND organizing memberships, conferences, and soliciting partnerships from corporations, they are in effect re-organizing and restructuring government itself, but “behind the scenes.”

(RE:  MENTAL HYGIENE/HEALTH/ILLNESS promotion/advocacy; NAMI/TMAP topic, cont’d.):

I”ll color this section light-green background.

This also resulted in major profits for the pharmaceutical corporations (plural) behind it, but budget-breaking expenses for state Medicaid or other departments administering it, and in that I am referring to TMAP, as promoted under George W. Bush when he was Governor, then promoted nationally, with help from the New Freedom Commission (ca. 2003ff?) (on Mental Health) once he became President of the United States of America.

NAMI home page solicitation demonstrates its missing grammar awareness (“1” is singular, so verb should be “lives” not “live”) but awareness that scaring Americans with statistics about prevalence of “mental health condition” still might lead to increased donations.(??)

There is a standard nonprofit replication for networking, regardless of the central topic (i.e., an umbrella organization and geographically or topically named, often fiscally independent organizations scattered throughout the country, but running similar standards or programs despite their fiscal independence).  The ABA and the APA also operate, or at least their divisions and members do, so the significance nationwide is major, and shared publications, resources, dues or  (APA mentioned) enforcement of dues collections may take place to further unify practice.  Searching, for example, “NAMI” here today brought 592 results (make it 600, divide by about typically 3 years’ worth per entity, and roughly 200 organizations with “NAMI” In their name).  Sorting that by assets large to small, none are huge in the world of nonprofit associations, certainly not comparable with the ABA, APA, NASMHPD, or others in the title, but, the quantity is significant.

The two largest are (currently) in New Hampshire, and in Tulare County, California.  Some are named after cities, after counties, after metro areas, or after regions of states. The NH one (next image) shows it is itself a group return for affiliates, and of the $1,900,000 assets, page 1 shows about $1,900,000 gross receipts just that year (2015), which is clearly coming mostly from Contributions and going mostly to Compensation and Salaries, although only 24 employees claimed.

(Click image for whole Form 990, NAMI NH’org, FY2015, EIN#222760743, largest by Total Gross Assets of those shown in simple search Jun 2017)

Of the main source of revenue contributions, Pt. VIII (Statement of Revenues) shows over $1M is “government grants.”  The main activity (p.2) is teaching and training, starting with suicide prevention training to professionals who work in the field.  The Balance Sheet (Pt. X) shows that about $1.5M is stored either land and equipment (depreciated, Ln. 10), and investments in public securities (Ln.11), very traditional.  Their Expenses show they spent more than 10% of total on (Pt. IX) Ln.11g “Other” under fees for services, requiring an explanation on supplemental sheets (Sched O).  Sched O says, that $276K was spent on “subcontractors” but the main part of the tax return (Pt. VIIB is where it would show) lists no contractors paid over $100K.

Much more could be said but, case in point, much can be learned how organizations standardize their offerings, associated logos, trainings, and services across boundaries without always showing up as “related organizations” on their respective tax returns.

In this field and other fields, many of these organizations (not necessarily all) will be taking government grants to sustain operations.  I took another look at the second largest NAMI grantee, in Tulare County, California, and found that despite similar total assets currently, that came from its first funding in 2007, it’s currently delinquent, and barely has revenues and operations going at all (i.e., revenues typically very low), and has been simply holding its $1.5M (unprofitably, one has to assume) in a savings account.  And, its status is “delinquent.”Charitable Trust Registry Details for NAMI Tulare Cnty CA (EIN#770584900) currently Delinquent Inc 2001 got IR ltr 2004, only funded 2007, Ann’l revs minimal, Some Tax returns missing (2

I then looked up within the state only, how many NAMI organizations were around, and saw (as happens in some of these situations) what seems like at least a dozen Delinquents, or Never Registered, and at least one (San Diego) merged, as well as the parent organization NAMI (Missouri, incorporated in 1980, but only got its IRS letter in 1985, and changed its name to current acronym in 1997).
The two annotated images with tables below illustrate the situation (click on either one to access a second page of search results, each) that can arise with multiple similarly-named organizations are organized in a hierarchy (i.e., Affiliate, State Organization — only 1 per state allowed say the NAMI documents I read, at least as of 1997 — and then National).

(CLICK IMAGE to see the 2pg PDF) NAMI Entities (excluding Raffles) p1 of 2 in CALIF showing many Delinquent or Never Registered (redo search for more details on single ones)@Jun2017

NAMI entities in CALIF (exc raffles) p2 of 2 showing current, delinq’t, never registered (Char Registry SearchResults)Click IMAGE to see more results, full-sized.

I don’t know why the main NAMI didn’t show up in my search sorted by “largest assets” but, it didn’t. Possibly “Form 990finder” had mislabeled it (as happens frequently in that database)….

Yep, this database used the old (written-out) form of the name (minus “The”) which was changed about 20 years ago (2017-1997 = 20 yrs!), so that’s why my initial search on “NAMI” did not pull up the “parent” organization here:

Total results: 3Search Again.

National Alliance on Mental Illness VA 2015 990 51 $11,733,573 43-1201653
National Alliance on Mental Illness VA 2014 990 51 $13,458,474 43-1201653
National Alliance on Mental Illness VA 2013 990 50 $11,119,478 43-1201653

image obtained from NAMINH. NAMI has partnership with “Stigma” companies?

NAMI’s legal domicile is Missouri, but Virginia seems a “classy” (and closer to D.C.) locale.  NAMI (EIN#43-121653, above) is not a grant-making agency, primarily — it’s money is going mostly to employees and after that, “other expenses.”  It’s also spending (last two years) over $1M on fundraising fees (Pt. I shows this) and basically NOT taking government grants. Its primary source of contributions is private, unlike the state organization I looked at in New Hampshire.  NAMI (parent org.) does, however, earn some money as I recall from the Form 990, in “Walks.”  Here’s a “Walk” logo but from the NH website; notice it doesn’t specify the state only.


#1 of 5 screenshots, NAMI (main) acknowledged Corp + Foundatn Partners [5 snapshots of their logos only, in alpha order, links NOT active on website]

#2 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

#3 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

#4 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

#5 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

ABOVE: Volunteers, walks, and donations to NAMI (main and state-level) are highly encouraged, but NAMI’s main website shows plenty of corporate and foundation partners — here, mostly corporate (with about three exceptions).  And look which ones, too (recognize which primary fields they represent?)!  (the several images are all from the same webpage, but, as typically, don’t show which for which years, or how much, these sponsors granted.  Nor will a NAMI Form 990 (it’s Sched B Contributors if given to the State of Missouri or IRS would, but the public can’t see those), so “only the hairdresser knows for sure”… i.e., another alternative could be go check each one — that is a nonprofit and has an available Form 990 — and look for donations to NAMI.  Good luck with that, at least one. Boehringer-Ingelheim is global headquarters in Germany… ):

For more on ASHOKA (if the name is unfamiliar as “we are THE changemakers of the world” mentality, see its website, and ALL AMERICA 2016 campaign..(@ NAMI partner Boehringer Ingelheim)

I know it’s fine print. Click to enlarge!


Ashoka.org (formed, it says in only 2001) 2016 campaign, admitting there’s still room to reach more people and turn them into systems change agents, the ASHOKA way

Ashoka.org (formed, it says in only 2001) 2016 campaign, admitting there’s still room to reach more people and turn them into systems change agents, the ASHOKA way

More Recent Examples of The “Membership & Board must be Civil Servants with Significant Influence, by State) Type:

More are formed from time to time; for example, a recent one formed in D.C., as helped with a pre-existing (but still recent) “21st Century School Fund” is the NCSF (National Council of School Facilities). The money involved here includes bonds sold to raise money for renovation or replacement of school infrastructures, again, nationwide.  They quickly aligned with UCBerkeley Center for Cities and Schools (itself only formed in 2004); I have been blogging the situation and several of the nonprofits in spring/summer 2017. See those posts for more info; this is just a sample! (Also see parts of the “About Blog Motto” page added ca. May/June 2017).

Links: 21st C School Fund T&TA page referencing BEST Collaborative, acknowledged to have been “kickstarted” with a $1M Ford Foundation grant in 2006, but helped by Ford from the beginning, cited as 1994 (see bestfacilities.org). Recognizing that the 21stCSF is basically one-person (Exec Director) throughout, it’s a little unclear who started whom first.  Ford Foundation is certainly the larger player.

besfacilities.org(history page), this is self-reporting.

Next few screenprints show:  BEST Collaborative (purpose, organized around a report the NCSF, 21stCSF and UCB Center for Cities & Schools (and/or participation from the Center for Green Schools of the U.S. Green Building Council, depending on which report referred to).  Notice the “Donate” button an dlinke to NCSF page.  From the NCSF page, states may pay their assessments by paypal or by check to NCSF ℅ the other nonprofit (21stCSF).  After that an image (purple) from the NCSF showing that (basically) only public heads of school authorities can be members, annual fee currently $5,000. Pictures might convey this better than words, I feel.

The 21stCSF it turns out, is essentially one paid Executive Director (Mary Filardo) who has published alongside the UCB individual Jeffrey M. Vincent, and has worked with Economic Policy Institute also.  It’s all about networking.  Tax returns show even more involved foundations, as subcontractors or grantees, to the point that for lone individuals to track even just ONE subject matter targeted for “transformation” according to networked entity purposes, would be a full-time job.

Image #1 of 5: 21stCSF website featuring a report it wrote with others (green banner section with 3 logos) and national initiative based on the report. Click Image above to enlarge, and for following images 2-5. Also see (I’ve posted on already) link to “State of Our Schools 2016 rpt. featured above.

Image #2 of 5, section of 21stCSF website featuring “BEST” collaborative, and what the acronym stands for (logo + top, center).  Also notice (top right) link to NCSF”

#3 of 5, NCSF web page: Although membership must be public civil servants, they can pay by paypal, or if by check, it’s NCSF ℅ 21stCSchoolFund (the two nonprofits share a single street address). So whose bank account would checks be deposited to?

Image #4 of 5 Membership form shows this private association (formed only about 2012, with help from private funding from California, though it’s in DC (read my posts!)) is for PK-12 public school facilities leaders (i.e., civil servants in charge at the state level)

Image #5 of 5, NCSF State Membership Eligibility (left column) and benefits (right column. By forming a separate entity from itself, 21stSF, while still maintaining significant influence and “a foot in the door” (sharing admin services, it looks like), a nonprofit EXCLUDING people outside the school facilities profession (as members) could be set up and advertised.

Typically in these situations, some very large private foundations and other smaller ones, are also involved, as I found in the case of a “BEST” Collaborative.  The Ford Foundation also backed many fatherhood and family programs, as major foundations do — because they can, and want to.  It’s a tax perk to help preserve assets (i.e., reduced taxes on non-charitable use assets with adequate distributions).

I’m about to split the post and publish the parts separately (title for Part 2 tba), hopefully without major updates or re-writes.  Here’s why:

Second part (of three) will deal with the ongoing, major emphasis on “Mental Health” and some history of the organizations, acts of congress, and funding promoting it (by decades) in the collective personal conscience of the nation. Perhaps file some of this next to my more recent (2017) posts on the background of “The Broad Institute” and the “Stanley Medical Research Institute” or “Stanley Center for Psychiatric Research” (except the middle one, the other two have Harvard/MIT associations, and the Stanley family, like the founder of MHA (below, Clifford W. Beers) were dealing with (himself personally) schizophrenia, bipolar, suicidal issues interfering with normal life functions (which, for Beers, included attending Yale; for Stanley’s son Jonathan, in 1988, also attending college). Only the Broad Institute is going after targeted genetic issues (Humane Genome et al.)  But, major family wealth behind both of them.  The Broads were also involved transforming the public education system through retraining urban superintendents, etc.

That’s apparently major philanthropists group-think: “What areas, plural, of society can WE, together, restructure to look more like what we, ourselves, and us think it should, and pressure government to make those changes?”


WHICH BRINGS UP … (preview of the second part for 2017 publication):

Which brings up NASMHPD’s involvement in the TMAP / PENNMAP scandal, i.e., NASMHPD was used to promote, with negative financial AND health consequences (such as death…), algorithms for the mandated, as to State Doctors and Mental Health Directors, use of more expensive, not-FDA-approved (?) patented (vs. generic) atypical antipsychotics (such as Risperdal) for the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar and related problems

NASMHPD website Click Images to Enlarge

NASMHPD website Click Images to Enlarge

: When TMAP was exported to Pennsylvania, it met a whistleblower working for that state’s OIG (Office of Inspector General). He referenced Johnson & Johnson (which related foundation Robert Wood Johnson Foundation IV, as I’ve posted before, has been involved in promoting Unified Family Courts).

Johnson & Johnson (i.e., originally pharmaceutical family wealth) is the source of RWJF money, in fact, the family line is so wealthy, and parts of it so troubled, books are written on it.  Johnson & Johnson, at the time of the whistleblowing document (maybe still) owns Janssen Pharmaceuticals.

The Johnson Family Tears in The DailyBeast, 1/07/2010 by Barbara Wold Johnson on occasion of death of young heiress Casey Johnson; contains some history also.  Subtitle:

“Casey Johnson’s death was the latest chapter in the tragic saga of an American dynasty. Barbara Goldsmith, author of Johnson v. Johnson, on the family’s struggles, including how, according to a relative, the heiress and her father hadn’t spoken in years.”

From this article (read also the sections involving the family trusts, unnatural early deaths of some (in their 20s), enriching the others, and questions how much the wealth itself contributed to the mutual and self-destructive habits of the family line. MEANWHILE, profits expanded under direct influence upon state mental health directors through NASHMPD, causing far less well-endowed family lines and people, to also die unnaturally early, through different kinds of drug use…(as prescribed through state institutions…)

…Seward Johnson’s branch of the family, as I discovered, has a bizarre past involving accusations of extortion, bribery, incest, drugs, and attempted murder.

It is ironic that Casey’s family so closely guarded its privacy, and then: va voom! Suddenly, they had a daughter who put them directly in the media’s unwanted glare. Casey had two younger sisters, Jaime, now 27, and Daisy, 22—by all accounts, both smart, accomplished young women. You’ve probably never heard about them. You probably won’t. Casey was the one who chased the spotlight and exposed her demons, breaking the rules to feed the Pantagruelian appetite Americans have developed for gossip.• Jacob Bernstein: Casey Johnson’s Tragic Curtain Call • Peter Davis: Death of a Heiress Two decades ago, I wrote Johnson v. Johnson about the largest, most expensive will contest to that date between Seward Johnson’s six children and his widow, Basia Piasecka Johnson, who had served as a domestic in his household. I spent over two years researching the Johnson family and speaking to many Johnson heirs.

[para. break added] From these conversations emerged a shadowy, selfish past, a pattern of neglect and narcissism among plenty, of wealth without a higher purpose, of no rules and no communication except through surrogates. (Even now, there are at least eight lawsuits still pending between members of this family.) It reminded me of an epic Greek tragedy, and Casey’s death feels like its latest act.
[End, Quote from The Daily Beast]

My point regarding TMAP, however, is that it was the NASMHPD as an organization which provided the mechanism for spreading this (improper, and dangerous/expensive) practice, with an attempt apparently, to take it national also, although at the time of the whistleblower’s write-up, it was only in ten states.  Also involved was Bush’s New Freedom Commission.  The few screenprints describe parts of the problem, just enough to identify the situation and how NASMD fits in; that’s still seven (7) annotated images (plus the ones from the NASMHPD website, 2017 version, more colorful explaining what a helpful organization it is.  In reviewing the material, I also took another look at its (only posted) audited financial statement and recent Form 990, which I’d like to add to the second half of this post below.  For example, the major expenses (subcontractors) was actually communications ($1.2M spent), and the major source of contributions is not services provided, but government grants; this being a private nonprofit association.


Click image (or just visit MentalHealthAmerica.net) for history page, and origins with Clifford Beers (Yale student with major problems, institutionalized (inmate), crusader for better conditions, William James (“philosopher” and often called father of American psychology) , and Adolf Meyer (psychiatrist), starting even before WWI.


In 2017, I have continued to see the collective network of such “shadow” associations professionalizing government functions, departments, and agencies, and went looking back through my posts for the one I thought had been standing, published, meanwhile.  I found that it had been left in draft status the whole time!

My three posts in late June, 2017, deal with this issue, although from a different perspective (Council of Chief State School Officers in re: their $10M grant to create a website which, apparently, wasn’t created or at least not “to scale,” and, a week after Fathers’ Day, 2017, two posts reviewing (again) how the NGA and at some levels, the CSG Justice Center, were helping spread programming whose federal funding streams, 1996 PRWORA (Personal Right To Work and Opportunity Reconciliation Act) with its “TANF” (Temporary Aid to Needy Families, block grants to states, combined with pre-PRWORA “Section 1115 waivers” to states to “flexibly” test social science behavioral modification regarding: marriage and reproductive behaviors, on low-income populations led up to the 1996 passage of PRWORA) (and continues to this day).

This blog is intended to be an ongoing “kick-in-the-butt” statement of things which have been censored for better population control and exploitation.  It’s  been about fifteen years since I first filed a temporary restraining order with kickout due to near-lethal situations in the two-parent household where for about the previous decade my main life problems were staying alive while raising young children (in many ways, already like a single mother) occasionally while working full-time nights, and constantly searching and scanning the horizon, asking people, and talking to those I was around for intervention resources between the ongoing incidents.

During the decade (married, abusive relationship) and for ALMOST a decade afterwards (until just about 2009 when I started this blog) it had never really occurred to me that the policy of the USA was rapidly shifting to categorize most women, including women in my situation (many, like I was, college-educated and with the ability to self-support prior to marriage) as a public burden to be trained into staying married — when staying married was the most dangerous thing we, personally, could do, in fact, at some levels, it was suicidal.

One of the reasons it never occurred is the multitudes of people working for organizations who just don’t talk about it; there were few “tells,” and most were not telling that, a more than equal and opposing force to the domestic violence prevention movements we’d encountered, perhaps, getting to at least a temporarily safe place, were well-primed AND well-funded to drag us (ex parte, combining domestic violence with a custody and divorce order), unawares, into what was in fact an entirely different court system simply less interested in handling domestic violence matters, but real resonant to fathers’ rights organizations and policies, pulling in the child support factors. [para. added 2017].

But this was indeed the policy, and as I’ve been blogging for a long time now, and more intensely in 2016, after having documented it, that supposedly, or what may at first glance seem to be feminist, or truly concerned for women’s welfare overall, organizations had agreed to maintain a major silence on the welfare reform federal incentives to terrorize and stigmatize single mothers who had the courage to say “no” to at-home intimate partner terrorism, or whatever else you may wish to call what was eroding us as persons and functional human beings through ongoing threats, punctuated by punishments, as if we were children instead of raising our own children, year after year.

I learned that ONLY years (after separation, that is) later through researching, reading through the rhetoric in associations, conferences, social service agencies and at times, where made available on-line, professional journal articles.

Gradually I developed a vocabulary and system of identification of sectors and types of organizations which contribute to this problem through networking across jurisdictions, across sectors (public v. private working together), and often in places where tracking the funding incentivizing this was virtually impossible (such as at university centers) without a virtually PhD-level project involving filing ongoing FOIAs for things NOT showing up in the financial statements. ….  I also learned to go for those financial statements, go for those tax returns, and read them.

Over time, though more slowly I admit, I also picked up a few formatting techniques for the blog (such as how to take screenshots and upload display them, as opposed to only dragging images from other places on the web.  This enabled me to better diagram and annotate those tax returns). Or,  put boxes around quotes, and standardize (somewhat) finer prints and in general, utilize some self-taught html tricks.  (Part of this blog’s history, I had an input device which couldn’t handle graphics, which may be seen by the absence of them on those earlier posts….)

I also started putting upper size limits on the size of the posts.  This one as left in draft, is about double the maximum length, so, again, I will be splitting it, I eventually realized, into three segments.

The information is important, and it’s vital to start becoming more conscious of how these types of networks operate within themselves, and among themselves.

My justification for in 2017 posting the second two-thirds of this post also, an extended look at Mental Health America (which has both a state: California; and a city: Los Angeles version of itself) and the “National Association of State Mental Health Directors” (NASMHD) in a blog named after the family courts is that VIA the family courts, children being taken, trafficked, at times, unnecessarily drugged (including with the atypical antipsychotics) which harm them is for FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO PHARMACEUTICALS, and targeting often the federal-to-state funding available for social services, Medicaid, etc. is two-fold:

  1.  I showed then that NASMHD was involved in the TMAP/PennMAP scandals as reported by whistleblower Alan Jones, substituting “expert opinion” for clinical trials, as a formula for choosing more expensive, patented drugs over available generic ones.  It pushed the Texas budget to the brink in just a few years.  (Some references to “New Freedom Commission” (on Mental Health) are also involved.
  2. There are too-close-for-comfort parallels between the family courts themselves, with the focus on reframing the reporting of criminal behavior as opportunities for ordering treatments (forced consumption of social services, such as parenting education, co-parenting indoctrination, and sometimes for the young children, forced reunification camps with the rejected parent, typically father).  Sometimes children are also, once taken from the care-taking or “protective” parent (guess that protection didn’t work in such cases), they are drugged.  They are put into therapy, and at times with this put on chemical treatments to better adjust to their situation, or trauma they were just put through.

In other words, (1) it’s a matter of form (the associations, such as NASMHPD, or NGA et al. that provide the tools and leverage to tweak national policy through the states through abnormal processes, apart from the legislative ones intended in having state courts, legislatures ,and governors in the first place, i.e., forms of representative government) AND (2) it’s also a matter of content — the incredible, exponential promotion of “mental illness” or “mental health” and with it, either medications (drugging, Rx) and/or behavioral modification tactics, tools ,and institutions, to be put in the hands of some of the already powerfully-connected with government nonprofit organizations with, as these things go, typically major financing by the associations backing, or associated with the nonprofits.

These things no sane or healthy individual person should casually ignore, or dissociatively assume are insignificant.  The planning, design, financing, and historic expansion of these systems control exploiting the taxpaying population to the profit of the tax-exempt sector rotating in and out of government positions, is documentable.  It works like a campaign, and throughout is based on individual and collective assumptions which often do not “hold water.”

They’re not even stated reasonably (for example, the marriage/fatherhood campaigns, at this point, and originally).  

Family courts are diversionary, problem-solving courts modeled in some ways after drug courts (Google “problem-solving courts” yourself and read up on it, and the history). The idea is “referral for services” rather than solving the problem by setting a strong right/wrong standard at least in the area of behaviors already described in criminal law, implying that commission of those felonies = “wrong.”

They are also alternate forms of population control at the individual and family level, with the two primary presiding (long-standing) controlling associations being the ABA (obviously, lawyers) and the APA (American Psychological Association), and along with other, smaller and not so old organizations targeted to include judges (such as the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, or ‘NCJFCJ,”**  and of course the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts or “AFCC” and its various chapters, and corporate identity “skin-changes” over the years.

**NCJFCJ was by size of grants shown in the 1990s and afterwards probably, a major HHS player for “Family Violence Prevention and Services” alongside others such as the Pennsylvania Coalition Against Domestic Violence or “PCADV,” the National Domestic Violence Hotline (entity based in Texas, one of two related entities out of similar addresses (Texas Family Violence Council or similar; I’m not going to look it up at the moment; have posted the information), the FVPF (Family Violence Prevention Fund, now Futures without Violence, based in SF, although with offices in D.C. and Boston also, it says) and in Minnesota, the DAIP (Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs) in Duluth. I recall some discrepancies of entity and EIN# identification taking place within the Texas-based component (as viewed through TAGGS.HHS.GOV at the time, and which I posted I believe in mid-2016 reviewing this material.

Later, TAGGS.HHS.GOV website was updated without warning, and eliminated the capacity to easily (if at all) run reports based on EIN#s — that field was eliminated from the input screen.  it also eliminated the ability to show 100, 250, or up to 500 results in any search at a time, reducing the valuable ability to “scan” or browse results and look for patterns.

The NCJFCJ was also a major player (one of two) in the Greenbook Initiative; the other one being the FVPF (now Futures without Violence) in SF.  This Initiative was, it says,  named after its publication “The Greenbook” by two well-known authors, one now deceased, and the other one squarely in the social science field, NOT law (Jeffrey Edleson, then at UMinnesota School of Social Work, now at UC Berkeley School of Social Work.  Last I looked, he’s its dean.  AFCC founders, (Meyer Elkin) or famous individuals (Judith Wallerstein) long ago also had their roots in the same UCBerkeley School of Social Work. NOT law and NOT criminal justice. Judith Wallerstein, in addition, and as I showed several times, was married to Robert S. Wallerstein, whose ties are to psychoanalysis (International Psychoanalytic Association) whose roots go back to Freud.

So, it seems this basic sales model is used in other fields, including fatherhood practitioner, marriage education, domestic violence prevention and treatments, etc. 

Below this line is where the October 2014 post began,with the challenge, do you know these acronyms?)

How many of those acronyms look familiar? What could you tell someone else in person about them?

Could you in five or ten minutes name them, tell a stranger, or even an acquaintance why they exist, what they do, what they represent?

Do you have the words and the understanding to show another human being why  he or she has probably never heard of the groups, or considered them as a group, and what problems this “never heard of ’em!” situation signifies to their own personal and economic well-being and future, then point that someone to a simple process for independently following up?  Could you get anyone curious and concerned enough to check out whether your five-minute elevator speech should be considered and acted on or dismissed and forgotten?

I put this post on a blog dealing with the issues of Family and Conciliation Courts  because I want to talk about the American Psychological Association, and put what it is and represents in perspective,  for a more realistic discussion on the “Family and Conciliation Courts,” in a larger perspective.

The courts being essentially containers and gateways for referrals to counseling and other so-called services in the behavioral health realm, in the mental health and psychological (etc.) realms, to understand them and why they and how they were created, one should also look at this association.   (*which are being driven towards “Unified Family Courts”) based on who they are and for what purpose they have been designed, and whether or not that purpose is legitimate or even in the public interest (health and welfare), or the longstanding private interests.

Very few people discuss the original purpose of the family courts, or even figure out whose (bright ) idea they were — but this can be found out.  However, instead, people tend to assume (without proof) that the purpose of the family courts somehow dovetails exactly with their interest in civil, legal, basic human rights, the public interest, keeping children safe, preventing crime (???) and something vaguely between “Mom” and “Apple Pie,” and the Bill of Rights.

Then the discussion based on assumption fast-forwards to remodeling and reform demands based on their failure to produce what they were never designed to produce. It’s no longer fashionable to show curiosity about what they were designed to produce, but instead to be seen in public (and on-line) associated with groups perpetuating an ignorance about the courts’ basic blueprints, which ignorance a genuine curiosity about who set them up and how, might have quickly cured.

Somehow, it’s “What’s here now has been here always. It’s just too much effort to reverse, so why protest? Let’s just tweak the decorations and identify the flawed practices, and forget checking for flawed foundations.”

The courts cannot having swerved from this apparent purpose, cannot be in any way considered “Broken.” That this phrase has been publicized, promoted, and repeated instead of challenged (I mean, other than by my blogging!!) is a testament to the power of public relations firms with a sideline in the nonprofit business model, a little product (a 42-minute video), a $90,000 private start-up allowance (which the one I’m thinking of, did indeed declare), networking skills and — this seems important — not actually BEING a member of the classes they are allegedly speaking for, which is to say, being continually at risk, unable to travel regularly and often being broke. It probably also helped to hook up with lawyers and psychologists in conference (May 2012) run by someone who used to be head of Kaiser Mental Health, the APA and with some domestic violence leadership. [Conference in May 2012; Selling conference transcripts on Amazon; Anne Grant promotes the Initiative on a blog. A copy at UW-Madison Library.

In the first page of search results, mine was the only voice challenging the phrase (April 2012).

If they are indeed “Broken Courts” then where is the act of breaking from their founders’ stated purposes (as problem-solving, therapeutic jurisprudence dispensaries, driving people like cattle into forced consumption of behavioral health services provided in great part by members of nonprofit trade associations to which judges and others on the payroll of either government belong, and most of us do not, although our taxes pay their salaries (it’s said we are taxed to provide government service, right?))?

Browse my Table of Contents.  Here’s a start:  Bypassing the Legal Process in Baltimore: HOW and for WHOM Maryland got its “Family Divisions” in 1998:. . .1998, referenced in 2013. The quote from  my Christmas Eve (12/24/2013) post is beige (very light-brown) background with dark-red border. Rather than include “quotes within quotes” here, I alternated background colors of two quotes from that post.

[“Let’s Get Honest” writes]:

To create the Maryland Family Divisions underneath Circuit Court, first, two Task Forces were created to study the laws (who appointed, why?), mysteriously coming to the same conclusion about what was needed (which happened to almost exactly match what the organization “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts” had announced they want, and are about, in the 1970s).

Finally, overcoming apparently years of objections from the legislative body of the State of Maryland– a “handful of advocates” cut a deal with the respected judge. Literally, they were promised that if it didn’t pass THIS time (1997), he’d write their precious family divisions into law for Maryland. See next link. (Don’t forget the input from one of the largest pharmaceutical corporations around, or rather its foundation.)

“Justice reform in Maryland was formally launched in January of 1998 when the judges of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, headed by Chief Judge Robert M. Bell, signed Rule 16-204. ” Babb, Barbara A., Maryland’s Family Divisions: Sensible Justice for Families and Children, 72 Md. L. Rev. 1124 (2013).  <=<=BOOKMARK, READ

I just checked, and that’s still active in June, 2017.  Recommended reading, it shows intent and gives some timelines (don’t forget to also read the footnotes! I noticed that domestic violence was cited as a “non-legal issue“).  It’s not that complex to understand, however notice little mention of Ms. Babb’s apparently primary affiliation organization, the AFCC.

This only published January 1, 2013, and is copyright to the author (who has been basically running the Indoctrination Center CFCC I’m reporting on), and is likely AFCC without listing it particularly on the bio.  Maybe not, but I bet so:

{{LGH 2014 note: The CV makes Ms. Babb’s AFCC connection clear.** Failing to acknowledge this on the main page was no accident, and characteristic of cult behavior. More on that topic, later.}}

In recent years, the AFCC component has emerged closer to the top of the websites.  Searchable on this post (try AFCC / Babb or the name of the center, some of the 2017 posts will have screenprints).

Again — look and learn how it’s done.  Once they start waxing eloquent, take notes, look it up, and of course in this one, there turns out to be another source of information not mentioned in the “Maryland’s Family Divisions,” namely that a certain foundation was also behind the spearheading of UFC’s.


The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Factor: Who is RWJF?

(This link and quote expanded, cited again below):

Please attempt to “GET” the pre-planning and private funding of this justice model, and through whom The RWJ Foundation (RWJF) chose to push the foundation through: The impoverished (?) ABA….

Unified Family Courts: Treating the Whole Family, Not Just the Young Offender [<=<=hover cursor over link for summary]

From November 1996 through June 1999, the American Bar Association (ABA) developed six Unified Family Court (UFC) systems in three U.S. states and one territory and created a network of national groups to help educate the public about Unified Family Courts.

The public here is not demanding Unified Family Courts.  The ABA, and AFCC, want it, though.  Why? It’s a comprehensive jurisdiction grab, with administrative coordinator of services.  PERFECT setup for people with previously existing professional relationships, whether official through membership associations, or unofficial.  Forced referral of services is prioritized; more profits to the professionals (obviously less for the parents paying for them, and their children) and based on an overload of family law cases.  Perhaps there are so many cases because of their prior handling of major issues in the first place?  (Re-read that Rule 16-204 bookmarked link, a few quotes above!).

UFCs combine the functions of family and juvenile courts to provide a comprehensive approach to treating and educating young drug offenders and their families. This approach recognizes that substance abuse results from a combination of problems related to health, family structure, economics and community support. UFCs offer an effective alternative to a justice system that frequently treats substance abuse solely as a legal problem.. . . .


RWJF provided a $481,605 grant to the ABA for its work on UCF systems.

So, in general, I realize most people still don’t even have a basic independent vocabulary to describe such an organization, or to put its positioning in perspective with their paychecks, and their civil or legal rights, so as to protect themselves:


and NASMHPD, not to mention, ICMA.

Who ARE they? What are they doing here?

“What’s it to me?”

I could tell, or look up quite a bit, and so could you: Each one could be the topic of a blog, or at least a few posts.

Each one’s:

identity, location, age, size, scope, membership, activity, year of incorporation, founders (whose idea was it?), who are the board of directors and what other functions or affiliations do they have; their funding (whether mostly self-sustaining except for the portion required to qualify it for nonprofit status and as such tax exemption, or instead completely dependent on contributions), and whether most of that funding is directly from public (government) contributions, or not, and what is it doing?

… can be found by straightforward, on-line searches as I have consistently practiced and demonstrated on this blog. It’s not rocket science, brain surgery or nanotechnology — it’s simply decision to discipline oneself to look, to pay “A Different Kind of Attention.” There is only so much attention to go around…. So on any group, let’s get to the point earlier, as opposed to, never. This then develops a sensitivity to who’s who and puts that information IN your awareness so the next dozen times it crosses your attention, you are not clueless about who’s who, or subject to guesswork or hearsay when you want to know.

Do these groups interact with each other, or not? What is their size, in dollars; what profits (though not-taxable) are the operations generating? At least I could tell that when and where I can see a tax return; the “NGA” isn’t a nonprofit, but it has (operates) a nonprofit. How many people do they employ each year?….

If they are tax-exempt, public benefit organizations, what public benefits are they providing that couldn’t be provided directly through basic government operations, as legislated into state or federal budget appropriations and where, if it’s negatively affecting my family, I could complain through normal government circles? Who is monitoring (which arm of which government agency) is monitoring them, and their books? If anyone, where can I read about it, and how much is it costing taxpayers? How did they get here? How many organizations similar to these are around?

And, again,

What’s It To Me, and You?

THIS post is about who they are as a class of organizations and what this signifies about the United States of America TODAY, as influenced legislatively, judicially, economically, and human-rights-wise for the past 100 years (as to some) and less (as to others). I have named them, posted their links, and talked about some of them individually so you can SEE, but that’s not the main point.

More to the point, why doesn’t “the man on the street,” and the women, all those not directly employed by, donating to, running from a “Board of Directors” perspective, or independently contracting with these organizations, know about them?

“N” is for National, “I” is for International, and “A” is for Association.  So, what are the Associations for?

MOST of my list above except “NACC,” above, is that the organization names on their own signify either a civil servant [government employee] category or a function of some government entity at the State or lower jurisdiction level, but “Nationalized.” “N” is for “National” and “I” for “international in “ICMA.”  We are talking about public servants on the public payroll who have organized professionally into associations to promote their best interests, in particular with reference to relationship with state (Many are “State” level — see that “S” in NCSC and NCSL, for example) and federal governments.  This is a HUGE significance, as guess who has some serious funds, and guarantees of future funds to (re)distribute, courtesy the income tax (since 1913), the IRS as a collector service, and most Americans as payees?

While you and I (the average person or citizen), if we want to interact with the federal government on some cause, we need a specific cause of action (for example, a civil rights violation, or something of legal importance on the national level) on something the federal government has jurisdiction over, and we have rights under.   The normal method would be through our state legislatureslocal, county, state, etc. governmental apparatus.  But, these groups regularly interact with top levels of state leadership (in their various categories) because of their memberships and positioning.  As organizations, they bear a quite different relationship to federal and state governments than do most citizens under governance by state and federal laws.  …  And they are uniting to set policy, but we are not invited to, nor even aware of, most of the board meetings, agendas, round-tables, or conferences at which these groups operate and coordinate efforts.

For comparison, two other professional associations which are indeed “nationwide” but NOT by their organizational name or definition representing a civil servant or a government function, use the word “American” instead. However, one of them has plenty of judges who have been or are members, and in fact individual who has been a member of one of these two (and maybe still is), is now President of the United States of America, and his name is Barack H. Obama. {{obviously, @ 2014 writing…we now have a Pres. Donald J. Trump}}

“American” in this context is also “National.”  “American” in the ABA and APA refers to the United States of….

In fact, I wrote this post is mostly to illustrate the concept of tax-exempt (“nonprofit”), membership trade associations so I can better discuss the APA and ABA.  The groups mentioned, however, also affect policy in the family courts, and through their collective influences, the national economy which affects (ongoing), your and my personal economy, which is to say, affects us personally

It’s time to discuss what they are all doing here, particularly the APA.  

Another related group I discovered, is such a major influence and whose origins (very early 1900s) through current reach and influence on state and national policies, budgets, up through today (2014), could be called a driving factor, right alongside the ABA and the APA. Its centralized assets are lesser, but its influence appears to be similar.  It is not to be ignored.

It is called “Mental Health America” and I documented last night (through looking at related tax returns and associations of this character — nonprofits providing government services for the mentally ill) influence up to the at least State level in California, 2004, a Proposition 63 taxing the personal income of the wealthy (over $1,000 personal income) to continue funding for community mental health.  Its story is interesting and relevant to “what’s America doing, today?”


It’s one thing to have a nonprofit association in a business that does NOT come under the province of “government services,” and entirely another to have nonprofits designed primarily to get grants and contracts with governments to provide “government services,” and a third, and uniquely potent situation, which these represent, is where interlocking  directorates of nonprofits have been formed whose very memberships are restricted to (or even primarily)  (a) civil servants or (b)  agencies dedicated to professionalizing, standardizing and controlling, and usually expanding that particular government service or functions.  Like those funded by Medicaid, or Social Services, in particular — or the courts, or law enforcement, or . . . . governors, state legislators, mayors, city managers (“ICMA”).

Citizens who earn wages are taxed allegedly to provide government services.   Taxation WITH representation, or at least some system or hope vehicle for potentially getting that representation, means we have some say in what services we are ordered to consume, and for what price.

In the process, I discovered a related association “MHA” (Mental Health America), which its website says dates to 1909 and was founded by a psychologist, psychiatrist, and a Yale grad Clifford W. Beers, (1876-1943)who [as described on the internet, in modern terms, though probably not at the time] suffered severely from depression and suicide attempts, after which he experienced first-hand what it’s like to be psychiatrically institutionalized, and abused within the institutions (21 days in a straight jacket…).  Wikipedia calls him the founder of the “Mental Hygiene Movement.”

THAT is discussed in the second post of the 2017 publication split. It’s a major topic!

THIS SEPARATE SECTION of the ORIGINAL POST referencing NCSEA, and (regarding certification “PMP” the PMI, Project Management Institute, and its interesting contractors (and $301M assets as of tax returns shown) was originally near the bottom, but I felt that it belonged here, more than in Parts 2 or 3 to follow.

Part 2 (the subsequent post) takes up at the end of the above sections, with Mental Health America and the NASHMD, which then also overlaps with Part 3, which deals more specifically with the ABA and APA, while reminding us of the power of the NGA, and discovery of yet another nonprofit, low-profile, small in size, but functioning to represent what the related entities call the “Big Seven Associations” of this type. See next image:

State and Local Legal Center EIN#310868827 (SLLC, formerly The Academy for State and Local Government), 2012 News Release (click image to read its 2 pp.) shows that it represents the “Big Seven” associations.

There is a specific sector and role which certain trade associations play in the mix, including some of the most prominent ones (for example, that American Psychological Association — and all the related ones) and the American Bar Association, and some many people don’t think about, such as this “ICMA.”

Look at them, and seeing their historical activity, compare one to another in structure, size, or influence, keeping in mind that where an individual organization may be small in $$ or assets or even revenues, if the number of parallel organizations is large, it has a collective clout. National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices (the NGA, The Collective Voice of the Nation’s Governors, since 1908 isn’t the 501©3 nonprofit (although it is itself as an “instrumentality of the states of the United States of America” still tax-exempt); the NGA Center for Best Practices, Providing Governors Ideas That Work, is the 501(c)3, but website and staff etc. are shared), National Center for State Courts (Trusted Leadership. Proven Solutions. Better Courts. Since 1971, and a 501(c)3, per Supreme Court justice Warren Burger now with an international sector) National Conference of State Legislatures (Strong States. Strong Nation. A 1975 merger of three previous organizations, names not mentioned on the home page reference to them (which is odd), + its 1982 501(c)3 Foundation),

[Images added in 2017 update]:

NCSL Foundation Membership page showing 3 categories available (“got $7,500 for membership?” Are you an org. and NOT an individual?) See website and details for sliding-scale privileges also. NOTE several Rx companies also show up as NAMI corporate partners).

NCSL Boston Summit upcoming as of this post (update). Foundation solicitations recommend joining for better access to NCSL proper. Got airfare? Got org. membership fees for NCSL foundation?

NCSL Foundation (not “NCSL” only) described. Click image to enlarge or visit website

Got 75000 or 12500 or best 25000? Are You an ORG? Then Join NCSL Foundation for State Legislatures | Sponsor List @6-17-2017 per website 5pp) (<==May need to click once to display page icon, then click that icon, to view the extensive list, current mid-June 2017 I believe.  Displays better (two-column alpha) on NCSL Foundation website, but this is a snapshot in time for this year’s memberssponsors” (some of my filenames mis-spoke; they are not “members.”  tax returns show nothing under “members” but regular contributions (earlier $1M, now $2M+) as non-gov’t grants).

Here are the “NCSL Foundation for State Legislature” (separate from the NCSL) most recent tax returns, which claim 1982 founding, Denver address, and seem to have had the same exec director (a volunteer, William Pound) from 2002 (tax return viewed) to 2015 (latest posted tax return (on Foundation Center database) viewed). Below that are two annotated (colorful) images from back of their FY2002 return listing affiliations of various board members, something later returns across many organizations often don’t reveal.  I’ve marked (blue rectangle) everyone that appears NOT to be a civil servant or state legislator, although there may be some overlap which isn’t shown on the list.  Don’t let the low “Total Assets” fool you; average contributions shown are higher, regularly, throughout at least this century.

Total results: 3Search Again. FY =/= calendar year, the latest return posted is for FY2015.

NCSL Foundation for State Legislatures CO 2016 990 37 $445,737.00 74-2232576
NCSL Foundation for State Legislatures CO 2015 990 34 $471,544.00 74-2232576
NCSL Foundation for State Legislatures CO 2014 990 26 $508,032.00 74-2232576

NCSL Fndtn Bd of Direx FY2002 (EIN#742232576) Click either image to see annotated (3-page) pdf taken from a FY2002 Form 990, last 3 pages. Anything not B/W is annotation; I am marking what look like the non-government board of directors, most? of them “at-large” and several of them with Rx connections.

NCSL Fndtn Bd of Direx FY2002 (EIN#742232576) Click either image to see annotated (3-page) pdf taken from a FY2002 Form 990, last 3 pages. This=p2 of directors also showing Staff)

NCSL Form 990 Sched A, last 5 yrs of support, FY2002 (EIN#742232576) Click to enlarge. Notice pattern; Contrib increase and steady Program Service Revs



(Below this line continues a 2014 narrative; the images on NCSL and its tax return, obviously, added during update (in fact, post-publication update).

I’m taking time for a “section” on the NCSEA** as an example because it’s so very closely connected to the family law system and individual parent economies (cash flow, + or -) and through some of its “expanding-purpose” programming is setting up deliberate influences for custody and visitation outcomes, and doing so nationwide. It is a nonprofit trade association based on governmental function.

**2017 Update — that link is to current (viewed 2017) governance, incl. several non-civil-servants and a rep. from Maximus (see this post for more on the company!).  President is from CSG Gov’t Solutions Inc. in Chicago (featured here). Statement issued by this man approving OCSE new rule allowing greater flexibility for use of “limited resources” of states, and mentions that NCSEA contributed to that rule:


I’ll make this section a certain background color: In also looking up a certain board of directors whose affiliation wasn’t government and I didn’t recognize as a company, I looked at the company (“CSG”) and at a particular degree following the individual’s “PMP.” I knew that represented a certain kind of certification (Project Management Professional) and took some time to discuss that.

I also looked at another board member with an easily searchable name (being a compound last-name, from marriage). That individual’s marriage 2004 announcement made the New York Times, but was also a prime example of overlapping roles. She was in 2013 (and probably other years also) both on the board of NCSEA and head (“Executive Deputy Commissioner”) of a unit of government which claimed to have done over $740 million in collections that year — the New York Office of Child Support Enforcement.

These agencies professionalize the industry, but like corporations, they protect their members’ interest in their government-funded functions, which include their members job descriptions and continued (civil servant) employment and nice lifestyle with pensions afterwards, too. This is “supposed” to be a direct overlap with the population sectors they represent, but often it is not.

Name me one father not actually making a living (or side-stream income) in the responsible fatherhood movement or a related governmental agency, for example, which wants the role of the child support enforcement agencies to expand and become more invasive for ALL fathers, to expand child support orders for multi-millionaires under Title IV-D classification (intended originally for NEEDY families), to function as matchmaker and emotional marriage coach, and to have an increasing budget and evolving, flexible governmental purpose which burdens the taxpayers, while losing unknown millions at the state level under the category of “undistributable” (which, FYI, it has already been noticed by the HHS OIG, has been going on; see some of my sidebar texts for links). That’s pretty much the goal of the associations, however, judging by their publications….

National Child Support Enforcement Association That’s link a website naming its 2013 directors, who are, it says, are:

NCSEA was fortunate to have a superlative group of passionate child support professionals to stand for election to the NCSEA Board of Directors. The following individuals were elected to a 3-year term which will begin September 1, 2013 and conclude August 30, 2016:

  • Jim Fleming, IV-D Director, North Dakota
  • Alisha Griffin, IV-D Director, New Jersey
  • Michael Hayes, Deputy Director of Family Initiatives, Texas*
  • Kelly Peiper, Principal, CSG – Iowa ***
  • Diane Potts, Deputy Attorney General of Child Support Enforcement, Illinois

* [Texas Attorney General’s Office, although several women I know have had a hard time identifying any such office. Previous association with the Ford Foundation-based “Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative” or similar]

**Hint when looking at boards of directors. When there’s a mixture of civil servants and private corporation involvement, and the name of the organization is initials, or otherwise understated and not explained, there may be a reason why: Look it up. “CSG” is actually “CSG Government Solutions.”

I found this is an Illinois “Domestic BCA” corporation, (File# 59373722) formed 4/21/1997 now called CSG Government Solutions, Inc. and “CSG” is one of its least informative trade (assumed) names. Its name was changed from “Chicago Systems Group, Inc.” in 4/2010, and CSG Government Solutions (without the “inc.” is now an assumed name.

There is a pageful of corporations named “CSG”-something. I didn’t recognize Peiper or “CSG,” but the LinkedIn [Updated:] makes it clear why Peiper might be involved — previous association with Policy Studies, Inc. (If Policy Studies, Inc. doesn’t ring a bell, read my early blog posts until it does, including the AFCC/CPR overlap of purposes and associations in re: access/visitation grants and child support issues).

In 2017, I really didn’t remember the Kelly Peiper connection here, but looked it up again, and notice that her degree was simply BS in Public Admin in TN (two-year, done 1991) at UTenn Martin, and the JD at University of Tennessee College of Law (completed 1994).  She then worked briefly as a chid support attorney in TN, and from 1996-2012 (most stable employment) was at Policy Studies, Inc., apparently in the Des Moines, Iowa area (?).

In 2012, other sources show, Policy Studies, Inc. was acquired by (and is now part of) Maximus, a major child support collection (and other) entity I’ve also posted on (and anyone can research — it got sued for, as I recall, fraud in more than one state, settled, and was so danged big, it continued getting contracts anyway.  There were cases in NY and Wisconsin, and? Texas).

I should document that, and so looked (some of) them up.  It’s been a major problem, and Sourcewatch has them nailed in different states for: Disability, Gender, and Racial discrimination; the UK for suddenly halving disabled experts pay (requiring government subsidy to compensate), and criminal fraud involving medicaid (sued in 2007, settled for $30.5M, paid in 2016), as well as performance complaints (in several states).  Maximus also has international operations under different (brand? or subsidiary) names.

Washington Post July 24 2007 Fraud Case settlement — the fraud was re: Medicaid.

MAXIMUS, Inc., based in Reston, Virginia, is a publicly-traded (NYSE:MMS) for-profit corporation that receives government contracts to provide “business process services” to government health and human services agencies in the United States, Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Saudi Arabia. The company focuses primarily on “operating government-sponsored programs for vulnerable populations, such as Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), Medicaid, health insurance exchanges and other health care reform initiatives under the Affordable Care Act, Medicare, welfare-to-work, and child support services,” according to its annual report.[1]

…Federal Audit Finds Tens of Millions in Improper Billings in Wisconsin

In 2004, the state of Wisconsin awarded Maximus with a $3.4 million contract to ensure the state received as much federal funding as possible for a mental health program known as Health Check. Health Check is a Medicaid program providing psychiatric services from private institutions to young people. Since 2004 the state, acting on Maximus’s advice, has received $67 million from the federal government.[9]

A September 2013 federal audit revealed, however, that there was improper billing on the part of the state and as a result the state may have to return some or all of the funding it received. The audit calls for a $22.8 million payback from the state for improper billing from October 2004 to September 2006. The state allegedly improperly claimed $19 for every $20 reported. The audit report found that the state included administrative costs that should not have been covered. Traditionally this type of Medicaid program the state picks up 40 cents on the dollar with the federal government covering the rest.[9]

Maximus has been a consultant to the state of Wisconsin since the 1990s. It signed its first Medicaid contract with the state in November 1998, a relationship that continued through 2009. Maximus had been called by the state government a “”revenue-maximization consultant.” In 2004, the state sharply increased its claims to the federal government for the mental health program based on Maximus’ advice. Maximus’ contract with the state of Wisconsin did not provide a flat fee for consulting services. Rather the corporation was paid a contingency based on how much money the state received from the federal government, providing Maximus with an incentive to inflate Wisconsin’s claims.[9]

The state of Wisconsin has continued to use the method for claims suggested by Maximus and the two year budget through June 2015 includes an expected $14 million in federal funding for the Health Check program.[9]

Maximus Pays $30.5 Million to Settle Medicaid Fraud Criminal Charges

In July 2007, Maximus, Inc. agreed to pay $30.5 million to settle a criminal investigation under the False Claims Act {(and, it goes on…)}

Finally (there are plenty more articles — but, for now):  Sourcewatch references Maximus’ work in Tennessee, then through Policy Studies, Inc., in Colorado, so I’m quoting it:

  • TN: Child Support Enforcement: Maximus directs child support enforcement offices in more than 20 Tennessee counties. The Tennessee Department of Human Services (DHS) received 894 complaints related to Maximus employee behavior in the various offices between July 2009 and September 2012., Complaints heard by the Tennessee DHS include lack of professionalism on the part of Maximus employees, lost or late child-support payments, and administrative gaffes on the part of Maximus employees that have cost the jobs of non-custodial parents. Maximus and a subsidiary that it purchased in 2012, Policy Studies, Inc. (PSI), directed the Davidson County Child Support Enforcement Office (CCSEO) between 1993 and 2013. When Maximus ran the Davidson County office in 2012, after its purchase of PSI, it logged 36 complaints from May 1 to December 31. Control of the Davidson County office was granted to a new firm in June, 2013.[17]

Maximus was just so BAD in the US that when it, amazingly, obtained yet more contracts with the Brits, they cited the US experience to protest.  First image is from 2007 US (not UK) settlement of $30.5M plus a previous $12+M re: situation in DC area (part of a qui tam lawsuit filed by a Maximus division employee under the False Claims Act — good for him.  Don’t know how this helped the defrauded vulnerable populations, because Maximus is still functional, obviously…).

The second article doesn’t display too well, but refers to the UK situation being protested, citing to the US troubles with this company; and (click on its internal link) a few paragraphs of very polite but succinct argument that, after all, we set ourselves up for this in outsourcing government sources without public say in provision of them, because it occurs in “commercial” circles.  That was dated 2016.

USDOJ 2007 announcemt re its settlement with Maximus (image is most, not all, of that page).

(from “disabledgo.com” blog, 2/2016) “Maximus has falsified fitness for work results, says MP” (Louise Haigh, shadow minister).

(Disabled News featured the Maximus logo in its article)

The discredited US outsourcing giant contracted to carry out “fitness for work” tests on behalf of the government has been accused by an MP of “falsifying” the results of assessments.Labour MP Louise Haigh attacked the track record, ethics and even criminal behaviour of Maximus in delivering public contracts in the US, during a debate on the work capability assessment (WCA).

But she also highlighted what she described as a “disconcerting pattern of behaviour” by Maximus in the UK since taking over the WCA contract from Atos last year.

She said: “There seems to be an alarming trend of cases being rejected based on factual errors or even – I hesitate to say this – falsification. ….

Haigh, a shadow Cabinet Office minister, also raised concerns that there was no way for the public to check whether targets set for Maximus by the government – such as the number of serious complaints and the payment of travel expenses within nine working days – were being met.

She said: “That is why we talk about a democratic deficit in outsourced public services, the costs of which have rocketed since 2010 to almost £120 billion, covering vast swathes of services that we all rely on.

“What exactly is the point in setting targets if the public cannot see whether they are being achieved?

“A supplier could manipulate the data, and we would have to rely on an overstretched [Department for Work and Pensions] to pick it up.” | She said that contractors such as Maximus were “undoubtedly failing”, and added: “We will all be forgiven for not wanting simply to trust that all is well when our constituents tell a different story and when well-documented scandals seem to play on a loop.”

From that debate on WCA (Work Capability Assessment), you can see some of their concerns (images to left, labeled 1, 2,3 _ the Parliament header showing date and context):

Heading, Feb 9 2016 UK House of Commons debate (WCA involving Maximus) see next 3 images

#1 of 3 UK House of Commons debate (WCA, involving Maximus, privatizatn issues Louise Haigh MP)

#2 of 3 UK House of Commons debate (WCA, involving Maximus, privatizatn issues Louise Haigh MP)

#3 of 3 UK House of Commons debate (WCA, involving Maximus, privatizatn issues Louise Haigh MP)

So, after 16 years with this lovely company Policy Studies, Inc. (although not in the states featured above, it looks like, except initially in TN?), ….per the LinkedIn, Ms. Peiper then worked briefly for Wellcare (health insurance compliance) and CSG Government Solutions (for a few years), but by 2016 was back, this time at Maximus (which has swallowed Policy Studies, Inc. as I just said). So that 16 year work span has, so far, been the primary one.  With very few college qualifications other then from Tennessee, working in or for agencies serving government, and featuring this PMI (Project Management Institute) certification only makes sense.

#1 (of 9 images, #s 1-6 are from the LinkedIn, and 7,8,9 other related sources, based on namesearch of a single presenter, for this post (6/29/2017 Oct. 2014 update re: NCSEA and similar orgs)).


3. Policy Studies, Inc., 1996-2012 for Ms. Peiper. This type of job or professional stability is something many custodial parents whose CS orders are getting retroactively modified (as to arrears) or eliminated (if there’s a custody-switch thanks in part to legal assistance for noncustodial fathers based on social marriage/fatherhood policies working through social services AND Child Support systems) may never know, thanks to source of ongoing disruptions through family court litigation (case-churning). ALSO NOTE: PSI here has had leadership in common (Jane Venohr Ph if I have the right PSI, which I think I do) with CPR in Denver, CO (also see Jessica Pearson) with common interests with AFCC. PSI & CPR were in early years (DNK about more recently) found evaluating such things as access/visitation (PRWORA grants programs targeting NCPs to increase parenting time) programs nationwide. Look it up yourself!


5 showing NCSEA involvement (from LinkedIn)

6 College Educ in TN (one BS in Public Admin, and a J.D., acquired right before 1996 PRWORA passage). See also two certifications both related to PMP.

7 (explains Maximus ate up Policy Studies Inc.)

8 NCSEA is NATIONAL CSE assoc, but there are also regional memberships, ERICSA is obviously “Eastern.” Two images from a slide presentation found from a 2015 conference. The “sweet” theme comes from Hershey PA location. Cute.



Reviewing this post for update (close to finishing that process), I went back and looked for CSG Government Solutions, Inc. With a few more presentation and perhaps comprehension skills now three years later, I’d like to post some images — below the sandy-colored, teal bordered-section on CSG Government Solutions at a certain address in Chicago. The images explain basically what it’s doing, although not whether its a privately controlled or public corporation. It also shows regional offices in different parts of the country, obviously working from the digital age (with proprietary platform and process named after itself), and interestingly, started in 1997 — RIGHT after welfare reform. One known feature of PRWORA (Welfare Reform of 1996) was the mandate to states to centralize their distributions of child support payments into state-level ‘SDUs” while (apparently) retaining the LCSEA (Local Child Support Enforcement Agency) at the County level. Around the time this had been taking place, or thereafter, in California, when the local (as in, this example, Los Angeles County) District Attorney was reponsible for child support enforcement, Richard Fine helped John Silva file a famous “Silva v. Garcetti” case demanding distribution of already-collected child support payment, which was (I believe the $$ figure cited was) $28M. Obviously $28M of withheld investments can earn at least some dividends / interest on savings while being stockpiled. The cause seemed just, and the practice unjust.

However as these things go, and with another lawsuit about illegal payments to Los Angeles County Judges by the County of Los Angeles, somehow the messenger attorney (Richard Fine) ends up in solitary coercive confinement in the Los Angeles Men’s Jail — for 18 months starting in 2009 — and being disbarred, and the illegal payments to judges (in the form of benefits worth around $40K, making them among the highest paid Superior Court judges around) retroactively made legal, quickly, at the state level. …. and currently, Gil Garcetti’s son is now Mayor of Los Angeles.

At ANY RATE, CSG Government Solutions in Chicago (see images below) was on top of the process, forming it says in 1997 to help with the modernization of government, and targeting major cash handlers within governments federal or state — health insurance exchanges, HHS, child support provision, Human Services, Motor Vehicle, and “insurance” as it says, currently.  Despite the website’s many links, it really doesn’t tell much about the company.  Most pages are short “blurbs” with links to more news articles at the bottom.  Very little detail on the leadership is given either, really.  I’ll post some here, and some at the bottom of this page (post):

CSG Gov’t Solutions (formerly Chicago Solutions Group) formed 1997. Notice market segmts (bottom of page), viewed 6/2017

CSG Gov’t Solutions (Proprietary process/tools)

CSG Gov’t Solutions (regions, sectors, clients) formed 1997, current CEO John Walsworth

CSG Gov’t Solutions (IL Cyberdrive Corp. Details page also show street address + prior names, + 2 officers) + date of incorporations


Peiper has a J.D, and a PMP, which I realized not long ago is for “Project Manager Professional,” i.e., a certification obtained through trainings by “PMI” or Professional Management Institute:

“PMI’s Project Management Professional (PMP)® credential is the most important industry-recognized certification for project managers. Globally recognized and demanded, the PMP® demonstrates that you have the experience, education and competency to lead and direct projects. Project Management Institute is the world’s leading not-for-profit professional membership association for the project, program and portfolio management profession.

Founded in 1969, PMI delivers value for more than 2.9 million professionals working in nearly every country in the world through global advocacy, collaboration, education and research. PMI advances careers, improves organizational success and further matures the profession of project management through its globally recognized standards, certifications, resources, tools, academic research, publications, professional development courses, and networking opportunities.

As part of the PMI family, Human Systems International (HSI) provides organizational assessment and benchmarking services to leading businesses and government, while ProjectManagement.com and ProjectsAtWork.com create online global communities that deliver more resources, better tools, larger networks and broader perspectives.

IF you accept and understand that the processes of United States government (i.e., government itself) are under the influence, still, of the “Reorganization Act of 1939, and that part of this if professionalizing the administration through exactly these processes, you may better understand where the process of certification (trainings trademarking, controlling and expanding the legitimacy and credibility of ANY profession) can go and has been going.

Keep in mind that the Internet is still only about two generations of people old (meaning, basically think “1980s” for its major expansion and popularization, and with this, any corporation’s ability to run downloadable trainings (information in electronic, possibly accompanied by print and/or CD, DVD (etc.) form to accompany it), trademarking the product of course, and mass-marketing it through any distribution and referrals network available, and towards nearly any target market, whether the real estate construction, or even welfare recipients who can be forced through classes, or parents in the family court system, who ALSO can be forced through short classes for high prices. It is a VERY profitable form of business.

I have an acquaintaince who has been in the real estate development (major construction project responsibility) who recognized “PMP” as a licensing category.

Naturally any licensure has some licensing Institute (i.e., nonprofit) to do this. Search here for a list of tax returns, type in “Professional Management Institute” (only, and no other qualifiers) to see how many chapters there are, that most chapters are named by geographical region, but some (including one for Pharmaceutical, one for “Diversity”) are by area of interest. Any column on a search result can be sorted by clicking on it; I recommend click on “state,” or on “assets.”

A similar situation could be shown in other types of organizations (such as the APA and its state and county chapters, the ABA too, not to mention when someone has developed a proprietary process, training, or program, umbrella organizations to “work the system” national, as well as sometimes sporadic, sometimes longer-lasting smaller nonprofits will surface.  Mental Health America is one such situation.  So are the many “NAMI” organizations, or ones which may be less familiar to those not actually involved, such as Prevent Child Abuse America (“PCA”), or “Child Abuse Prevention Councils” (etc.) (CAPCs).  Some of these also specifically act to target government institutions or agencies, known to have a fairly stable source of funding called the US taxpayers, and state (etc.)… !!


Most of them are not large, but there are many, all networked through the PMI, presumably, and these are all tax-exempt trade associations, the trade being “project management.” Presumably as they’re filing, they are corporations whose business may be often, directed at government business, or the building trades (for example), which — face it — governments at all levels are apt to build and invest in real estate projects in which to do their business – like justice, health and human services, education, and prisons, for example.

So, the costs (the professionalization is supposed to lead to higher salaries) are going to be passed on to whom? You got it — taxpayers. The “Global Headquarters” are in Pennsylvania (a Commonwealth whose corporations do NOT have to file annually and with a notably lousy corporate look-up database for the public). I want to show the size:

(from most recent to least, these top three rows are an UPDATE.  Notice the growth, then over six years, and ask — is this really necessary?  Can anyone deciding that they are a profession, go file a 501©6 and do the same thing, thus reducing the available tax receipts basis for any operating company by operating, well, tax-exempt?

Total results: 6. Search Again. (3+3 = 6, for original and update search on same org.)

PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PA 2015 990O 64 $445,945,408 23-1887442
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PA 2014 990O 104 $414,337,290 23-1887442
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PA 2013 990O 70 $369,746,683 23-1887442
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE PA 2012 990O 51 $301,459,191 23-1887442
Project Management Institute PA 2011 990O 54 $238,323,777 23-1887442
Project Management Institute PA 2010 990O 48 $202,224,264 23-1887442

(From 2010- 2014, Total assets more than doubled, from $202M to $414M.  Interesting… By 2016 return, they’ll probably increase another $50M to $500M, or the entity may decide, we’re attracting too much attention, and dismantle parts of itself or spin off into a related entity, I DNK)

Stated purpose (latest tax return shown above, p.1):


i.e., continual expansion and self-aggrandizement.  Understandable, considering where the major revenues for the organization are coming from — certifications and other program service revenues).  See first large image below for a sample (Pt. I summary page).

[2017 interjection — I just reviewed the latest tax returns, and am having a little trouble with the gag (i.e., regurgitation) reflex.  It’s just too damn big!!; it’s got multiple related entities, all categories (Disregarded, Tax-exempt, Taxable as Partnership, Taxable as Corporation or Trust) and the revenues are SO large, and not one cent from contributions — who needs ’em with all the other sources of revenue??).  It would be more appropriate to show some of this as a separate post (I did take screenprints, and will make a folder on my computer for them).

Here’s part of the show:  the only tax-exempt related entity — its educational foundation (same street address, different legal domicile).  While PMI “central” (above) is clearly NOT a grant-making agency, it did (FYE 2015, above) grant over $4M to some.  As it turns out, over $4M of the over $4M++ granted just went to its own related entity anyhow.  So I though I’d look that one up.  Here’s a screenprint also of the Grants (Sched I, page 1 only).  Other grants of about $120K were in two parts — either to individuals (helping them attend classes) or support to chapter organizations.)

PMI (FYE2015) Pt I. Most of Page 1 except header and signature block. EIN# 23-1887442, as shown in post above. 6/29/2017.

PMI (EIN# 23-1887442) FYE2015, Sched I (domestic grants), p.1 of 2. showing that most went to its own related entity. (see first grant)


The PMI Education Foundation (PMIEF) I see is: DC domicile, was established in only 1990, main source of funding is from the parent organization,and is managing to spend most of what it’s taking in, despite having “0” employees (employees paid from other entity) and about 100 volunteers, it says:

EIN# provided was 23263070: Notice this is also filing a Form 990O, not Form 990 (plain):

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

Project Management Institute Educational Foundation PA 2015 990 55 $3,150,855 23-2630701
Project Management Institute Educational Foundation PA 2014 990 80 $2,875,003 23-2630701
Project Management Institute Educational Foundation PA 2013 990 57 $2,798,965 23-2630701

Program purpose, per page 1 declaration:


I looked at a 2002 tax return, which had a more elaborate description, and reported to the IRS on why its charitable status should be expanded.  I noticed at the time it had an officer (unpaid) from Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) and a Trustee from “Kingston-on-Thames, Surrey, UK” and a single paid officer borrowed from PMI, paid only $129K.  It shared its solicitation plans, including presenting to all PMI members, components in the US (“200”) and even recommending that children in schools be informed about the beauties of the project management field as a lifestyle:

The Mission of the PMI  Educational Foundation

Founded 14August1990, the PMI Educational Foundation has been an autonomous, non-profit, public foundation established by PMI for the purpose of charitable, educational and scientific endeavors. Its vision is to support project management life- skills for society-at-large plus cutting edge research and educational initiatives in project and program management

By its articles of incorporation, the Foundation is empowered to provide scholarships and fellowships, endow and establish professorships, assist in establishing degree programs, administer and support student organizations, plus solicit, receive, and expend gifts, legacies, and [grants?].  The Foundation also may assist in educational and research projects, grant and confer awards, citations, or medals, prepare and disseminate educational information, and perform other related activities.

I’m uploading several thumbnail documents (click any to enlarge) without annotating; all from a FY2002 return (earliest I could find), showing its small size, and where it was at about ten years after startup — still small, “below-the-radar” and no doubt intentionally as to size.  I’m sure by then PMI (parent org) was also huge in size.

After that, back to “regularly scheduled” narrative from 2014; thanks for your patience in reading and viewing! (The 7 images below will not be in any particular order.  Source, that Form 990 (2002) FYI is here):

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [7 images]

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [7 images]

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [7 images]

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [7 images]

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [9 images]

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [7 images]

PMIEF’org EIN# 232630701 establ 1990 by giant PMI, EARLY (2002) FORM 990 [7 images]

PMI (the parent organization, not PMIEF, the spinoff) Seems to be rapidly accumulating its assets, no? How? Well, for one, it’s not getting taxed on profits. Learn to look at a tax return and extract meaning from it from the various parts! I did. Practice helps. No free summaries here — do the looking, except this short summary: Their “Program Service Revenueif it was an individual wage-earner or for-profit, would be taxable. Last year shown, it was $137.7 million, which is almost half of their “gross receipts” listed at the top of page 1 as $ 313,100,104.

If a taxpayer were earning a fraction of that — $137, 000 let’s say — what tax bracket would they be in? Would it be higher than 10% do you think? How about a corporation which earned $13.7 million “net” (taxable), what would the percentage be? Higher than 10%?

PMI’s “Investment income” was $13.9 million.” Can we agree that this is about 10% of its business revenue?

Another way of saying this is, by being non-taxable as a corporation, money was saved, invested, and is producing revenues for the corporation, instead of for the US government. If PMI were taxed instead of tax-exempt, would it have $301M of assets now, do you think?

“At any time during the calendar year, did the organization have an interest in, or a signature or other authority over, a financial account in a foreign country (such as a bank account, securities account, or other financial account)?” Answer, YES. Where? It listed IN,CH, BE, AS. That’s “India, China, Belgium, and American Samoa” (I had to look up “AS”) It’s top about six officers are paid a total (including base salary “reportable from the organization (W-2/1099-MISC) totaling $1.8 million + last column, which lumps together “Estimated amount of other compensation from the organization and related organizations” of $449K = over $2.2 million. Of this the President and CEO took over 1/3 (base), and the other five people well over $200K/year. What are their officer functions? “VP Legal, Finance and Administration, Human Resources, IT (INformation Technology) and Organization Markets.” These reflect what business it’s in.

I don’t see why this should be tax-exempt, but it is. Looking at its organization, it’s running people through certification classes, which functions SEEM to be contracted out to independent contractors anyhow.

Here are the top 5, however, the tax return asks how many including these were paid over $100K, and the answer is unusually high: 134. This reflects a minimum, then of $13,400,000 paid out to others. However, the five were all paid over $1 million (that’s $5 million) and of these the first listed was paid over $13 million:

  • $13.3 million, “PROMETRIC PO BOX 223608 PITTSBURGH PA 152512608

MCI BENELUX SA, Company Description from Bloomberg. It’s a private company. “Mci Benelux SA was founded in 2003. The company’s line of business includes operating legislative bodies.” from http://www.mcievents.com/belgium.aspx (window frame reads: “Belgium – MCI — Your Global Association, Communications, Congress and Event Management Partner”):

The Brussels Office (formerly GIC Management) was launched in 1991 and merged with the MCI Group in April 2003. The office employs 85+ professionals originating from more than 20 countries.MCI serves all type of clients from governmental institutions such as the European Commission and NATO, professional associations to corporate companies. We work with global, regional and national organisations to help them grow and meet their key business objectives.

MCI is a globally integrated association, communications and event management company. We are the thought-leaders in building community around brands, products, services, companies and institutions.

Wiki makes it clear the MCI Group (as opposed to MCI Benelux SA) started in Geneva, Switzerland, in 1987. The article has a “needs additional citations for verification” notice at the top). “57 offices in 30 countries”:

MCI was established in 1987 in Geneva, Switzerland to provide destination management, event management and Professional Conference Organisation (PCO) services.[5]   The company began to grow significantly from 1999 with the opening of an office in Zurich and the acquisition of two companies based in Lyon, and diversified into Performance Improvement Programmes (PIP). This was followed by acquisitions in the UK and Brussels and the development of new companies in France, Germany and Spain.

Notice also that in 1994-1996 (during welfare reform) this individual was working in Tennessee as a Title IV-D Child Support Attorney, and that both CSG and Policy Studies, Inc. (his or her involvement) pertained to Medicaid and HBE (Health Benefit Exchanges):  (reflected also in images I posted, 2017 update, above).

  • Principal Consultant at Policy Studies Inc
  • Director – Communications at PMI Central Iowa Chapter
  • Attorney at Child Support Services of Tennessee

CSG Government Solutions motto is “your trusted advisor in government program modernization.” It sponsored, this past August (i.e. 2014), the NCSEA’s annual conference:

CSG Government Solutions continues to increase its presence across the United States. The company deploys highly experienced teams and innovative methods, knowledge, and tools to help governments modernize complex program enterprises. CSG clients include 38 state governments, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Department of Labor, and large municipal governments

Also from that CSG site:

Our highly experienced teams and industry-leading Centers of Excellence help governments leverage innovative technology and processes to meet the challenges of administering complex programs. Founded in 1997, CSG has established itself as a trusted adviser to government agencies across the U.S.

The NCSEA 2013 Annual report contains a message from its Immediate Past President, Barbara Saunders, showing that chid support enforcement has been relegated to secondary

2013 year was significant for NCSEA as we ventured into new technology applications and expanded our role as a primary player in the development of family support policy. NCSEA continued to collaborate with organizations, agencies and non-profits to support the challenge of expanding child support’s role for parents and families, while focusing on the IV-D mission of collecting and distributing the essential financial resources to children

Do I need to spell this out again? This Child Support Enforcement Agency Association has collaborated for the express purpose of expanding its role BEYOND the legislatively ordained one.   !!!

Although they still pay lip service and admit to their central function of collecting and distributing the essential financial resources to children, expanding their role as is the purpose, while “focusing on the IV-D (which is to say, legislated by Congress under the Social Security Act, Title IV-D) is “challenging.” Perhaps it’s also misguided? Isn’t expanding operations perpetually, and influence (for profit to their shareholders, as that applies, or business owners) what businesses and corporations do, in general? (And, FYI consider there are also regional and state ones, likewise collaborating collectively)

Please take a look at the annual report, who are the directors and who the sponsors of this organization and ask, where is the children’s voice, where is the voice of the parents in whose household the children are residing, and the voice of the citizens who pay both for (or at least are taxed under the premises they must pay for) both the government infrastructures for citizen benefits and the public welfare, of course. Here it is: NCSEA-2013-Annual-Report_FINAL-1 See Directors incl (thru 8-31-2014) Scott Cade, et al

By virtue of having nonprofit trade associations whose members ARE or recently WERE civil servants, government employees, to accumulate power to set national policy and practices BEYOND Title IV-D as passed by a legislative representative government body called the US Congress? Or is Congress and that whole idea just an anachronism (old-fashioned process, not worth taking seriously). One example from the NCSEA board had an interesting easily searchable (compound) name, so I did, to find a NYT marriage announcement (generally indication some social status) and the wife, who in 2004 was 42, government position in New York at the time of marriage: Frances Pardus-Abbadessa.

Weddings, Celebrations: Frances Abadessa, Drew Pardus February 22, 2004, in The New York Times. Frances Judy Abbadessa and Drew Scott Pardus were married yesterday. The Rev. Anthony Schueller performed the ceremony at St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York. Mrs. Pardus-Abbadessa, 42, is the executive deputy commissioner for finance at the Human Resources Administration in New York. She graduated from Syracuse University and received a master’s degree in public administration from New York University. She is a daughter of Maria B. Abbadessa and Frank P. Abbadessa of Hamden, Conn. Her father retired as an account executive for the Armstrong Rubber Company, the tire maker, in New Haven. Mr. Pardus-Abbadessa, 36, was until last month the director of environmental programs for the Estée Lauder Companies. He worked in Melville, N.Y., overseeing the cosmetics maker’s compliance with environmental regulations. The bridegroom graduated from Carnegie Mellon and is studying for an M.B.A. at Dowling College. He is a son of Juanita Trice Pardus and Michael S. Pardus Jr. of Greensburg, Pa. His mother is a clerk in the Greensburg branch of the Pennsylvania Transportation Department licensing bureau. His father manages the Lilly Shop, a drapery store in Greensburg

By 2013, Mrs. Pardus-Abbadessa is running (Executive Deputy Commissioner of) the New York State OCSE (Office of Child Support Enforcement) and simultaneously on the NCSEA board. I’m uploading the annual report, so we can see that part of the “highlights” of the organization in 2013 was continuing to help noncustodial parents obligations (arrears) get reduced to encourage them to pay, and establishing child support orders outside the court process, “CAAP.” Search the phrase “Conversations among Child Support Professionals” to see references to the NCSEA, and keep in mind that under the IRS, the NCSEA is a 501(c)3, a nonprofit trade association (corporation, organized for its business interests) but the NYS OCSE is a governmental office, and one woman is on the leadership of both as of 2013.

Please forgive my overly detailed filename; it is for a reminder: NYS 2013 ocse_annual_rept,Search “Highlights” & “Conversations Among Child Support Professionals” (ca. pdf page 9,@printed side-by-side two-up format) NCSEA and Ms. Frances Abbadessa-Pardus is Exec Deputy Commissioner of NYS OCSE, NCSEA,2 FamLawJudges Again, for a reminder of the statewide office (annual report) and the nationwide trade association (annual report): NCSEA-2013-Annual-Report_FINAL-1 See Directors incl (thru 8-31-2014) Scott Cade, et al

Regarding CSG Solutions, Inc. in Chicago (with regional offices elsewhere in the US):

2017 additional screenprints and info (including on its stunning location at Two Prudential Plaza in prime downtown Chicago (Loop) location, a building only completed in 1990 (organization was founded 1997). Found by looking up its street address, a step to remember on any entity of interest; usually produces helpful information. While suite #s are not 100% reliable (they may change or be listed inaccurate), I did find another K2 Solutions” out of the same street and suite#.

Bloomberg.com description:

CSG Government Solutions, Inc. provides consulting solutions for government program modernizations in the United States. The company engages in planning, managing, and supporting complex projects that modernize the information technology and business processes of large government programs. It provides strategy and planning services for enterprise architecture, business process reengineering, requirements definition, procurement support, and advanced planning document development; and project assurance services, such as project management office services, independent verifications and validations/QA, organizational change management practices, and software testing support, as well as management of the risk associated with privacy and security of systems and personal information. The company offers its consulting services for healthcare, human services, child support, unemployment insurance, and revenue/tax modernization programs. CSG Government Solutions, Inc. was founded in 1997 and is based in Chicago, Illinois with additional offices in Atlanta, Georgia; Boise, Idaho; Columbus, Ohio; Indianapolis, Indiana; Lansing, Michigan; Portland, Oregon; Tallahassee, Florida; and Washington, the District of Columbia.

From Chicago Architecture. Click to enlarge

From Chicago Architecture. Click to enlarge.

Note location on map of downtown Chicago and other key attractions/features (Lake Michigan to the right).

Street address search results for this entity show it’s prime-position real estate.

I researched “Regus” after finding an NFI-related group in D.C. in one of its buildings, but DNR if I posted. This one is re: Two Prudential Plaza in Chicago. It had to do with special stock offering in UK vs. Jersey Islands; interesting…)

(bloomberg.com screenshot for CSG Gov’t Solutions Inc. in Chicago)

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

June 30, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    July 1, 2017 at 3:37 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: