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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Other Considerations on the NASMHPD, MHA, and This Type of Networking (Oct. 25, 2014 post updated June/July, 2017, Publ. July 3)

leave a comment »

Theme, continued…”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA:”

click on image to see website.

This post, renamed as second part of the original started October 2014, being published early July, 2017.  It is “Part 2 of 3” from that original, although each has a slightly different focus and title. This one’s full title is:

Other Considerations on the NASMHPD, MHA, and This Type of Networking (Oct. 25, 2014 post updated June/July, 2017)  (short-link ending “-761” and all three characters there are numbers).

I am publishing it July 3 (Tuesday) evening, 2017 at 18,000 words (!!).  Some images will be removed and others updated within one or two days, post-publication.  The removed images and/or quotes will be seen on Post #3; they represent an overlap.  Also, know that at least half the contents (top part) and anywhere you see a screenprint image in the bottom half (or where otherwise marked) are 2017 updates.  The updates are to best clarify the material, or display it better than I could in 2014.

“The ocean is wide, and my boat (room to describe it on a single post) is so small!” if I may borrow (and apply differently) a motto from the Children’s Defense Fund.  The topic is a big one…this post does provide some signposts and navigation points on the compass…

(I see I omitted the first, and more important, part of the motto — “Dear Lord, be good to me” see logo):

self-explanatory logo and motto: CDF claims to be strong, effective, INDEPENDENT voice for ALL the children of America. It is, in fact, a 501©3 and as such is benefitting from tax exemption, and its revenue sources, as well as the strong reputation of its founders and leaders.

While I’m there (section in next background-color):

INDEPENDENT — REALLY?  Any tax-exempt organization, whatever its cause, either operates on the strength of 100% volunteers, or has some revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities, and many of them also have employees.  This one has 303 employees (latest tax return shown below), but spent slightly more on “Other expenses” than on its employees.The tax exemption is courtesy a situation in this country where it’s very easy to go tax-exempt, but those who do not do this individually, will generally speaking, if earning enough to be taxed, be paying a higher percentage than those corporations which do not, providing an incentive to form as many as possible nationwide.  Money is attracted to (tends to flow towards) places which increase tax-exemption and better preserve profits, in general.

CDF’s claiming to represent ALL the children of America actually goes against the grain of the existing systems of representation in place for them, including state legislatures, U.S. Congress, and local representatives.  I am well aware that saying this regarding a well-known civil-rights oriented organization may read like one-step from blasphemy and is a volatile statement. They certainly didn’t represent my children…

This post isn’t about the CDF, but it takes only a few minutes to look up most tax returns (other than those which are simply nearly impossible to find — and one came up in this post below, the NASHMPD Research Institute, a.k.a. “NRI-inc.org.”

Children’s Defense Fund DC 2015 990 62 $27,749,303 52-0895622
Childrens Defense Fund DC 2014 990 86 $31,911,729 52-0895622
Childrens Defense Fund DC 2013 990 46 $35,047,275 52-0895622

Briefly, (a stroll/scroll through even one Form 990 above) notice that this particular organization (Sched R) has two related entities in D.C., a total of three out of the same street address in D.C., benefits from a $4.9M tax-exempt revenue bond from D.C., took government and private grants both, and $1.6M from fund-raising (of which about 50% was expenses), and (program service revenues) earned $3M running “Freedom Schools.”  However, (the same page, Part VIII, Revenues) shows that in selling $13M of securities it amazingly, earned only $802.  How does one do that? …. Its $1.6M grants to others (Sched I) are part, but not the major part of operations, however, a quick look shows what was granted out went, some to school districts, some to schools, some to direct to religious organizations (judging by the names) and some to foundations, in various cities.

In addition, the President of the Board (Marian Wright Edelman) presumably received also a tax-deduction in renting a room in her SC home for $1/year to an office in the state (Sched L).  In the process of paging through the tax returns, one repeatedly sees  “See additional data” where, for some reason, this major organization didn’t feel like coughing up basic information on the forms provided even when there was plenty of room. One thing however that was not skimped on, in the place provided on those IRS forms, was the organization’s purpose on Page 1, and again   the top of Page 2.

My point being here, take a little time to take a look at the tax returns when hearing about (and certainly before donating to) ANY charity. Don’t just toss a coin and don’t judge just by whether the cause is progressive or conservative, or has emotional appeal based on civil rights themes from the 1960s.  Also, I personally would not donate to any organization claiming, on its website, to represent ALL the children of America (further qualified — somewhat — on their tax returns), or claims to be an independent voice, when it’s a 501©3s.

(See more at Slogans vs. Speech-by-IRS-Forms 990: When the Resonance is in Conflict (A Quick Look at a Well-known Nonprofit, Children’s Defense Fund) (Independence Day 2017) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7af”)((link is active now but only accurate when the draft is published).

By contrast with Children’s Defense Fund, and all 501©3s, -©4s, or -©6s not specialized as I’m describing in these posts, the type of organizations I’m focused on in this theme (opening words to this post: “…NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA”)

  • obtain and receive/exchange among themselves at times, money (actually, resources of various kinds) in the name of representing more than “all children”but as representing the states  as a whole,** or departments or public institutions (courts, legislatures, state mental health program directors or city/county Managers as to the ICMA) within state (and some, local – ICMA) governments.  **(not mentioned in that list, but I have mentioned, “CSG — Council of State Governments and its CSG Justice Center, Inc.” — boasts about being the only national organization to represent ALL THREE branches of (state) governments:  Executive, Legislative and Judicial).
  • They do this by implication and justification as if on behalf of all people — but have chosen to operate from within associations formed in the private sector out of reach of the average person, or the common man — but NOT out of reach of the corporate + foundation sponsors, who are solicited to participate.  This includes, for several of the above not just one or two, as I recall from having previously looked, representatives of major pharmaceutical, chemical, telecommunications, investment management, real estate development, law, and other fields.
  • They mix corporate and currently-serving government boards of directors, AND funds, AND are operating in a coordinated, “in-synche” fashion with each other towards (a) their elected leaders constituents (respectively, wherever they be) and (b) the federal government.

In other words, they are playing intermediary, doing it nonprofit, and at public expense — but without adequate public oversight and certainly without informed consent or representation.

Their, this type of organization’s, individual and collective existence, let alone purpose and operations, concerns me far more than exaggerated claims or funky tax returns from, for example, a single though well-known entity, the CDF.  The NGA, NCSC,… organizations’ significance is easily under-estimated through a general unconsciousness  of their existence  thanks to under-reporting on them as nonprofit entities, let alone as they are: specialized nonprofit entities with government names representing government offices or functions, working in an intentionally coordinated fashion towards privately-determined agenda,  on say, the major news media (on-line or print)). How often do you overhear ANY conversations about them as a significant influence upon governments (plural) in the country, whether in passing, from friends, strangers, or in general social discussions of the challenges of this country, or possible source of its present problems?

In this post’s singling out the NASHMPD, I am pointing to this type of organization whose purpose and “reason for being” is focused on the mental health field which, in parts, deals with drugging of patients, or helping people detox from other drug and alcohol abuse, and in systems involving intricate, and expansive (expanding) networks of similarly-named nonprofits in, it seems, every state and no doubt also territories.  And, thanks to recent Presidential Executive Orders both over time, and specifically, the 21st Century by former President George W. Bush (“Bush, Jr.”), relating to the so-called “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health” with its focus on transforming the entire field.

So now, you have a good idea what I’ll be discussing below, and I hope, also why.  The Oct. 2014 section of this post, marked by these words in red

WHERE THE 2014 DIALOGUE STARTED (as taken from original post to this new one):

starts right after several five rectangular images of corporate and foundation donor logos (notably, in the Rx or Healthcare field) to the organization NAMI (National Association on Mental Illness, Inc.), a Missouri organization with its own network.  MHA has a MHA-named network, and NAMI has their networks also. One uses the word “Mental Illness” as a point of reference, the other the word “Mental Health” but they have much in common and at times, leadership in common I seem to remember from the websites.  In Part 3 of 3 I show more (visually) of the MHA affiliate network scope and agenda as self-described.

The 2014 section below that dividing line (the above title in red), you’ll notice has more to say on the history of Mental Health America and founder Clifford Beers, while still mentioning by name many of these related organizations, and quoting some of their tax returns.

To review see also Part 1, the post just published 6/30/2017 called:

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”,

Posting Context: I mistakenly thought it had been published when first written.  After not posting anything to FamilyCourtMatters.org (then “____.wordpress.com”) most of 2015 and starting to post again on January 23, 2016,  I stayed on that year’s topics (and 2017’s), summarized key blog themes, and worked on a more complete table of contents, so I didn’t pick up on the “MIA” post until recently, when I had occasion to quote (link to) what I remembered writing up, rather than just re-explain the same material.

Having found it was still in draft, and reviewed, I found its 30,000 words, in hindsight, still relevant and worth the time to update and publish.  Especially after more time refining my understanding, scope of organizations, and some expansion of ability to present the evidence.

Part 2 Update, Spinoff Post from this one:  Considering this situation and filling in some of the missing information might distract from what’s already in this post, so I made some of the update into a spinoff post (written, but still currently in draft), and for lack of a shorter or better label, called it:

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, NAMI),and MHA + Their 501©3 Affiliate Networks. And Recent Epidemic of Attorney-Generals Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-79i” previously-written contents moved there July 2, 2017) (link active now but only accurate when published)

About that situation:

Showing the current relevance, more on how MHA is set up to network through its many affiliates, and connecting this also to NAMI, and the recent trend of state attorneys-general to file major lawsuits against some of the same “Big Pharma” corporations over the costs to government (and, secondarily, human life) of dealing with the opioid abuse epidemic, took considerable show-and-tell (images, quotes, and narrative).

Meanwhile the same states and their state mental health directors (which NASMHPD here represents) surely knew about the same drug companies (Johnson & Johnson, and its subsidiary Janssen, and others) were already funding major networked nonprofits and with/through them promoting major use of other, known to be harmful and expensive medications (patented atypical antipsychotics, specifically) on populations under state control.  The whistleblower on TMAP and PennMAP came out in the early 2000s, and now a decade later, the states are surprised at the results — although in a different class of medications?

(Why not go after the FDA?)

About this post, Part 2 of 3 from the October 2014 original “Do You Know Your NGA,….?,

For updating that portion, to conserve what time is left, I’ll simply be condensing some of the quotes (reformatting to fine print) and not attempting to retrace or reconstruct my original purpose, for example, in exploring relationships between MHALA (Mental Health America of Los Angeles) and the “MHA Village

Realize that this shows affiliation with and promotion by then-U.S. President Bush’s New Freedom Commission of 2003, which comes up in the post, extensively though in a different context.

Here is some reference to the MHA Village, and background on the “New Freedom Commission,” started as an Executive Order (April, 2002), and part of a trend and intention to transform mental health care nationally, with some of its immediate history shown.

In the process, I referenced a quote from a Judge from Broward County Florida, known for presiding over the first (it says) mental health diversionary — from criminal prosecution — court in the country — and a look at her under-reported predecessor/mentor at “Disability Rights Florida” (formerly Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, Inc.” which administered, it seems, three strands of federal grants.  Good information to know and to keep in mind.

As a survivor of domestic violence and the “family court gauntlet” which diverts criminal, felony-level prosecution into a safer (for the perpetrator) venue, seeing the April 2002 Executive Order, I am naturally reminded of a 2001 Executive Order by the same President establishing Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (“OFBCI”) and its impact, combined with 1996 PRWORA-related (TANF) block grants to states for experimenting in reducing poverty through promoting marriage (and fatherhood), and of course, a later initiative, if not Executive Order, by the same U.S. (Republican) President, promoting a chain and model for “Family Justice Centers” throughout the country, jumpstarted with several millions of dollars, and featuring ones in Indianapolis and in San Diego, California as examples.   In other words, I am inclined, overall, to take that New Freedom Commission Executive Order, which radically shifts government emphases to consolidated, coordinated (and privatized) services encouraging more and more 501©3 formations, and diversions from the criminal justice system, with skepticism, both experientially as a woman, mother who needed accountability – -not “therapy” for the ex, or, at that point myself — the ability to work safely and be free from violence in the immediate household was plenty good “therapy” for myself at the time.

I am also skeptical as a long-time investigative blogger and reader of Forms 990 on many of the various privatized or public/private partnered-collaborating (etc.) “service providers” within the problem-solving family court arena.

I have prodded pretty thoroughly on several of these (Family Justice Center) models, particularly the San Diego one, and see what the “model” behavior was as a nonprofit, for which I give a vote of no confidence, based on the 501©3 shell games and ongoing re-branding.  Between this AND the events and consequences of the demolition of the World Trade Towers in NYC in 2001, it’s been “quite the century” so far.

Remember the ever-expanding promotion of mental illness (or health) and focus on medicating — and/or psychotherapy — as a basic government service under major private influence, should always be watched.  To do this, the various networks should be known by name (at least the largest) and several of their tax returns read — which I do.  How are the funds being handled?  What, really, are they being used for? How did we get so many people dealing with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and other psychoses, in this country?  Was it the ongoing wars?  Was it intergenerational prior experimentation with powerful drugs, whether in the 1950s and 1960s as known in popular culture and costing the lives of several superstar music icons, to this day (whether illegal or prescription abuse), or a state of ongoing trauma upon each new generation while the courts toy with their family dynamics, and pit one against the other in the name of co-parenting, family, family reunification, and so forth.

Many hard questions should be asked, and the public should not go to sleep on what answers are being given, and acted on — and how.

Four images from “MHA Village which is a program of “Mental Health America Los Angeles.”


2 (bottom half of page)

#3: 2004 rpt on Village (model program) showing sponsorship (!)

4: Immediate reference to New Freedom Commission provision in MHA Village program eval., Eli Lilly-sponsored 2004 report.















New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (“NFC”)

There are many references available on-line about the “New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,” including who was on the Commission, and its initial “final report” and what that recommended.

The “Wiki” is flagged needs clarification, but points out it came from an April 2002 Executive Order.  Its reports are available on-line.  Another article (this is a Huffington Post June 27, 2016, article by (Judge) Ginger Lerner-Wren “We Can Still Achieve the Promise of Recovery: The President’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health,” who, it says, created the first mental health court to decriminalize the mentally ill, puts the context as part of the New Freedom Initiative of 2001 (and I’m including in part because it contains both a short summary and links to some of the original, gov’t archived documents).

See also NAMI’s (2016 timeline) “How Presidents have Shaped Mental Health Care” which puts the NFC in perspective by decade (1963-2016), keeping in mind that NAMI as a national and financed by Big Pharma and healthcare agencies (and some of their related foundations) entity, is not exactly neutral on the issues, nor would be the many national affiliates it’s coached, trained, and provided brand-name recognition and on-line (technical) resources for.  More on that in the updated spinoff post.

Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren is currently (1) 17th Judicial District County Court, Criminal Division in Broward County, FL and (2) Part-Time Adjunct Faculty in the College of Psychology, at Nova Southeastern University, having obtained her J.D. from Nova Southeastern, and her B.A. from University of Miami (no other degrees listed; with a J.D. and judgeships, preceded by work as public guardian (court-appointed), who needs more, perhaps!).  The bio blurb and awards explain her involvement in at least this commission and her historic significance in “therapeutic jurisprudence promotion.” (Lerner-Wren sounds like she might be “AFCC,” too).

I remember Nova Southeastern University in earlier posts (2012-2013) for its helping host / propagate the “Broken Family Courts” theme after an April 2012 conference on the same.  Lerner-Wren (along with Lenore Walker, Ph.D., and attorney Toby Kleinman, and others, presented at the conference). (See contents and context as shown at “searchworks.stanford.edu” ** and I noticed that Garland Waller & Barry Nolan’s “No Way Out But One” DVD is enclosed with an order (?).

**Notice the primary context (and sponsor) is psychology and behavioral health, not criminal issues.  The presenters include those who, along with another frequent presenter forum for some of them (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) for nearly a decade successfully ignored, excluded, excommunicated, and derailed discussion of even the possible role of 1996 Welfare Reform and its diversionary HHS-administered grants promoting marriage/fatherhood (let alone access/visitation grants stream, much smaller) as having ANY bearing on why “custody of children was going to batterers” after reports of domestic violence and/or child abuse. The 2012 (266-page) publication is also in the law library at Wayne State University (MI). Here it is on _p.7) of a 2016-upload of a years-earlier (July 2013) publication at “FamilyPsych.org” (AAFCP – American Academy of Couples & Family Therapy; current (that issue) President, Robert Geffner of San Diego, California (IVAT, I’ve blogged it), past president, Lenore Walker, as associated with Nova Southeastern University, Domestic Violence Institute (next two images).

In fact, Lerner-Wren on an Oct. 2, 2014 (Huffington Post blog), “Trauma and Women Behind Bars in America:  The Need for a Criminal Justice Makeover” says in setting up the court, she consulted with Lenore Walker.  Probably they were both at Nova Southeastern around this time, and/or certainly local.  Notice this also has a reference to the NASMHPD organization, citing to one of its reports.

Link to the report is broken, but the article also leads with another “groundbreaking report” from “National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women (NRCJIW)” illuminating yet another “clearinghouse/resource center” (within the USDOJ (BJA + NIC) (that link broken too — but it is almost a three-year-old article) but of course, administered by a nonprofit (Center for Effective Policy & Practice) with, of course, other private partners offering suggestions, solutions, tools, etc.  That (NRCJIW) website looks recent, simplistic, and a bit unprofessional.

Trauma and Women Behind Bars in America:  The Need for a Criminal Justice Makeover” Ginger Lerner-Wren, 10/2/2014 in Huffington Post (she apparently has a HuffPo blog…)

On September 30, 2014, President Obama issued a presidential proclamation declaring the month of October 2014 National Domestic Violence Awareness Month in recognition of the 20th anniversary of The Violence Against Women Act. As stated, “When women and children are deprived of a loving home, legal protection, or financial independence because they are in fear of their safety, our Nation is denied its full potential.” In my view, however, there are a number of other truths affecting women who are victims of domestic violence and related trauma, which reach deep into U.S. jails and prisons.

According to the groundbreaking report by the National Resource Center on Justice Involved Women (NRCJIW), “Ten Truths That Matter When Working With Justice Involved Women,”…

…All current research, experience and data speaks to the fact that it is time for an extreme makeover of how the criminal justice system approaches women in terms of embracing the evidence base pertaining to trauma. According to the collaborative report by the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors, “The Damaging Consequences of Trauma,” a high prevalence of women in the criminal justice system suffer from a multitude of social and medical problems, including mental illness and substance abuse. The impact of victimization in terms of domestic violence, sexual abuse, severe neglect, physical abuse and other forms of exposure to traumatic stress is profound and multi-dimensional.

===>>> When Broward County began its Mental Health Court in 1997, I consulted with forensic psychologist, Dr. Lenore Walker. Dr. Walker is best known as the pioneer of the battered woman syndrome. We clearly understood the urgency of responding to women in our local jail system.<===

Further, many of these women who have been victimized often suffer from untreated mental illness (i.e., post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety disorders and co-occurring substance abuse disorders) are difficult to detect. Therefore, we agreed it is also necessary to address the women in my regular criminal court division

[[emphases, including the “===>’s”  added by me, LGH]]

My comment.  Perhaps if domestic violence by men were handled LESS as something for diversionary services (i.e., a “disorder” to be treated) fewer women might be experiencing trauma, or PTSD (etc.) from it, or even be jail for defending themselves against it, meeting violence with violence.  Instead, this approach is, “well, any opportunity for more mental health services (and work for psychologists and psychotherapists), let’s pave the way for it…”

Leonore Walker is known as a feminist psychotherapist, for protesting domestic violence, but so far as I know did not “out” the federal financial operational incentives at the federal level targeting single mothers, or recommend others she mentored (apparently) to become aware of or reporting on them, either.  Feminist Pioneer Leonore Walker. (March 2017, see abstract; it’s from three former students (also women) she mentored):

…She began as an elementary school teacher for emotionally disturbed children after having strong women mentors. Her feminism was nurtured through contacts with other feminist psychologists as the field developed in the 1970s and 1980s. Involvement in APA politics was another area where mentorship was practiced as policies supporting women and children’s rights to live a violence-free life were emphasized.

Link to Vol 14 Issue #1 (July 2013) of the AACFP newsltr, cited here because of its p.7 feature, and FYI. Click image to enlarge.

Link to Vol 14 Issue #1 (July 2013) of the AACFP newsltr, note Lenore Walker involvemt (past-president) is in a Domestic Violence Institute but the approach is from the field of psychology.

Click to enlarge if needed; read please! (re: therapeutic jurisprudence emphasis) Image 1 of 2

Click to enlarge if needed; read please! (re: Lerner-Wren’s positions, incl on President’s New Commission on Mental Health) Image 2 of 2


(Found under “speakers” at ParsonsCompanyInc.com Note timeline and sequence of events preceding appointment of this judge and establishment of the diversionary court under her authority):

(As image and quotation found (why?) at ParsonsCompany, Inc. which looks to be a significant entertainment agent? for concerts, theaters, stadiums — located (??) in California).Click image for the article.

Judge Ginger Lerner-Wren was elected Broward County Court Judge in 1997. Former, Chief Judge Dale Ross, assigned Judge Lerner-Wren to a Criminal Division, where she is responsible for a regular trial division.At this time, The Broward County Mental Health/Criminal Justice Task force, led by Judge Marc Speiser and Public Defender, Howard Finkelstein, after working for several years, to seek improved strategies to respond to those persons arrested with mentally Illnesses, (Co-Occurring Disorders) and related neurological disorders in Broward’s criminal justice system, elected to create a specialized Mental Health Court and requested Judge Lerner-Wren be assigned to this new Court.   {{this reads as though she didn’t create it, but was the first to preside over it}}

The Broward County Mental Health Court, is a sub-division of Judge Lerner-Wren’s Regular Criminal Court. Judge Lerner-Wren was deemed a “perfect fit” for the court due to her expertise and unique legal experience as Broward’s Public Guardian and for her role with Florida’s Advocacy Center to serve as Plaintiff’s Monitor, in the Federal Class Action, Sanbourne v. Chiles, re: South Florida State Hospital, now known as GEO.     [[More on that available here, Axschat.com; <==hover cursor over link to see specifics regarding her role as public guardian, corp. name of the Advocacy Center, and role in the lawsuit referenced]]  As administrator and director of Broward’s guardianship program, Judge Lerner-Wren was responsible for directing and administrating all operations of the program. Her responsibilities included ensuring the health, safety and welfare of disabled adults, through comprehensive case management and client advocacy. Judge Lerner-Wren was responsible for all treatment planning and worked collaboratively with community based social service providers.

In 1993, Judge Lerner-Wren was selected by Florida’s Protection and Advocacy System, The Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities Inc., {{In 2010, its name changed to “Disability Rights Florida, Inc.” per the tax returns}} to oversee the implementation of a Stipulated Consent Decree in the Federal Class Action of Sanbourne v. Chiles, pertaining to South Florida State Psychiatric Hospital.  Judge Lerner-Wren served as Plaintiff’s monitor on behalf of the patients at South Florida State Hospital and was responsible for monitoring the adequacy of individualized discharge plans and other related monitoring responsibilities.

Judge Lerner-Wren and Broward’s Mental Health Court is America’s First Specialized Court dedicated to the safe diversion and De-criminalization of Persons with Mental Illness. Broward’s Court is a renowned national and global model:

No question, as Judge of a unique court, Ginger Lerner-Wren was not about to let the platform go under-appreciated.  Here’s an article in Nova (Southeastern, i.e.) Law Review lauding problem-solving courts and therapeutic jurisprudence.  The first several footnotes, after the one identifying the author, are to David Winick and Bruce Wexler.  It doesn’t take long (maybe a page or two) to get around to referencing her colleague (at Nova) Dr. Walker, or stating how this movement is going global, to blend public health and criminal law when it comes to mental illness. I also see from the footnote (2) that there is an International Network for Therapeutic Jurisprudence, and that the cite is Year 1999.  Found at “WellnessCourts.org”  See also section referencing their pilot program involved parties, including “NAMI” members.

A WHITE PAPER” THE HONORABLE JUDGE GINGER LERNER-WREN*” (Nova Law Review 2013 “vol. 1” (Unusual header for an existing law review, apparently for a public health law symposium):

(See associated link for rest of the article, or next link (has a few lines of overlap) for rest of p.1 and footnotes 1-4 all to Winick + Wexler) as with footnote 5, “Id.”!)




Further search on the advocacy center mentioned in the “Parsons Company, Inc.” article led to a June, 2016 obituary on Marcia Beach, (only 71 years old), a Broward County Commissioner who quit in 1985, went to law school (to ensure enough support for her disabled teenage daughter), it sounds like, started, or at least worked hard with and for advocacy center, pushed relentlessly for funding for it, expanded it, and in 1993 hired (then a young lawyer) now-Judge Ginger-Wren.  Read the whole article, please:

The woman who changed how disabled people are treated, Marcia Beach, has died. June 16, 2016 in the Miami Herald, by Carol Marbin Miller.

At the height of her political powers, then-Broward County Commissioner Marcia Beach stunned the county’s government leadership: She quit. | It was October 1985. As chairwoman of the commission four years earlier, Beach had steered Broward through a withering tax revolt and recall effort. Now, her reelection seemed assured.

But Beach had just begun law school — a decision she made to ensure she earned enough to protect her teenage daughter, Shannon, who had been born with a devastating disability. And, at 40, Beach had been unable to juggle the demands of law school and public life. ….

Marcia Beach (from her 2016 obituary in MiamiHerald)

In nearly a half-century of public service, Beach worked as a county commissioner, circuit court judge, and leader of a Tallahassee-based law firm that advocated for Floridians with mental illnesses and disabilities.

It was at the federally funded Advocacy Center for Persons with Disabilities — now Disability Rights Florida — that Beach fashioned her most enduring legacy. She changed the way people saw, and spoke of, people with disabilities. She wrung millions in new dollars for Floridians with autism, intellectual impairments and cerebral palsy from a stingy Legislature. She shuttered most of the state’s large, antiquated institutions, where disabled people sometimes shared toothbrushes and were washed outside with hoses.

It was Beach’s law degree that became her most potent weapon. During the 1990s and early 2000s, the Advocacy Center filed a half-dozen class-action lawsuits that ultimately forced the state to increase spending on vulnerable Floridians, to enforce federal laws guaranteeing disabled children an equal public education, and to develop a system of group homes that gave families an alternative to large, mostly rural, institutions
Read more here:

This is where Lerner-Wren came in, who in other writings has been described as though without predecessor.  Her predecessors certainly this woman, who hired her for the center and in 2000 became a circuit county judge, who had been a county commissioner, and whose advocacy center was filing those class action lawsuits!

…In 1993, Beach expanded the center to Hollywood, and hired a young lawyer, now County Court Judge Ginger Lerner Wren, to oversee her efforts to close down Florida State Hospital in Pembroke Pines, which had been accused of warehousing people with mental illness, drugging them into zombies, and killing some.

It was Lerner Wren’s job to ensure that people released from the hospital were safe back home with families or in group homes. “You can’t underestimate the importance of this woman,” she said. “She had three federal class-action lawsuits going at the same time, which was unheard of. She was the General Patton of disability rights in Florida.”

Beach left the Advocacy Center in 1999, having forever changed the way the state cares for its weakest residents. In 2000, she won a seat on the Circuit Court, where she was assigned, first, to preside over cases involving abused and neglected children
Read more here:   (Obituary also notes she had her own two daughters and five stepsons, meaning, she was a stepmother; wonder how that situation came about, i.e., where were the biological mother/s of the five stepsons?)

Disability Rights Florida, its website says, was founded in 1977.  Strangely, its own tax returns consistently say it was founded ten years later in 1987 — not 1977.  This past June 22, it celebrated the 18th anniversary of “Olmstead” which related to the ADA and discrimination which institutionalized people and segregated them from participation in the larger community:

Who funds “Disability Rights Florida?” I took a look:

Programs & Funding

Disability Rights Florida is a federally mandated agency, funded by the Administration for Children and Families, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, the Rehabilitation Services Administration, the Health Resources and Services Administration, and the Social Security Administration.

As part of the nationally mandated Protection and Advocacy (P&A) System, Disability Rights Florida provides protection of the rights of persons with disabilities through legally based advocacy. Collectively, the P&A/CAP Network is the largest provider of legally based advocacy services to people with disabilities in the United States.

RE: The New Freedom Commission on Mental Health (2003), and my reaction on reading it (2014, below on this post):

Here’s a 70-page writeup by Alan Jones (2004, pdf)  Texas_Medication_Algorithm_Project_Allen_Jones:   READ, BE SHOCKED, and UNDERSTAND, and CONSIDER WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!!!!  NASMHPD is mentioned, however, on page 16.   This shows the strategy and also involvement of at least one corporation, Johnson & Johnson.  Meanwhile, the Johnson & Johnson “Foundation” (a large one), “Robert Wood Johnson Foundation” has also been influential in developing (sponsoring the blueprinting nationwide) of “Unified Family Courts.”   The role of psychologists and psychiatrists (who are able to prescribe medication).  The man who was governor of Texas sponsoring TMAP’s expansion became  President, that is of the USA obviously, and in his first term, set up the New Freedom Commission to push for more of the same policies.  Which commission is also mentioned.  The whistleblower’s report here is now ten years old.  Time to take it into consideration, “ya think?

I found a chapter (VII) from a 2007 report on SMHA Funding and Characteristics.  This is a 100pp+ file found while searching for the exact identity (i.e., if a nonprofit, its tax returns) of a major NASMHPD subcontractor, “NASMHPD Research Institute.”  The report, says its front matter, was produced under contract to NASMHPD (which tends to subcontract a lot of its work, obvious from the Form 990s).

I’m quoting from Part VII (New Freedom Commission Goals), the section under “Medication Algorithms.” Be aware that a main accusation of TMAP whistleblower documentation (by someone who was working at the Pennsylvania OIG relating to this area) was that it was used to get around failed clinical trials for the drugs in question.  “Expert opinion” provided that excuse, and again, NASMHPD was referenced, frequently, as facilitating TMAP as a tactic for pharmaceutical corporations to bypass negative clinical trial results on the drugs they wanted to sell.  It was a nasty business, AND TMAP (it said, and this report also verifies) was being exported to several other states.  (Discussed more in another post of this series) The consequences (side-effects) of use of the harmful, expensive, drugs included, well, death (and other significant health conditions, like tardive dyskinesia and more).

In other words, there is a connection between The New Freedom Mental Health Commission (2003 Executive Order follow-up), NASMHPD the 501©3 trade organization based in Virginia primarily funded by government grants, and the dangerous TMAP (the Texas Medication Algorithm Project).  HHS/SAMHSA/CMHS (=Center for Mental Health Services) sponsored this report.

Recommended Citation for the next quote. While referencing 2007, I found later this was published around 2009:

Lutterman, T., Berhane, A., Phelan, B., Shaw, R., & Rana, V. (2009). Funding and characteristics of state mental health agencies, 2007. HHS Pub. No. (SMA) 09-4424. Rockville, MD: Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

From p. 55 of an HHS/SAMSHA/CMHS-sponsored 2007 report (produced under contrct to NASHMPD) on Funding and Characteristics of SMHA’s over 100pp.

 Funding and Characteristics of State Mental Health Agencies, 2007, 7.5.22 ClinicalPracticeGuidelines (on page 79)  under Part VII

Clinical practice guidelines and treatment recommendations, based on research results regarding their efficacy, have been developed regarding particular treatments or medications. Most SMHAs (26) are engaged in education and/or dissemination activities related to clinical guidelines and treatment recommendations. Twenty-three SMHAs reported using clinical guidelines and treatment recommendations: 11 were following the American Psychiatric Association, 9 were following the Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP), and 8 were using the schizophrenia Patient Outcome Research Team (PORT).

Individual SMHAs were also following guidelines and recommendations of:

  • ■  Consensus “Tri-University” Project, American Society of Addiction Medicine
  • ■  DMHAS Recovery Guidelines
  • ■  Florida Psychotherapeutic Guidelines
  • ■  NASMHPD, TIP 42 
  • ■ Psychopharmacological Guidelines, Minkoff (1998)
  • ■ Sowers and Gold (1999)
  • ■ AMHD, Comprehensive Neuroscience (CNS) Clinical Indicators
  • ■ New Jersey DMHS Pharmacological Practice Guidelines for the Treatment of Schizophrenia
  • New York Medication Algorithm Project {{“NYMAP,” I guess}}
  • South Carolina Medication Algorithm Project   {{“SCMAP” I guess…}}
  • ■ Psychotropic Medication Utilization Parameters for Foster Children
  • ■ Texas Department of State Health
  • ■ Hawaii Interagency Performance Standard and Practice Guidelines, CAMHD
  • ■ Texas Resiliency and Disease Management (Clinical Guidelines)

    Several states are using multiple clinical guidelines … In New Jersey, “For the guidelines, the Division’s work group looked at the American Psychiatric Association guidelines for the treatment of schizophrenia and Texas Medication Algorithm Project (TMAP). Some aspects of these two guidelines were incorporated into the DMHS guidelines.


“To put 2 + 2 together,” on this:  NASMHPD is mentioned, repeatedly, in the TMAP Alan Jones whistleblower report. (a few excerpts).  These next three images are size “large” so may not look like images, other than the captions (in yellow-highlit fine print) underneath each. The report was in black-and-white, so any added colors are my annotations:

Click above IMAGE to enlarge, or on Entire TMAP/Alan Jones pdf from which this is an excerpt. TMAP stands for Texas Medication Algorithm Program. There was also a TI (for ‘Implementat’n’)MAP and TC (for ‘Children’) MAP

Click above IMAGE to enlarge, or on Entire TMAP/Alan Jones pdf from which this is an excerpt. TMAP stands for Texas Medication Algorithm Program. There was also a TI (for ‘Implementat’n’)MAP and TC (for ‘Children’) MAP

Click above IMAGE to enlarge, or on Entire TMAP/Alan Jones pdf from which this is an excerpt. TMAP stands for Texas Medication Algorithm Program. There was also a TI (for ‘Implementat’n’)MAP and TC (for ‘Children’) MAP

Simultaneously, NASMHPD on its “Financing and Medicaid Division” sub-menu, states as its priority, implementing New Freedom Commission program elements (next two, also large, images):

NASMHPD website, Image 1 of 2 from Financing + Medicaid Div: establ. 2007, referencing Pres. G.W. Bush’s New Freedom Commission. Click Images to Enlarge

NASMHPD website, Image 2 of 2 from Financing + Medicaid Div: establ. 2007, referencing Pres. G.W. Bush’s New Freedom Commission. Click Images to Enlarge

Simultaneously, also, although its in very fine print, the NASMHPD, representing State Mental Health Program Directors as an association, is actually subject (apparently) to approval (whether of its Form 990s or programs, I’d have to re-check the link*) the “NGA” which is an instrumentality of government that does NOT have to show its “stuff” (tax returns), although it has a related 501©3 which does, and files Consolidated Financial Statements referring to both segments of itself.  The NGA is, of course, the National Governors’ Association.

(*In 2014 writings below I also notice a reference that NASMHPD is operating by “cooperative agreement” with the NGA.  Their website has changed and re-arranged since, so if this is still true, it would have to be found on the new one. In other words, it may be and probably is more than shown in just this next reference on a supplementary schedule to a tax return:)

re: NGA possible veto power over NASMHPD strategies or policymaking (Sched O detail from a FY2012 return)

Meanwhile, as I discovered looking (in vain) for some filings relating to the NGA EIN# alone, I discovered another, much smaller (intentionally) nonprofit organized, it says, specifically to represent the self-described “Big Seven Associations” before the US Supreme Court by filing amicus briefs when any of them may have cause to bring cases before that highest court in the country.   It seems that the NGA also has an officer on the board of this other nonprofit, currently called (it did have an earlier namechange) “State and Local Legal Center”

CitizenAudit’org – THE STATE AND LOCAL LEGAL CENTER (EIN# 310868827) at same address? as NGA came up during NGA EIN# search (see p1 for that search) BarCharts of 2015-16 financials (10pp

What one network may not control, another might.  Then they network together.  So “Who’s On First?” then? This disperses accountability and complicates tracking funds, but centralizes control, functionally, with those whose networks leverage the most power, it seems like.  Consider next several images regarding the nonprofit representing “The Big Seven” above, which at least identifies them by name as mutually considered “The Big Seven!”

From early (2001) 990 of EIN#310868827 State+Local Legal Ctr Inc.(Pt. I, bottom)

From early (2001) 990 of EIN#310868827 State+Local Legal Ctr Inc.(Pt. I, top)

From early (2001) 990 of EIN#310868827 State+Local Legal Ctr Inc.

From early (2001) 990 of EIN#310868827 State+Local Legal Ctr Inc.



















[The Big Seven from that list is in alpha order: Council of State Governments, International City/County Managers Association, National Association of Counties, National Council of State Legislatures, National Governors’ Association, National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.  However, in Board of Directors order (annotated image with two arrows from 2001 tax return Board of Directors), NGA showed as the chair. (I was surprised not to see the NCSC referring to State Courts on there, but it isn’t…)

SO, the main acronyms from this post’s title, translated:

NASMHPD = “National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.

MHA = Mental Health America 

  • 2016 Form 990 (PDF)
  • 2016 Audited Financial Statements (PDF) (more reports shown on that website.
  • From footer of the organization’s website, fine print==>).
  • SEO Provided by Pikes Peak SEO© Copyright 2017 | Mental Health America | Formerly known as the National Mental Health Association. MHA permits electronic copying and sharing of all portions of its public website and requests in return only the customary copyright acknowledgement, using “© Copyright Mental Health America” and the date of the download.

Example of the impact (conceptual awareness) of affiliates, with their various cash flows assets and activities, as the Form 990 search results above start to indicate:  The audited financial statements of the (parent?) organization, above, are actually straightforward, pretty simple.  In the Notes to Financial Statements, here’s the paragraph regarding its affiliates, which confirms what I saw from a recent tax return — they may share SOME revenues with affiliates, but not much, compared to what is coming their way from the same:

(MHA) Affiliates: Each of the mental health associations affiliated with MHA elects its own Board of Directors, conducts service programs independent of MHA and maintains its own financial accounts. Accordingly, due to lack of control, the financial statements of MHA do not include the accounts and activities of these affiliated organizations. MHA made grants to and received dues from affiliates, which totaled $67,565 and $193,773, respectively, for the year ended December 31, 2016.

[[Safe to say, they received almost, about twice what they took in ($193K – 67K = 126K; 67.5K (what they granted out) X 2 = $135K).]]

Also referenced extensively in my update 2017:

NAMI, is the legal name for what was formerly (before 1997) called the National Alliance on Mental Health (Inc.), relevant because of some of its pharmaceutically-inclined partners are getting sued, state by state and some, by counties (not to mention, The City of Chicago). However, my original post was on the NAMHPD and MHA.

Both MHA (an earlier organization) and NAMI are really big on affiliate organizations.  MHA talks about this on its website, claims over 200 affiliates (and expanding) and of course, provides in exchange, specialized resources, including access to toolkits, use of the “mental health bell” (logo), and more (I’m moving an extended discussion over to new post, however, some images downloaded July 1, 2017 give the general idea).

Also be aware that MHA is pushing (recommending) self-initiated on-line screening tests of several types (but has a strong disclaimer of responsibility, of course).  And references the companies that sponsored these on-line self-screening surveys (image with primarily purple rectangles).  Besides image caption (incl. disclaimer), see also sponsors listed:

“MHA Screening is made possible through the generous contributions of individuals and organizations that share our vision of a healthy America. This portion of our campaign is supported, in part, through philanthropic contributions from The Allergan FoundationAlkermesLilly USATakeda Lundbeck Alliance, and The Faas Foundation.


The “natural” splitting point of the long original was at NASMHPD and to a degree as it was mentioned in 2014), the MHA (Mental Health America association) and “MHALA” Mental Health Association of Los Angeles, etc., however that wasn’t halfway through, so some re-arrangement of parts took place for the update spanning now three different posts.

While I’m not sure, I have a feeling that the most valuable part of this post will be, in combination perhaps with previous and the next upcoming post (in this sequence of three) might be the section on TMAP.  I have been featuring certain kinds of organizations created to facilitate corporate sponsorships in the private sector with a view towards, basically, influencing policy, drafting legislation, and steering matters under state jurisdiction towards a unified whole.  TMAP (Texas Medication Algorithm Program) understood as antipsychotic drug-pushing through state-controlled institutions and by state doctors, and as a way to bypass failures of clinical trials to warrant this) intersected neatly with an existing nonprofit focused particularly on mental health conditions which might require treatment with anti-psychotics (like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder).

The public cannot always see this coming when we cannot keep our radar out for ALL these types of nationally-focused organizations targeting specific functions or parts of govenment, and organizations that might sign up to sponsor not one, but several different such associations.

We should at least be conscious of their existence, however, and monitor them more closely.  Anyone who thinks I can do this as a lone (and basically unfunded) blogger, needs to have his/her head examined.  I am blogging to, ideally, wake up some other people who are tired of being conditioned to believe falsehoods, myths, about their own country, or that it’s really necessary to drug so many people, especially vulnerable people.

Act, don’t just react.  And THINK, don’t just think youre thinking because you’ve chosen an opinion off the menu offered.  Do some personal hunting and gathering (I know I have) off the chosen path, focus on cash flow and operations, accounting practices, and networking.  It is often a shortcut to what is going to end up headline news sooner or later.  Here’s an example; I’m glad I published June 30, 2017, because this was on the evening news — regarding some of the corporate sponsors of Missouri-legal-domicile, but Virginia address, NAMI (I posted 5 rectangular screenprints showing the many pharmaceutical companies in that mix):

This link shows simple lists, by year, by quarter, alpha by corporate sponsor, with purpose.  While helpful, it’s not in flexible format — and would have to be manually or otherwise compiled, year by year, quarter by quarter, company by company, to see what each company has sponsored over time.  But volunteering the information at least gives some indicators: https://www.nami.org/About-NAMI/Our-Finances/Major-Foundation-Corporate-Sponsorships

Another link (which I saw the other day) is accessed from their “Partners” page under “About.” from which (click appropriate “View Sponsors”).

NAMI “Partners” page reveal some of its game plan; Corporate + Fndtn at the top of course. See also bottom link where “Community” includes billionaire projects named after Stanley + Broad (see my related posts, May/June2017). Click Image to access the website page.I found the logos shown below under “Corporate and Foundation” https://www.nami.org/About-NAMI/Our-Partners

#5 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

#4 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

#2 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

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


#3 of 5 screenshots, NAMI

From The Hill, 6/30/2017, 5:30pm EDT

Oklahoma Sues Prescription Opiod Manufacturers (article? 340306) by Nathanial Weixel in “The Hill”

Oklahoma on Friday became the latest state to sue prescription opioid manufacturers, alleging that the companies made false and deceptive marketing statements about their painkillers that fueled the state’s epidemic of opioid addiction.

Oklahoma Attorney General Mike Hunter filed a lawsuit in state court against companies including Purdue Pharma LP, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and its subsidiary Cephalon, and Allergan. | The lawsuit makes Oklahoma the fourth state to sue opioid manufacturers over their marketing practices.

The lawsuit notes that Oklahoma is one of the hardest hit states amid the country’s prescription opioid and heroin epidemic. Drug overdose deaths increased eightfold from 1999 to 2012, surpassing car crash deaths in 2009, the lawsuit said. Oklahoma ranks number one in milligrams of prescription opioids distributed per adult resident.

The defendants “make billions of dollars in profits through their deceptive and misleading opioid marketing campaign,” Hunter said in the lawsuit. The companies “executed massive and unprecedented marketing campaigns through which they misrepresented the risks of addiction from their opioids and touted unsubstantiated benefits,” the lawsuit stated. ….

[There are also 52 comments]/

Link provided on article, or click image to access: McCarville Report (OK blog?) July 1, 2017, OK Attorney-General suing 4 pharma cos over Opioid Abuse.

WHERE THE 2014 DIALOGUE STARTED (as taken from original post to this new one):

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.”

Clifford Whittingham Beers (March 30, 1876 – July 9, 1943) was the founder of the American mental hygiene movement.[1]

Beers was born in New Haven, Connecticut to Ida and Robert Beers on March 30, 1876. He was one of five children, all of whom would suffer from psychological distress and would die in mental institutions, including Beers himself (see “Clifford W. Beers, Advocate for the Insane”). He graduated from the Sheffield Scientific School at Yale in 1897,[1] where he was business manager of The Yale Record and a member of Berzelius.[2]

In 1900 he was first confined to a private mental institution for depression and paranoia. He would later be confined to another private hospital as well as a state institution. During these periods he experienced and witnessed serious maltreatment at the hands of the staff.  His book A Mind That Found Itself (1908), an autobiographical account of his hospitalization and the abuses he suffered, was widely and favorably reviewed, became a bestseller, and is still in print.[1]

Beers gained the support of the medical profession and others in the work to reform the treatment of the mentally ill. In 1909 Beers founded the “National Committee for Mental Hygiene”, now named “Mental Health America”, in order to continue the reform for the treatment of the mentally ill.

He also started the Clifford Beers Clinic in New Haven in 1913, the first outpatient mental health clinic in the United States.

Beers became Honorary President of the World Federation for Mental Health.

Beers was a leader in the field until his retirement in 1939.[1] He died in Providence, Rhode Island on July 9, 1943.  **

**He also died again, institutionalized, having submitted himself in 1939.

Member of Berzelius” — relevant.  But first, how could one man have such a major influence on a movement?  More on Clifford W. Beers, more details of his family background, institutionalization in three different hospitals 1900-1903, and documentation of the abuses in them, plus how his report and autobiography.   See link for credits:  http://www.socialwelfarehistory.com/people/beers-clifford-whittingham/

Recognitions from all over — MHA, NIMH, NASW

From a Patient’s Perspective: Clifford Whittingham Beers’ Work to Reform Mental Health Services

The founder of the mental hygiene movement, Clifford Whittingham Beers (1876–1943) launched one of the earliest client-advocate health reform movements in the United States. A former patient who was institutionalized for three years, Beers led national and international efforts to improve institutional care, challenge the stigma of mental illness, and promote mental health. His efforts resulted in a major shift in attitudes toward mental illness, as well as the introduction of guidance counselors in US schools and the inclusion of evidence of a defendant’s psychological state in law courts.1

Beers was born in New Haven, Connecticut, in 1876, to Ida Cooke and Robert Beers. The couple suffered a series of tragedies, including the death of one child in infancy. A second child, who began having seizures as a teenager, also died early, and as a young man Clifford worried that he would develop the same condition. Although he and three other siblings lived into adulthood, all died in mental health institutions—two by committing suicide.2

Beers graduated from Yale University’s Sheffield Scientific School in 1897, after experiencing frequent bouts of depression as a student. . . .

BERZELIUS (1779-1848, Swedish chemist) was apparently one of the founders of modern chemistry and?? helped develop some of the notation for the atomic weights, cf. “periodic table.”  (Source: Scienceworld.wolfram.org, Eric Weisstein’s World of Scientific Biography)

. . . .Swedish chemist who was a disciple of Dalton. He developed the concepts of the ion and ionic compounds. This theory made the idea of the O2 molecule ridiculous, and helped bring about the rejection of Avogadro’s Hypothesis. Berzelius embarked on a systematic program to try to make accurate and precise quantitative measurements and insure the purity of chemicals. After Lavoisier, Berzelius is known as the father of chemistry. He determined the exact elementary constituents of large numbers of compounds.  Motivated by his extensive atomic weight determinations, he introduced the classical system of chemical symbols in 1811, in which elements are abbreviated by one or two letters to make a distinct abbreviation from their Latin name. Berzelius developed the radical theory of chemical combination, which holds that reactions occur as stable groups of atoms called radicals are exchanged between molecules.  . . .

(Source on Berzelius: Chemical Heritage Foundation)

Jöns Jakob Berzelius (1779–1848) was an accomplished experimenter in the field of electrochemistry. He was a contemporary and rival of Humphry Davy, another electrochemical pioneer, but unlike Davy, Berzelius was much more systematic: he was given to running programs of hundreds of experiments and then deriving organized generalizations from them.

Berzelius was born into a well-educated Swedish family, but he experienced a difficult childhood because first his father and then his mother died. While in medical school at the University of Uppsala, he read about Alessandro Volta’s “electric pile”—an early type of battery—and immediately constructed one for himself. His thesis for his medical degree was on the effect of electric shock on patients with various diseases. Even though he reported no improvement in his patients, his interest in electrochemical topics continued. In 1807 he was made a professor at the Medical College in Stockholm, which soon after became the Karolinsska Institute. A year later he began his long association with the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. . . .

His interest in all sorts of compounds led to his discovery of a number of new elements, including cerium, selenium, and thorium. Students working in his laboratory also discovered lithium, vanadium, and several rare earths. Using his experimental results, he determined the atomic weights of nearly all the elements then known. Dealing with so many elements in so many compounds motivated his creation of a simple and logical system of symbols—H, O, C, Ca, Cl, and so forth—which is basically the same as the system we use today, except that the combining proportions of the atoms of elements in a compound were indicated as superscripts instead of our subscripts. . . .

Berzelius was also a great organizer of men and institutions. As the Permanent Secretary of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in Stockholm from 1818 to 1848, he revived what had become a moribund organization. He continued to write textbooks, which were widely translated, and in 1822 he began a series of annual reports on the status of chemistry in Europe, which were also made available in other languages.

Hopefully you can see why I included that quote, with emphases!

The Berzelius Society was in the tradition of “Skull and Crossbones”

Berzelius is a secret society at Yale University named for the Swedish scientist Jöns Jakob Berzelius, considered one of the founding fathers of modern chemistry. Founded in 1848, ‘BZ’, as the society is called often, is the third oldest society at Yale and the oldest of those of the now-defunct Sheffield Scientific School, the institution which from 1854-1956 {{for 102 years!! Women finally gained admission in the 1970s..}} was the sciences and engineering college of Yale University. Berzelius became a senior society in the tradition of Skull and Bones, Scroll and Key, and Wolf’s Head in 1933 when the Sheffield Scientific School was integrated into Yale University. Book and Snake and St. Elmo societies from Sheff, followed suit. Skull and Bones, founded in 1832, Scroll and Key, founded in 1841, and Wolf’s Head, founded in 1883, catered to students in the Academic Department, or liberal arts college.[1][2][3]

This will have to be discussed separately.  However, its origins overlap clearly with the origins of the “American Psychological Association.””  William James, father of American psychology, was one of the founders, as was also a psychiatrist.  This history, as well as (again) a look at how networked nonprofits are interacting with federal funding (i.e., government partners listed are the NIMH (National Institute for Mental Health) and SAMSHA, and — which too few people pay attention to, and it’s a real eye-openerhow powerful nonprofit associations with a uniform branding, theme, motto, and maybe even logos, become powerful lobbyists to affect the state and national budgets.

I am less familiar (yet) with “Mental Health America” [main group, original group] operations, and am not addressing it in this post.  But, under its “Partners” page, which I WILL discuss elsewhere, there are first, two “Government Partners” (NIMH and SAMSHA) and several, fascinating logos for their  “Health Partners,” one of which was the long acronym “NASMHPD.”  “National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors.”  Those would be, obviously, civil servants.

That is how “NASMHPD” got into the title of this post. [NOTE:  the page has changed in past 3 years, but the basic presentation of a row of pictorials (logos) with white space, and little explanations, remains).

The logo for NASMHPD and (in same category) DBSA, as listed on a “Mental Health America” web page:

(This image was actually found at mentalhealthamerica.net)

… are the only two whose logos (graphics with organization name) don’t translate the acronym.   I’ve learned over time, that’s rarely accidental, and to look up unexplained acronyms — there’s may be a reason they are understated.  {http://dbsalliance.org} Look who this group is, if the whole banner had been included in the “Mental Health America” list of “Partners” (the drop-down menu gives the meaning of the acronym and lists how very many ways one can donate:

DBSA website “Donate” options

[DBS stands for Depression and Bipolar Support; company was incorporated 1985 in Illinois and actually volunteers several years’ worth of Annual Reports, Forms 990 and Audited Financial Statements (in 3 columns) AND its EIN#, 36-3379124.  The latest “2016” return also volunteered the names of its Sched B (Excess Contributions) contributors, which overlaps (highly) with NAMI (pharmaceutical) contributors.  I didn’t post this info in 2014, and believe it should be a separate post, if I do add it now.  It’s not huge, and its main contributors run to the Rx field, including those who produce medications FOR this condition, including at least a few I saw as being also sued over opiod addition epidemic.//LGH July 1, 2017 update].  DBSA claims (in its tax returns) 239 chapters.  Again, better explained on a separate post.)….Except this one thing:

In 20156, at $270K, DBSA’s largest grant was claimed (volunteered on the website’s Form 990 Public Copy,  on its Schedule B) came from the “Dauten Family Foundation” at 155 N. Wacker Drive #4150 in Chicago. It was even larger than those coming from some of the pharma companies also shown (which were also over $200K).  The only problem I have with this is that the Dauten Family Foundation (EIN# obtained by lookup) at the same address, claims to have only been set up in 2014 (“initial return”) and its only two visible returns show exactly $0.00 activity, including no assets, no expenses including no distributions.  So we have an unexplained conflict or discrepancy of reporting here.  Actually, my mistake — I see that’s a FY2016 report on DBSA’s behalf, not 2015.  Meanwhile, the Dauten Family Foundation’s 2016 Form 990PF isn’t out yet.  However, it looks like the moment it is out, among the first grantees is this alliance.  Probably another one will be The Broad Institute (at Harvard and MIT) or Stanley Psychiatric Research Institute, although possibly the trustee and his wife (Kent P. and Liz Dauten) may have already donated personally.  Keep reading.

DBSA website volunteers its Sched B Contributors (for year shown) on its website. Note who they are (3 images, click to enlarge any of them).

DBSA website volunteers its Sched B Contributors (for year shown) on its website. Note who they are (3 images, click to enlarge any of them).

DBSA website volunteers its Sched B Contributors (for year shown) on its website. Note who they are ((here, Dauten Family Fndt’n) (3 images, click to enlarge any of them).

Total results: 2Search Again.

DAUTEN FAMILY FOUNDATION IL 2015 990PF 14 $0.00 46-5053786

Dauten Fam Fndtn (EIN# 465053786) 155 N Wacker Dr#4150 Chicago addr) Initial Return unfunded yet is 2014). Chck 2015 — still unfunded and no activity reported.

I see from the 501©3 lookup, of this family foundation — ruling date July 2014, assets $1.00 and focus, Mental Health Crisis.  Probably that’s what it’s going to do but the point is — how is DBSA Alliance crediting it already with $270,000 donation before it’s admitted to the same on its tax return?

Oops…. different years.  Anyhow…

 You can learn more on Kent and Liz P. Dauten on pages 12-13 here (it’s a 2010 Annual Report from the Broad Institute; also read re: Vada and Theodore Stanley (now both deceased; their son Jonathan was diagnosed while in college), including their backgrounds, and how two of their children were diagnosed as bipolar while sophomores in high school and despite completely normal childhoods (although given the wealth, “normal” might not be quite the word…).  He’s Harvard MBA, she was a psychology major. etc.



 The NASMHPD “About Us” page (this is only part of it) shows some scope of influence, a dollar amount, and establishes that it is indeed a well-organized private nonprofit that helps set major national agenda, including agenda that can and will have some say in who gets drugged when and how.

Please note their affiliation with about 220 state psychiatric hospitals.   I am showing you this in part because in recent years, the NASMHPD has been flagged by  a Pennsylvania whistleblower (who had to file a whistleblower lawsuit to protect his right to report), which in short, translates to lobbying and kickbacks by pharmaceutical industries.  It’s associated with “TMAP.”   We are talking about, pharmaceutical political clout in engineering systems to ensure the public is involved (through helping fund Medicaid, etc.) in getting some of the most vulnerable members of society to be drugged, using the more expensive and dangerous ones, for these group’s profits!

About Us

Founded in 1959 and based in Alexandria, VA, the National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD) represents the $37.6 billion public mental health service delivery system serving 7.1 million people annually in all 50 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia. NASMHPD (pronounced “NASH-bid”) operates under a cooperative agreement with the National Governors Association and is the only national association to represent state mental health commissioners/directors and their agencies.

While NASMHPD’s primary members are the commissioners/directors of the 55 state and territorial mental health departments,** the NASMHPD structure also includes 5 divisions comprised of directors of special populations/services (Children, Youth & Families; Financing and Medicaid; Forensic; Legal; and Older Persons) as well as a Medical Directors Council. The purpose of these entities*** is to provide technical assistance and expert consultation to the Commissioners/Directors on issues specific to those populations. Each of the Divisions and the Medical Directors Council has a Commissioner Division Advisor.

*** the phrase “these entities” (2017 comment) referring to divisions of NASMHPD is mis-leading and a mis-use of the word “entity,” unless they specifically refer to fiscally separate, registered, private associations, nonprofits, or corporations with their own, separate EIN#s — even if they may be related entities.  I just came from reading a recent financial statement of the NASMHPD, which would report if it was consolidating related entities, and the latest tax return (from their website) which would have to also report any separate entities on any Schedule R, and if transactions between them occurred that year, Schedule L.  There were none.  //LGH, July 2017.

From the tax return below, it is VERY clear that “active members” means ONLY public employees of these mental health departments, and only one per jurisdiction.  From Schedule “O” (near the end of the tax return), it’s also clear that if there’s any question who is the SINGLE director of mental health for any jurisdiction (i.e., state), the “Governor” or whoever appointed him or her shall be contacted.  They are saying, we only want to deal with who’s in power.  It was stated like this (see two “bullet” right below this paragraph; link to the return is below):


Back to quote from their website:

NASMHPD has formal affiliations with the National Association of Consumer/Survivor Mental Health Administrators (NAC/SMHA), an organization that represents the Directors of the Offices of Consumer Affairs within state mental health agencies; the National Coalition on Mental Health and Deaf Individuals (NCMHDI), a non-profit corporation established in 2008 to provide leadership and support in the areas of public mental health and deaf and hard of hearing populations in the United States; and with the Multi-State Behavioral Health Consortium, a nationwide collaboration between State Mental Health Agencies to foster dialogue and cooperation in the area of disaster and mental health services.

In its early days, NASMHPD maintained a research division that was reconstituted in 1987 as the NASMHPD Research Institute, Inc. (NRI), a separate non-profit organization. The mission of the NRI is to promote quality and accountability of mental health services by generating and facilitating the use of relevant research, data, and information that meets the collective and individual needs of state mental health agencies.

NRI, the research institute may be “separate” but its logo is on this site (bottom right, find print) and on the tax return, however, it was listed as an “independent contractor” for  the main organization.

In addition, NASMHPD has an affiliation with the approximately 220 state psychiatric hospitals, which include hospitals for children, adults, older persons, and people who have entered the mental health system via the court system. NASMHPD holds a National Summit every two years to convene the superintendents of all of these hospitals. The superintendents have established the following four regional organizations, each of which meet annually: the Southern States Psychiatric Hospital Association (SSPHO), the Midwestern Association of Mental Health Organizations (MASMHO), the Western Psychiatric State Hospital Association (WPSHA), and the Northeast Region.

. . . As a private, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization, NASMHPD helps set the agenda and determine the direction of state mental health agency interests across the country, historically including state mental health planning, service delivery, and evaluation. The association provides members with the opportunity to exchange diverse views and experiences, learning from one another in areas vital to effective public policy development and implementation. NASMHPD provides a broad array of services designed to identify and respond to critical policy issues, cutting-edge consultation, training, and technical assistance, and together with the NASMHPD Research Institute, Inc., a partner organization, apprises constituents of the latest in mental health research in administration and services delivery…

fine print, very bottom of the page, a reminder:   “Operating under a cooperative agreement with the National Governors Association. ”  The NGA is not a nonprofit,**** and the financing of this NASMHPD may be harder to track as it is “cooperative.”  I have before posted HOW the NGA manages to operate its own nonprofit, the NGA Center for Best Practices” and maintains “corporate fellows” program by which all kinds of businesses can make contributions to settting national policy.  It is not common knowledge, however, the NGA was also influential in pushing “fatherhood” as a social policy back in the early 1990s, 1994 in fact.  This conveniently bypassed running it past voters before the agenda was set.   …

****2017 Update, after recently looking at the financial statements and a Form 990 of the NGA Center for Best Practices.  The NGA is called (per its website) an “instrumentality of government” and IS a nonprofit in that its revenues aren’t taxed, but NOT a 501©3 apparently, or required to file Form 990s.

Tax returns for its 501©3 “Center for Best Practices” as you can see, has $30M assets, and a certain EIN#.  The NGA (which its tax return, Sched R will show) has a different EIN#.

Total results: 3Search Again.

Looking at the latest (top row) return, some of its explanatory pages:



FORM 990, PART V Explanation


EIN# of the NGA is 52-1020381.  2008 tax return lists it as an “instrumentality” but FY2011 as simply a “nonprofit.”  FYs 2009 and 2010, meanwhile, just don’t attach the Schedule R (from what I could see, this database).

All this conveniently makes it hard to track, verify, or view the NGA tax returns, while you can see that the NGA Center for Best Practices not only has significant contributions (from $16M to $30M some years) but also maintains an endowment for “supplementary funding,” and while claiming, basically “0” employees, spends millions on employment through leasing them to the related “instrumentality.”  Revenues and Expenses thus cycle back and forth between the two, but the public only gets 990s for one of the two entities — while the financial statements are “consolidated.”  They do differentiate in parts, but what I’m saying with shared leadership, shared vendor relationships, shared employment, shared facilities and website — but only ONE of TWO related entities does the public get to actually see, while it sets policies for the nation and pays vendors helping figure out what those policies should be:

Schedules R Tax Exempt Related Entities from two different years for NGA CBPractices:

NGA CBP Schedule R calling the NGA one thing, a “nonprofit”

NGA CBP a previous (see footer) year (different leadership) calling the NGA something different (an “instrumentality” and more description; both show the same EIN#s for the NGA

Here’s that screenshot:

NGA + NGA Center for Best Practices Consolidated FS (Audited), Note 1 defining each.

Tax return at first glance shows “small budget,” but  influence seems significant:

Total Results 3 (but I added some, so it’s 5 now, leaving a second header row in place to mark update vs. older)[I am reviewing this earlier post in June 2017.  That time the “2013” tax return was the most recent.  I’ve added the two additional rows showing up since then.  //LGH 6-25-2017]:

National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors VA 2015 990 43 $3,070,418 52-0784740
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors VA 2014 990 36 $2,750,939 52-0784740
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors VA 2013 990 34 $2,929,232 52-0784740
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors VA 2012 990 31 $3,970,760 52-0784740
National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors VA 2011 990 31 $3,493,133 52-0784740

“2013” return (It’s FY2012 which ends in 2013), first glance, page 1:  M=Million, K=thousand

Money coming in to NASMHPD:

$9.4M Gross receipts, of which most is “Contributions” ($9.3M), no real program service revenue.  They aren’t selling stuff or billing for services (program service revenue), but are sustained by contributions.  So the next question is how much was gov’t grants and how much private contributions, meaning, “not government grants.”

  • Note, p.1 (“Prior Year” column) shows NASMHPD got about $3 million less in 2013 than in 2012.  They kept their salaries roughly the same and cut “other expenses” (i.e., providing their public benefit) by around $3 million, still ending the year

Section VIII (p.9 most returns) tells this — $8.6M out of $9.3M contributions are “government,” and $0.69M (or, almost $700K) is “membership dues.”   Now — if the members are “state mental health program directors,” are the states paying the membership fees?   . . . . Probably. . . . so I’d classify it if so as ALL contributions as, “public funds,” i.e., “gov’t.”

Money going out from NASMHPD:

Page 1: How much of that went to staff salaries?” (answer — $2.4M for 25 employees;using numbers provided, it’s 25.6%) and how much to “Other expenses (answer – $6.9M; using numbers provided it’s 73.8%).  Of the salaries about $1M went to seven directors:  Exec. Director got over $200K, the lowest paid was $101K, and most, in between. so 18 people split the rest, I guess.

Page 2: (Program service accomplishments, 4c) — many are listed, but I noticed the most expensive one ($2.87M) was towards systems change, apparently:


Translation:  Government gives funds (most of their funds) to this nonprofit NASMHPD (whose membership are government employees to start with) , which I JUST showed us from their tax return — $9.3million to be specific, the previous year it was over $12 million.   We do not know from the tax return which branches of government are giving which parts of that $9.3 million.

These are at some level public funds from taxpayers, some of who may be hungry, or hurting for lack of sufficient funds for their own families.  However, it has been deemed important to pour money into this organization (among plenty of others in the field) to further transform and expand the field of “mental health,” although that field has done little but expand exponentially since it got started.

I searched the term “Transformation Transfer Initiative” and am uploading a pdf from NYState which you can read:  2010 report on Transfer Initiative labeled NYSOMH (“CMS, SAMHSA” Administered by NASMHPD”) ~ResearchFound’n for Mental Hygiene, Inc~ Subcontractor

“Recovery Centers” with peer involvement.  Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center was engaged as consultant, comparing peer practices in: US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the UK (which countries sounds like a list of where “AFCC” operates, i.e., Anglo-centric Commonwealth countries other than the US….).  39 consumer organizations were chosen by NYOSMH for Dartmouth Psychiatric to interview …

[2017 UPDATE NOTE: This section, written in 2014, not recently, has several quotes; I’m coloring the background light-pink to differentiate it, and using a smaller font. This will change with a second link on similar concept from Nebraska. In 2014, I did not know how to do screenprints, and so used quotes extensively.]

As part of the transformation effort in New York State, the NYS Office of Mental Health, applied for and received a 2009 Transformation Transfer Initiative Grant in the amount of $221,000  {{ from ???}}  to explore the idea of “recovery centers” in order to bring the mental health system closer to one with a recovery focus…

Phase 1 – Data Gathering
Over the course of 2009, the New York State Office of Mental Health (NYS OMH) initiated a process to gather information needed to facilitate a transformation process that would lead to the establishment peer-operated Recovery Centers

Not that I think it’s a bad idea, but where is the reference to who determined that peer-operated Recovery Centers were a good idea?  If there was some NYS legislative determination, or NYS OMH determination, where’s the reference to it?  If this is a formal report, that would seem basic information to include.

The focus of Recovery Centers would be to support individuals who are working towards defining and achieving their personal recovery goals and connecting to their communities. The first step in this process was to gather information from peer lead organizations in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Sure, why not?  If it’s US funds being used, and a US problem being solved, “let’s go first to countries who are on a different political, governmental, currency and in general organizational basis, and globalize the solutions in the mental health realm — but stick the US taxpayers with the bill,” and if there are screwups, the screwups of attempting to standardize services across different nations.

The intention was to learn from these organizations how they achieved success in working with individuals to achieve their recovery goals, if and how they measured that success and what they had learned from programs and interventions that were not successful. The Transformation Transfer Initiative (TTF) funds were used to engage the Dartmouth Psychiatric Research Center (PRC) to complete and summarize these findings.

Dartmouth Survey Responses from Consumer and Peer Support Services:

. . . .Basic to all of these organizations, however, is the mission and vision that drive the organization. Each of the organizations articulated a mission/vision that evolved over time with a basic philosophy of mutual support, in that through the process of peer support, all peers are on common ground.

Can we be more vague?  A mission and vision that “drives” includes forceful planning of what direction it should go, based on that mission and vision (presumably defined somehow — like in words, and in their by-laws…).  “Evolving” includes a mission and vision that do not drive, but kind of grow on their own, naturally, according to favorable or unfavorable circumstance.  “Drive” =/= “evolve.”  They are quit different verbs, and that the report can’t tell the difference is a little strange.   Next para. shows where the money will come from:

Financing Models:
The CPS [[“Consumer and Peer Support”]] organizations receive funding from a variety of sources including the state, province, and federal governments. HUD and Medicaid in the United States are the principal sources of funding. Although very limited, a small number of the respondents are involved in fund raising. Grant funding is also a vehicle used to fund peer organizations. The grant funding mechanism is often contingent on certain deliverables in order to receive funding. It is significant, however, that the use of Medicaid funds is increasing as a source of financial support for peer organizations.

This is a result of two trends: the Peer Certification process, originating in Georgia, and the movement of several of the respondent organization to the provision of traditional mental health services such as case management e.g. ‘Recovery Innovations’ in Arizona. The Peer Certification process or a similar training process is growing across the United States and is often a prerequisite for a CPS organization to be able to access Medicaid funding.

Dartmouth PRC comment: NYS OMH needs to address the issues of training and credentialing of staff in the Recovery Center programs. If NYS OMH wants to access Medicaid funds for the support of this development, a credentialing process will be necessary. In any event, a formal training process for staffs of recovery centers will be every [sic] helpful in the process of assuring quality and fidelity to the recovery center model. Finally, any funding mechanism needs to be closely tied to the measurement of the outcomes of the recovery center organization.

Terms:  “CPS” here means “Consumer and Peer Support.”  “PRC” is short for the Psychiatric Research Center.  “IPS” per page 9 bottom, means “Individual Placement and Support,” referring to employment; and EBP I “THINK” means “Evidence-Based Practices.” After it’s defined, and graduates of the “IPS” training from Columbia’s  EBP are named, the term “IPS” is used frequently.  However, in a very, very similar report  from Nebraska (I’ve provided the link below), “IPS” appears to be a process designed by their selected “Peer Support Trainer” from Connecticut, and there, it means “Intentional Peer Support” and doesn’t refer specifically to employment.  I don’t think the use of the same initials is coincidence; both reports and papers sound somewhat “shrink-wrapped” and rehearsed, as if some motions were necessary to go through before accessing the desired position — Technical Assistance Provider, to support provision of training for what sounds like a statewide restructuring of mental health services:

This phase included staff training in evidence-based supported employment through the IPS (Individual Placement and Support model) and the use of fidelity measures.

In late October 2009, we enlisted Columbia University EBP Center and Paul Margolies, PhD. to implement regional forums on technical assistance in evidenced base supported employment. Raymond Gregory (IPS trainer) and Steven Baker (part-time IPS expert consultant) both began in November 2009 at the Columbia University, EBP Center.

 Margolies has a PhD in clinical psychology from SUNY (a long time ago), but he is working at Columbia University Medical Center (“CUMC”) and it seems, NYS Psychiatric Institute.  See description:

Paul J. Margolies, Ph.D. is Associate Director for Practice Innovation and Implementation, Center for Practice Innovations, Division of Mental Health Services and Policy Research, NYSPI. Dr. Margolies is a licensed psychologist who received his doctoral degree in clinical psychology from the State University of New York at Stony Brook. Over the course of the past 30 years, he has worked in community and inpatient settings in a variety of clinical, supervisory and administrative roles. He also served for 25 years as a Training Director of an American Psychological Association-accredited psychology internship program and is currently an accreditation site visitor for the American Psychological Association. He has presented papers and workshops at regional, national and international conferences on topics including cognitive-behavior therapy, psychiatric rehabilitation, transformational leadership, organizational change and evidence-based practices.

Also, see his description at the  Center for Innovative Practices (sm) and the IPS logo, plus their mottos.  I wonder who funds the center.  The only staff listed at the center is another PhD, the two IPS trainers above (all men) and one woman who is “IPS Trainer” also.  Of the three IPS trainers, only one has a degree (?) “M.P.S.” and some more initials after his name which I think may be another certification of some sort, as they are not listed with “.” as degrees usually are.

Obviously, someone is going to be in the certification and training process.   Big money in the training and certifying process in so many fields . . . . this next phrase shows many code-words that may make more sense by looking at other examples.  At first (appearance), it seems that “IPS” may be a marketable curriculum, and that this whole scenarios looks like another way of steering business to certain providers, or trademarked “practices.”  I could be wrong, of course:

OMH used the Transformation Transfer Grant to bring consultation and expertise into the system, to identify what best practices exist elsewhere, what they look like, and to effectively determine how to incorporate these into the New York State system. The interviews conducted by Dartmouth helped to expand our ideas around Recovery Center. At present no definitive models or information sources exist for such Recovery Centers. What we discovered is that the range of peer support services is enormous, however, a full menu of services does not exist in any single program entity.
In addition to the study on innovative practices, we were able to have meaningful dialog with approximately 170 recipients/consumers/ex-patient/survivors who attended statewide forums. These peer forums were critical in creating and refining the OMH’s Consensus Paper.

The Consensus Paper on Recovery Centers (appendix 1) has brought us closer to realizing the key elements that will drive the Recovery Centers of the future.

Again, will they evolve (with that Peer Support and Consumer Participation model), or will they be “driven”?

As a result of this project, NYS OMH has allocated $1.5 million, in FY 2009-2010 and $4 million in FY 2010-2011 to develop training and technical assistance that will provide organizational assistance to these evolving centers.

They are “evolving,” but in which direction will be “driven” by the  T and TA.  What else is new…

An RFP for organizational training and technical assistance to support the infrastructure of recovery centers will be released in the spring of 2010.  In terms of developing evidence based supported employment, OMH successfully contracted with Columbia University, Psychiatric Institute, EBP Center to provide access for 168 individuals through statewide forums on Individual Placement Support.

I added another one reference to Transformation Transfer Initiative from Nebraska, showing they chose to fly in a trainer from Connecticut for their model.  The grant, however, was from “NASMPHD.” Interesting how that works. The elaborate title is my brief “scenario” on a brief look at this 2nd example of a TTI situation.  Nebr DHHS (gov) applied to NASMHPD for TTI-Grant; and had UN’s PublicPolicyCenter implement; UN’s PPC contracted with a Connecticut group FOR-U running “IPS” peer training model some Yale PRCH (?) involvement; this is 3-14-2010, FinalReports-UNL-PPCenter2010

Focus on Recovery-United, Inc. (FOR-U) is a peer-run organization located in the state of Connecticut. This organization has provided education and training and curricula development over the past 6 years – all for people in recovery by people in recovery. Central to the work at FOR-U is the philosophy of Intentional Peer Support (IPS), developed by Shery Mead.

Trademarked?  Proprietary? Probably.  Low over-head, high-profit curricula?  This “Consensus Paper” or report sounds like a sales piece:

Fundamental to Mead’s work on peer support is establishing intentional relationships. IPS is a way of thinking about purposeful relationships. It is a process where people use the relationship to look at things from new angles, develop greater awareness of personal and relational patterns, and to support and challenge each other as they try new things. FOR-U proposed to work in collaboration with Shery Mead Consulting and Chyrell D Bellamy of Yale’s Program for Recovery and Community Health (PRCH) to develop a well-rounded training for Peers of Nebraska which combines all of the competencies requested by Nebraska which includes: IPS, Person-Centered Planning (PCP); WRAP Overview; and Pathways FOR-U (Pathways to Recovery). The FOR-U approach moves beyond generalist approaches to peer support training and includes elements needed for sustaining peers in the community and in the workplace

In 2017 I looked up Focus on Recovery United, Inc. and found one (very small) organization in Connecticut with an “interested person” relationship between the Executive Director and a provider (her spouse), with latest tax return shown only FY2013 and FY2012 Tax return missing — unless postcard Form 990-Ns were filed, which I didn’t check yet, although in the year before AND after the missing return, over $400K of government grants were received — and which is overspending its budget even withoutstanding minor loans from its President and Executive Director (total $11K), and only formed in 2002.  Also, in 2011 it had a website (“focusonrecovery.org”), but in 2013 that blank in basic header information was marked N/A.

Also interesting to me is its location in Middletown, Connecticut, known and posted earlier (2012?) on FamilyCourtMatters.org as the location of an AFCC-friendly if not -run “high conflict” (family court) taking cases from outside the immediate area, as I recall, statewide.  In other words, judges can direct traffic (cases) to the court.

Total results: 3Search Again.

FOCUS ON RECOVERY UNITED INC CT 2014 990 24 $28,111 65-1180221
Focus On Recovery-United Inc. CT 2012** 990 21 $48,416 65-1180221
Focus On Recovery-United Inc. CT 2011 990 33 $44,730 65-1180221

Focus on Recovery United | CHYRELL D. BELLAMY, MSW, PhD spouse of Exec Director, $16K “interested person” transaction for “TRAINING SERVICES” (same year ED had a $10K loan to entity for operating expenses…) [Click to enlarge]

Focus on Recovery, latest tax return shown has a move to Middletown

Focus on Recovery UnitedFocus on Recovery, ED Mcdonald-Bellamy, FY 2011 (FY2012 so far not found, and probably not filed as org. was IRS status-revoked 3 yrs later, despite a funny-looking FY2013 form found) in Willamantic CT, notice it admits to a website.

Focus on Recovery UnitedForm 990 search by EIN# 651180221 to show missing year of returns (see YRS column)

65-1180221, marked “initial return” 2004, entity says 2002 founding. Notice started out primarily gov’t funding (about 10:1 ratio)

Focus on Recovery United, IRS search by EIN# run July 2017 says was status revoked 11/2015, which was posted 4/2016 and not reinstatement shown to date).

Focus on Recovery United found in a list of IRS-revoked (=not-filing for 3 yrs in a row) CT entities, alpha list

Sched A of Support (FY2013) shows, not huge, but over four years added up to over $2M, and Forms 990 show from the start, majority gov’t grants.

Focus on Recovery United: Sched L, “interested Persons” shows two small loans – one from the Exec Director, larger, “not approved by bd or committee” and another, smaller, from the Board President (so approved). The group still wasn’t making ends meet yearly, or so its returns say.

Focus on Recovery United, IRS search says yes, is valid for tax-deductible contributions, notice the city, so probably post-2013.

Focus on Recovery United, details page of IRS revocation posting. There is no “reinstatemt” date at the bottom.

Where is Tax Return for FYE 2013? (their fiscal year ends June 30, so that would be Fiscal Year 2012….).  I checked the “IRS Exempt Organization” website and found that, by its EIN# and name both it (1) IS available for tax-deductible contributions (2) had NOT filed any Form 990-Ns, yet still historically (3) WAS revoked for nonfiling 3 consecutive years or (see fine print on that page) in Nov. 2015, which this website posted in April 2016, and no “reinstatement” date shown, and if there are questions as to its current status, call the 800#.  Their “initial return” was marked only 2004, so by this standard, they held it together, sort of, from FY2004 – 2011 (for maybe seen years — although I couldn’t find all the interim years’ returns either) and then “dropped the ball” on reporting, after taking hundreds of thousands (at least not hundreds of millions) of dollars of government grants over a short timeframe:

See several (I believe, 11) labeled screenprints nearby, taken from either an IRS return or the IRS Exempt Select check feature; these all added as well as the table above, in 2017 post update…

And this was a MODEL of peer support and training?

Chyrell D. Bellamy (spouse / interested person) being an unusual name, I looked up, and found Assistant Professor of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine (and apparently a same-sex marriage to Heather McDonald-Bellamy the Exec. Director).  MSW, Rutgers State U (NJ), 1993, PhD, UMichigan, 2005 (thumbnail image from Yale.edu below).

Focus on Recovery United (CT nonprofit formed 2002, first filed 2004, status-revoked by 2015) listed as an interested-person transaction/Spouse of ExecDirector on a tax return

Further search showing timing of another center and awards to Dr. Bellamy coincides with when her wife Heather Bellamy-McDonald quit filing tax returns for the 501©3, or at least Focus on Recovery perhaps had just outlived its usefulness?

Inside the light-blue-background, blue-bordered (fine-print) box is a quote, added during post update 2017:

Bellamy receives PCORI funds, patient advocacy award

Chyrell D. Bellamy, PhD, MSW, has been awarded funding by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) to evaluate the effectiveness of the recently-established Wellness Center at the Connecticut Mental Health Center (CMHC). Bellamy is an assistant professor of psychiatry and director of peer services and research at the Yale Program for Recovery and Community Health.

In addition, Bellamy has received the Pearl Johnson Award from the National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy (NARPA). NARPA’s mission is to empower individuals with psychiatric diagnoses to make their own treatment choices. The award recognizes Bellamy’s advocacy exemplifying the spirit of Pearl Johnson, one of the nation’s leading psychiatric survivor activists and a passionate supporter for the rights of individuals of color.

The first phase of Bellamy’s PCORI-funded project will evaluate the use of and outcomes generated by the different components of the Wellness Center, while a second phase will develop and pilot an augmentation strategy to improve the health of clients who have yet to derive any benefits from the Center.

Findings from this study will be used to inform policy makers and practitioners about the practices that work best for different subgroups of persons with serious mental illness on the health outcomes that matter to them most.

The CMHC Wellness Center is a primary care center for clients at Connecticut Mental Health Center. Supported by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Center for Integrated Health Solutions, the Wellness Center was established in 2013 to better meet the health care needs of CMHC clients by integrating physical and mental health services in one location. The Wellness Center is run in collaboration with Cornell Scott Hill-Health Center, a federally qualified community health center in New Haven.

Dr. Bellamy received her PhD from the joint program in Social Work and Social Psychology at the University of Michigan and her MSW and BA degrees from Rutgers University. She has extensive experience in research interventions for people with mental illness, co-occurring disorders, substance abuse, and HIV, with a focus on the impact of sociocultural experiences in prevention and recovery. At the Yale Program for Recovery and Community Health, Bellamy provides instruction on peer curricula development and training, training of peers to conduct research, and research and evaluation of peer support projects.

This article was submitted by Shane Seger on January 9, 2014.

The wellness center only started in 2013, and by January 2014, there’s already an evaluation of how well it’s working (gov’t sponsored), with clear intent to use as a springboard to spreading the model…Notice also the “integration of mental health” into primary care, a longstanding campaign championed by many, I particularly remember Nicholas J. Cummings 2008 biography at (psychotherapy.net, as I recall) pushing the theme as a way to ensure ongoing financing for fellow psychologists, as opposed to psychiatrists, who were already aligned with the medical sector). Guess the campaign is working…INCIDENTALLY, a search of the website “focusonrecovery.org” cited in 2011 by the Form 990 (see screenprint) resulted in a “no domain by this name” error message from Wix.com. Was it ever set up?


BACK to the NASMHPD Form 990, above:

Page 8, bottom (Section VII-B) How much of their “other expenses” went to Independent Contractors, which ones, and  for what purpose”?


This same subcontractor information, in annotated screenprint form, again points out that the 3rd largest contractor above, is named as though it ought to be a Schedule-R entity, but was actually formed (I learned since) in order to distance itself from NASMHPD, which the NIH correctly pointed out, was an advocacy organization.  Meanwhile it produces many reports, is showing up as an INDEPENDENT subcontractor, has its own website (NRI-inc.org) and logo. In effect, many times NASMHPD is claiming to do things, it may be subcontracting, including with this institute, to get them done! I also looked up Vanguard Communications which seems to be owned by a single woman, and run primarily (but not 100%) by women, in D.C. Further information could be found at DCRA.DC.Gov (i.e., look up more supporting details on the above entities). Notice how high social marketing is on their priorities…

2017 Update — NASMHPD Research Institute sounds like a “related’ (Sched-R) entity, and I’m going to look up its tables here.  (Well, they aren’t so easily found… TBContinued!).


The tax return only has room to list 5 Independent Contractors paid over $100K, but asks how many total were paid more than $100K.  The answer is 35.  If this was filled out correctly (from most to least), none were paid more than $258K, but anyone, or all of them could’ve been paid substantially over $100K.  The minimum other independent contractor total, not including the (very roughly) $2.825M above, then would’ve been over 30 x $100,000 = $3 million, minimum.

$2.8 + $3 = $5.8, last I heard, however, on Section IX (Statement of Expenses, under “Other, towards bottom of page))  it lists only $4.96M “Subcontractors.”

[UPDATE: 2017.  My math underestimates considerably (based on a mental quick-total above) so to clarify, now that I can do screenprints, here’s that one (Section VIIB of that years’ Form 990) as contrasted with the listed “Subcontractors” expenses on Part IX “Other Expenses” on the same year’s return.  (Note: NASMHPD is overall heavy on the “other expenses” and heavy on subcontractor expenses — the one section of the return that only requires 5 of them to be listed. Part IX overall is a full-page “Statement of Expenses” by this year.  Before 2008, the IRS forms were different):]

This gets real interesting, when one deals with the Depression Bipolar Support Association and how many nonprofits publicizing the term (by state, by county sometimes, by region….)

NASMHPD has been mentioned in the TMAP scandal, which whistleblower from Pennsylvania OIG (“PennMAP”) Alan Jones reported on.  TMAP [Texas Medication Algorithm Project”] is a formula or policy (means) of recommending the most expensive and trademarked drugs, of certain kinds, be used on certain populations, based on Expert Consensus and other recommendations of individuals — receiving $$ from the Rx corporations involved.

The presumption that almost everyone suffers from depression, suicidality and bipolarity, or should be screened for it in case they might, I find a little odd, and a little strangely connected to the manufacturers of medications to handle them.   This is about profits, not about service.

Here’s a 70-page writeup by Alan Jones (2004, pdf)  Texas_Medication_Algorithm_Project_Allen_Jones:   READ, BE SHOCKED, and UNDERSTAND, and CONSIDER WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT!!!!  NASMHPD is mentioned, however, on page 16.   This shows the strategy and also involvement of at least one corporation, Johnson & Johnson.  Meanwhile, the Johnson & Johnson “Foundation” (a large one), “Robert Wood Johnson Foundation” has also been influential in developing (sponsoring the blueprinting nationwide) of “Unified Family Courts.”   The role of psychologists and psychiatrists (who are able to prescribe medication).  The man who was governor of Texas sponsoring TMAP’s expansion became  President, that is of the USA obviously, and in his first term, set up the New Freedom Commission to push for more of the same policies.  Which commission is also mentioned.  The whistleblower’s report here is now ten years old.  Time to take it into consideration, “ya think?

After gaining access to major Texas Institutions (prisons, juvenile detention, mental hospitals, etc.), it was “game’s on,” apparently. After TMAP, what next but ‘TCMAP” (“C” is for Children who need to be better drugged, with more expensive drugs, more often), and TIMAP (“I” is for “Implementation.”  How to better implement TMAP, a formula for prescribing more higher drugs, particularly antipsychotics, as in “atypical” to more people, and with more state funding for it, too.  TMAP appears to have started around the time of a major re-structuring welfare, i.e., 1996 Welfare Reform with a critical change being “Block Grants to the States.”  Guess that’s just  a coincidence.

For further reference, in looking at the Los Angeles “MHA” association, shown above, I see an unusual pattern — most of its funding is clearly government grants.  After filing about on time 2002 and 2003, ever since 2004, it has simply NOT been filing its critical “RRFs” (which show the public which government agencies are contributing to any California nonprofit) several — eventually six months, past the five-months after Year End deadline requirement.  (I will show pdf).  What’s more, even when they are shown as “received” by the OAG, the OAG (Office of Attorney General) has chosen to simply not upload them for public access.  A FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request should be filed; the should be found.   While originally it was about $14 and $15M revenues and gross assets, it began increasing to $20M, $22M, now $24M gross assets.

However, NO “RRF” is shown except for the year 2000,  2011 and 2012.   While I appreciate the mental health assistance needs homeless people are going to have, this is still public funding, and $24M assets and significant grants is not “pipsqueak change” for taxpayers.   Where are those “RRFs?” and the other tax returns?”  Take a look at the most recent one up there (for YE June 2011, not filed til March, 2012).  (Complex labeling of the link is my reminder to follow up)
File FOIA (most RRFs missing from OAG site, $20MM revs) MentalHealthAmer-LosAngeles EIN# 951881491, 2011RRF (about20 govt contributors) most RRFs NOT UPLOADEDQCx1Rpo7.exe

Charitable Details printout (shows patterns of filing and revenue, assets, etc., see CharDetails for 951881491, MHA in Los Angeles ($24M Revs, mostly govt grants, @ 2013)) also show that no tax return was attached to their 2012 filing of an RRF.  That so many government agencies are involved (an unusually large list, trust me) are donating makes me skeptical why it was “forgotten” to show the books on public funds to help mentally ill and homeless children, youth, and adults. Also notice there is a “Miscellaneous Document” listed at the bottom.  This is a courteous notice from the state that the organization failed to provide the information (explanation) of its government funding for that year’s RRF (!), i.e., RE: NOTICE OF INCOMPLETE REPORT / July 27, 2012 / The Annual Registration Renewal Fee Report submitted on behalf of the captioned organization is incomplete for the following reason(s): 1. Explanation/Information not provided for “YES” answer to Part B , Question No. 6.  No mention is made of their failure to produce the corresponding IRS form, and I have seen that mentioned in combination with the above RRF “missing info”notice.

I searched the street address which shows the “HAP” project (Homeless Assistance Project) at the same street address, was chosen as a model for “integrated care services” and recommended in 2002 by — the “New Freedom Commission” (then-President George W. Bush) referenced in the whistleblower report; also in 2000 by then-President Clinton.

Here are some links:   Address being: 100 W. BROADWAY. NO. 5010, Long Beach, California. (For those who may not know, Long Beach is in the immediate Los Angeles area — near the Port of Los Angeles, and where freighters, etc. are unloaded. MHA Village, and “HAP“:


MHA Village opened in April 1990 after California’s Mental Health Department selected MHA to design a new mental health model built on an integrated services approach (this means we provide all the services and support individuals need to lead lives of greater independence in their community.)

We began as a pilot study, with an emphasis on outcomes to track our effectiveness. After our pilot phase, MHA Village became a permanent program, with a shift in funding from the state to the county level.

Innovative Service Delivery

The integrated services approach we pioneered became a model for AB 34 and 2034, California legislation to combat homelessness and incarceration among people with mental illness. We were chosen to operate two AB 34/2034 programs and served the system by tracking the effectiveness of projects across the state.

Most significantly, integrated services was identified as the approach for serving adults with mental illness in the Mental Health Services Act, enacted in 2005. As one of California’s greatest mental health reforms, the Act creates systems of care for adults, youth and children built on recovery principles and practices.

Paul Barry, M.Ed., C.P.R.P.
Executive Director

Paul Barry specializes in employment innovations for people with mental illness.  For over 30 years, he has created successful programs to help people with disabilities integrate into their communities and develop their identities as workers.  In 1990, he joined MHA Village as director of community integration and was promoted in 2009 to his current position.

Under Paul’s direction, MHA Village has placed employment as an ultimate goal of mental health recovery for every Village member it serves. He has been instrumental in establishing three viable businesses at MHA Village — Deli 456, the online Village Cookie Shoppe and Employment Services.

Paul received national recognition in 1999 as Eli Lilly’s “Social Worker of the Year.”  In 2002, he consulted with President Bush’s New Freedom Commission on Mental Health and in 2008 he was honored with the Personal Legacy Award from the Los Angeles County Mental Health Commission for his contributions to the field of recovery.  Paul received his bachelor’s degree in political science from Wesleyan College and a master’s degree in urban and special education from University of Hartford, Connecticut.  He is also certified as a psychiatric rehabilitation practitioner from the U.S. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Association.

This MHA Village is very interesting.  It is not a residential program, yet “MHA” (which one, not noted) bought vacant property which wasn’t fully completed project, in 1990.  FAQs:

How is MHA Village Funded?  The Village is funding primarily as a Full Service Partnership through the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA) and Medi-Cal. For more information about Full Service Partnerships (FSPs), please visit the LA County MHSA website and click on the “Full Service Partnerships” link under the correct age group heading.

The Village Homeless Assistance Program (HAP) is funded by a variety of different sources including the City of Long Beach, U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUD), Department of Mental Health (DMH) and the Federal PATH Program.

They call their clients “members” and these are the profiles for membership:


What about the building?

The 4 story brown building on the corner of 5th and Elm in Long Beach was built in 1922 and was originally the AT&T Overseas Operator Building. After the Long Beach Earthquake in 1933 the building was rebuilt and continued to be used as a telephone operator’s building.

The building stood vacant for a while and was purchased in the 1980s for conversion to an office building; the developer improved the building seismically but did not complete the project.

MHA bought the vacant property on January 2, 1990 to use for the AB 3777 program.

How is MHA Village Funded?

What is this place?  The MHA Village has earned national acclaim and honors for its innovation and is a model for changing mental health care particularly in California (which passed Proposition 63, now the Mental Health Services Act) and throughout the world.

What is a member?  At MHA Village we refer to our clients as members. We place a strong emphasis on language and we intentionally choose words that are empowering and respectful. The word member implies a sense of ownership and belonging that encourages Village members to feel a part of their recovery.

How do I become a member?  The Village Homeless Assistance Program (HAP) is the entryway for membership. There is a “no wrong door” approach in HAP and anyone who is interested in receiving services should feel free to come during drop-in center hours:

No appointments necessary or available. Services are delivered on a walk in basis. Before coming, please review the information below to better understand the eligibility criteria for enrollment.   The requirements for Village membership are:

1. Adult (18 years or older) living in the Long Beach area
2. Axis I diagnosis (schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder, major depression)
3. Unserved, underserved (i.e. needs more intense services), or inappropriately served (i.e. culturally inappropriate services)

In addition, one (or more) of the following must apply within the last 12 months:

  • Institutionalized* (Institute of Mental Disease or State Hospital)
  • Several county hospitalizations*
  • Persistently homeless
  • Incarcerated*
  • In imminent risk (without family support)
  • Frequent user of urgent care clinics

*Note: Requests for enrollment for people coming from state hospitals, IMDs, jails, and county hospitals must be referred through the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health adult navigators. For more information, please contact the Long Beach/South Bay Geographic Initiative at (562) 435-3037.

Please understand that the staff at MHA Village partner with the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health to determine eligibility of potential members.

Founding Dox Mental Health America of Los Angeles, EIN#951881491

Mental Health Association IN Los Angeles founding documents, uploaded, show that in about 1966, three associations combined to form Mental Health Association OF Los Angeles, apparently now “Affiliated Units.”   San Fernando Valley, Long Beach and Los Angeles: (”  ARTICLE VIII.  Present Affiliated Units: Long Beach Mental Health Association; Los Angeles County Mental Health Association;** San Fernando Valley Mental Health Association”) and changed its name to the “IN” in 1985.  A very large board of directors is involved.  About half the by-laws of the (1966?) association seem to be missing, and instead are provided the financial information and statements from a completely different group, with different EIN#, “California Musical Theatre,” which also means that the paperwork on this group isn’t on there.   I supposed it might be found:

**Business entity listing shows this as “dissolved (not as a “merger”),” but that name, with an “Inc.” appended, may not be the same, and was only in use (at least shown here) since 2006…


Good grief —


Founded in 1924, we are one of the county’s oldest nonprofit mental health organizations. MHA is an affiliate of the national Mental Health America and Mental Health America of California.

California Mental Health Association

Press release about (MHAC)’s “restructuring” announces a new position for Zima Creason, but that Rusty Selix will continue being involved.  Rusty, it turns out, co-wrote some of Prop 63:it’s worth reading the “press release” on their site:

Zima Creason, MBA, has over 13 years of experience in business and mental health policy and advocacy. Many of those years have been spent working in collaboration with Rusty Selix, co- writer of California’s Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act. . . . Rusty Selix was the original author and leader of the Proposition 63 Campaign – the November 2004 California ballot measure which is transforming California’s public mental health system. Mr. Selix has also been a leading expert in state and local policy and finance for nearly 30 years, and since 1986 has concentrated his advocacy primarily on mental health issues. Even before Proposition 63, Selix was known as an effective mental health advocate, and has had a major influence on nearly every piece of mental health legislation in recent California history.

“Prop 63, How Did It Happen?” is revealing, including how very many nonprofit groups (including NAMI) were involved, and mentioning, repeatedly, Rose King (who lost a son and a husband to suicide) but, politically speaking, was a civil servant working for certain Assemblyperson, and came up with the concept of an initiative (?).  See following paragraphs:


While we abandoned our initial effort in 1990, to be part of the unsuccessful nickel-a-drink alcohol tax, it was Rose again in 2001, who was working as a staff member for Assemblymember Helen Thomson, who concurred with me that an initiative would be the way to accomplish the full funding of the mental health system, as had been proposed in Assemblymember Thomson’s AB 1422 – (which, of course, was going nowhere in the Legislature). Without Rose King’s wisdom and inspiration, it is doubtful there would have been a Proposition 63, and we all have her to thank.

So her boss proposed a bill that didn’t pass, so the employee (Rose King) came up with making it an “Initative.”

We also need to thank Assemblymember Thomson and her co-author Senator Don Perata, as well as Senator Richard Polanco (who had gotten an even stronger bill out of the State Senate), for their leadership in mental health parity legislation, which is a necessary part of our foundation, assuring that private health insurers must provide mental health insurance coverage comparable to other diseases.

This also ensures a steady market for pharmaceutical corporations.  See Alan Jones commentary….

Around the same time in the 1990’s, as mental health parity was passing, counties and community agencies were implementing the first significant funding for children’s mental health services – the so-called EPSDT (Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment) program, which is a federal Medicaid requirement California had been ignoring until a lawsuit settlement, brought by Mental Health Advocacy Services Attorney Jim Preis with support and guidance from CCCMHA board member Steve Elson (then of the Sycamores in Los Angeles, now of Casa Pacifica). That funding program now exceeding $1 billion in state and federal funds remains the only strong entitlement to mental health services in California and is protected by Proposition 63.

Total results: 3Search Again.

Mental Health Advocacy Services CA 2015 990 33 $890,757.00 95-3371166
Mental Health Advocacy Services CA 2014 990 26 $604,012.00 95-3371166
Mental Health Advocacy Services CA 2013 990O 28 $489,984.00 95-3371166

Mental Health Advocacy Services, Inc. (MHAS) is a private, non-profit organization established in 1977 to provide free legal services to people with mental and developmental disabilities. MHAS is sponsored by the Los Angeles County and Beverly Hills Bar Associations and the Mental Health Association in California. MHAS assists both children and adults, with an emphasis on obtaining government benefits and services, protecting rights, and fighting discrimination.

(2017 fact-check; a 2003 tax return shows that the above two bar associations “sponsor” in that they nominate who is on the board of directors.  Here’s who was on the board that year:

One of them I noticed was (bottom left of the two-column display) at the “Harriet Buhai Center.”

The full title is actually “Harriet Buhai Center for Family Law” which is co-sponsored by three different law associations, and helps (specifically domestic violence or “children in poverty”) with low-cost or volunteer legal help in the family law system. The address is probably quite close to the courthouse, or in one (but I didn’t check this time).  The HBCFL.org website offers its latest Form 990 but for some reason (like, we wouldn’t look it up elsewhere?) has blocked out all but the last 4 digits of its EIN#, although it’s a 501©3!  It is also quite close (street address) to MHAS, Inc.  Both organization take in funds, moderate amounts (some government, some not) and spend most of it on salaries, and other expenses (i.e., not regranting).

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

Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law CA 2014 990 23 $844,996.00 95-3943493
Harriett Buhai Center for Family Law CA 2013 990 24 $773,437.00 95-3943493

We also need to thank the California Council of Community Mental Health Agencies. It was not an easy decision for CCCMHA’s board to commit such substantial resources to this effort back in 2002, when hardly anyone thought that something like this had a chance. For that, we must thank all of CCCMHA’s board members, particularly President John Buck.

California Council of Community
Mental Health Agencies
   “Leading Community Mental Health Providers and Advocates.”  Rusty Selix just so happens to also be CCCMHA’s Executive Director, too (see website for current/2017 position).

Link to image for CCMHA replaced from 2014 post:

Notice the “63” in the logo.

1% increase in income tax for increased funding for these purposes…

He’s got a J.D.   Read:

Rusty Selix from CCCBHA.org (image link on my post replaced 7/3/2017)

Rusty has been Executive Director and Legislative Advocate for CCCMHA since 1987 and has grown the association considerably during the intervening years.  In this capacity, he partnered with Senate President Pro tem Darrell Steinberg to co-author California’s Mental Health Services Act, a tax on personal incomes over $1 million to expand community mental health care.***  In addition he has been instrumental in moving forward a variety of critical mental health-related initiatives, including ensuring the implementation of the federal Early Periodic Screening, Diagnosis, and Treatment (EPSDT) program to serve children with severe emotional disturbances.

Rusty has been a legislative advocate in Sacramento since 1978 when he joined the staff of the League of California Cities.  He also serves as Executive Director of the Mental Health Association in California and provides legislative advocacy for the (Los Angeles) Association of Retired Teachers.

Prior to becoming a lobbyist, Rusty served as Deputy City Attorney for the City of Sacramento where he was the city’s principal legal advisor on land use and environmental issues.  From 1980 to 1984 he was also a member and chairman of the State Bar’s Committee on Environmental Law.

Rusty attended Northwestern University where he received a Bachelor’s Degree in Economics; he received his law degree from UC Davis.

2017 update commentary: ***One thing seems obvious:  People with personal incomes of over $1M, by that time have figured out how to reduce their federal income taxes, if nothing else by donating to charitable entities, forming family trusts, or forming private foundations (which file Form 990PFs) and for a relatively slim (if wanted) administrative fees, can distribute 5% or so per year, in exchange for reduced tax on their “non-charitable use assets” which will also be producing taxable income, even if only through sitting somewhere and producing dividends and interest.  More often, they might be increasing in value (or the trust might be) through strategic sales of assets, or ongoing contributions.  You can see this looking at some of the largest private foundations (which in this blog, I often do) who, for that matter, some of them pay their administrators million-dollar salaries.

2014-2015 Membership application shows that it’s a percentage of AGENCY revenues.  In other words, the more any agency gets (public funding) for community mental health services, the more they pay to participate in a statewide organization based in the capital, Sacramento, to make sure they continue getting plenty of money for mental health services.    I’d like to check whether “Agency” means that, or refers to the participating nonprofits.  A list of 59 “members” looks to me more like nonprofits than government operations.    Unbelievable….

CCCMHA (dues depend on agency revenues, categorized, under $1M, $1-2M, $2M++) 14-15+Membership+App

 2014-2015 CCCMHA Dues Structure and Calculator/Invoice
Dues are based upon an agency’s total mental health revenue from the most recent fiscal year. Charitable contributions and funding for services not related to mental health care are not included in computing dues. Dues payments are not deductible as charitable contributions; however, they may be deductible as ordinary and necessary business expenses. CCCMHA dues include membership in the National Council for Community Behavioral Healthcare.
(1) Total Mental Health Revenue*
(2) Total County MH contract(s) (3) Total operating budget
$_________________ (rounded to the nearest $100,000)
$_________________ $_________________ (this is not the total of 1 and 2 above)
*Includes federal, state and county funding for MH services, including, AB 114 funds for educationally related services, client-paid, managed care and insurance payments and other third-party payors.
Using the figure from line 1 above, if Total Mental Health Revenue is:  [the categories are:  Below $1M, $1M-$2M, and Over $2M.  The more funds you get, the higher membership dues you pay (yearly?), which maxes out at “$25,000” and the MINIMUM is $1,260.

UNbelievable.  The “National Council for Behavioral Healthcare” is one of the “Our Health Partners” organizations listed at the main “MHA” site.  They handle a LOT of money…..

The National Council logo

There appears to also be a recent (Oct. 2014 announcement) merger, which may explain the double-logo above)…….

National Council member organizations deliver billions of dollars every year in services — financed by federal, state, and local grants and contracts; Medicaid, Medicare, and commercial insurance; self-payers; and individual and corporate charitable contributions. Members are critical economic engines within their communities. Together, National Council member organizations employ approximately 500,000 staff, including administrators, clinical professionals, para-professionals, peer counselors, and support staff.

Richard Van Horn of the Mental Health Association of Los Angeles, whose Village Integrated Services Program – one of the original adult system of care pilots, formed the basis for Darrell Steinberg’s AB 34 program, which Prop 63 funds. Jerry Doyle, now an Oversight and Accountability Commission Member, began wrap-around programs in California and led efforts in drafting and building support among children’s agencies…

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 )

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: