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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic. [Publ. July 6, 2017]

with one comment

The theme, continued, is still …”DO YOU KNOW YOUR NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC,  NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA?”

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, and NAMI), and MHA. See Also Recent Epidemic? of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic. [Publ. July 6, 2017] (post short-link ends “-79i”)

This post being published July 6, 2017 evening is about 8,000 words (shorter, for a change!). It comes in two basic sections — ICMA-related, and The Four Organizations-related (NASMHPD, DBSA, NAMI, and MHA).  I might later add more images showing the networked DBSA entities, but as written, I feel it’s written clearly enough (especially with the visuals) to be published now.

“DBSA” stands for Depression and BiPolar Support Alliance, formed in 1985 in Illinois.  “MHA” stands for Mental Health Association.

An aside, for this post, who is ICMA? 

It takes a few paragraphs and several images, but I’ve used the reference in post titles and themes often enough I felt it time to identify the acronym “ICMA” here again.

While I’m including information from its website, on a related entity and a partnering entity before getting into the main subject matter, remember that this ICMA section and information near the top of this post is included now only for a point of reference in the landscape of membership organizations involving public employees, and for awareness of its existence, and some of its scope — not as main post content.  As I showed before, along with the NGA and others, ICMA is considered part of the “Big Seven Associations” by those so-associated (!):

The “Big 7” is a coalition of seven national associations in Washington, D.C., whose members represent state and local governments. The leadership of these organizations works together regularly to discuss issues of mutual interest affecting state and local governments. Members of the “Big 7” include: The National Governors Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures, The Council of State Governments, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, The U.S. Conference of Mayors and the International City/County Management Association.

There’s a wikipedia “stub” (doesn’t say much, except that they are influential in lobbying for their interests) on “the Big Seven,” and as you can see, the ICMA (the “C” standing for the two-word descriptor (adjective) “City/County” seems to show up in its logo):

The Big Seven is a group of nonpartisan, non-profit organizations made up of United States state and local government officials. The Big Seven are:

These groups are influential in national government, often lobbying Congress to represent their members’ interests.


  • Patterson, Bradley H., Jr. (2000). The White House Staff: Inside the West Wing and Beyond. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. pp. Ch. 13. ISBN 0-8157-6951-2.

Bringing up the “power of the GASB” (a post I’m still working on talks about how), know that a tax-exempt foundation in Norwalk Connecticut, the “Financial Accounting Foundation” (FAF”) actually set up and controls both the GASB (Government Accounting Standards Board), some time after the FASB (Financial? Accounting Standards Board) for the private sector, in the early 1970s.  They delegated powers to the respective boards, but still maintain ultimate (veto, etc.) power over them.

(This diagram also on FAF “About” page, shown nearby)

FAF outlines its identity and purposes (FASB and GASB)

Rules change from time to time, and rule-changes can make or break a city county, or possibly even state — and often around the issue of pension funding.  So in 2012, “The Big Seven” responding to a rules-change drafted a policy response for how much people should contribute to their own pension plans (ARCs and Annual Designated Contributions):

Big Seven” Focus on Pension Funding Policy October 01, 2012 (found at “leg.Wa.Gov”)  WASHINGTON—The executive directors of the Big Seven state and local associations today released draft “Pension Funding Policy Guidelines” for state and local governments.  [Same announcement on the same date provided through National League of Cities, this one with a link to the (2page) guidelines.**]

The Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) recently issued new standards that focus entirely on how state and local governments should account for pension benefit costs. However, they did not address how employers should calculate the annual required contribution (ARC). To assist state and local government employers, the seven associations are engaged in an ongoing effort to develop policy guidelines.  [[some points raised.  Note:  this doesn’t have an active link to that released draft, just advertised it on an NGA website, apparently.]]

“Government leaders have to make difficult budget decisions every year, said Robert J O’Neill, ICMA executive director. “Having a rational way to calculate their annual required contribution helps them stay on track to meet their retirement obligations.”  [[Para. listing “The Big Seven” omitted]]

The National Association of State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers; the Government Finance Officers Association; the National Association of State Retirement Administrators and the National Council on Teacher Retirement helped draft the guidelines.**

**Link to the Pension Guidelines (now almost five years old) shows why (see last para. in quote) those particular organizations helped draft — because the Big Seven asked them to! (next screenprint) as convened by a “Center for State and Local Government Excellence” which the guidelines don’t bother to mention is taking ICMA Retirement Corp funding and working with them:

Natl League of Cities Oct 1 2012 Link to 1209PensionGuidelines

(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)

What’s ironic about this — the Big 7 Associations advising governments how to address pensions are themselves subject to FASB (not GASB) standards — because they are in the private sector.  This information was a search result on “The Big Seven” but included because in the ICMA section below, an entire corporation managing public employee retirement plans for ICMA (it’s called ICMA Retirement Corporation) comes up.  The convening organization is an LLC listed in ICMA-RC’s “Sched R -Pt I” (disregarded entities, at the same street address and floor like its other Sched R Pt. I Disregarded entities.  It is controlled and apparently funded by ICMA RC to conduct research on municipal and local retirement plans, specifically.  Website says it was created for this purpose in 2007.

Take a look at the FY2008 ICMA RC Salaries (totaling $13M for Part VIIA — includes not just Directors and Officers, but also Highest-Paid and Key Employees).  In later years it’d be $19M !!  I see the President at this point had a salary of four million dollars and at least three others, over $1M each….

It’s not the primary purpose of this post, which focuses more on the four entities in the title, all dealing with and named after topics surrounding “mental health,” and involved individually and at times with each other in the strategic push for a paradigm-shift, intended to make and keep, nationally and by communities, provision of mental health services a regular part of basic primary health care, and so covered by insurance for that primary health care. To do this, considerable marketing and social communications sector, and affiliate organizations are involved.

I’m including the short(er) section on ICMA up front because I think it’s time to do so. There’s also a certain element of comic relief — well, at least of comedy.  You’ll see….

(These might be separate entities also; however I saw that the California group merged into the main one).

After looking more closely I see what ICMA’s acknowledged partner “Alliance for Innovation, Inc.” f/k/a The Innovation Groups” is doing, or at least how it’s been operating (since 1979, it says), although why ICMA would partner with such incompetence (speaking as to their tax returns), one wonders….  The Innovations Groups is plural because it has regional offices and at least one merger (for the region “California-Colorado-Nevada-Arizona”) in its 40-year-plus history.  (See two images from their “founding documents” — link part of the California OAG link provided below).  “The Innovation Groups, Inc.” is the prior name (one of several) for what is now “Alliance for Innovation, Inc.”

Alliance for Innovation, Inc. also registered in California (now as a Florida Organization with an Arizona Entity address) since 1991, but quit filing with the Office of Attorney General Registry of Charitable Trusts  (“OAG RCT”) its required annual tax returns and RRFs — with the annual fees based on revenues — (as a 501©3) since 2006, was not marked “Delinquent” until August 2010, despite its last known annual revenues being over $1M, and remains active as a corporation.  In other words, it wasn’t “FTB Suspended” by the Secretary of State, nor is there even any uploaded information that the California OAG even ASKED it for the about eight years of missing tax returns AND RRFs, or threatened suspension if they didn’t cough them up — which it does for other entities.  I wonder why not…and am tempted to compile enough related facts to write a letter (anyone reading this, also feel free to, or call to find out if there is some legitimate reason).

If you’re curious about that aspect, look here (about 2pp): AllianceForInnovatn (does bus w ICMA) Calif OAG Chart Details EIN# 591936650 No Filings Since FY2006 not marked Delinq til Aug2010 – WHY?  I didn’t address the OAG delinquency in the section on ICMA (tan background color) below; there’s plenty of other things to report. Note:  The many links on the above pdf to uploaded filings that were made (towards the bottom of its about 2pp) should still be active; they won’t fade with time unless the OAG moves the documents.


“ICMA is the professional and educational organization representing appointed managers and administrators in local governments throughout the world. It sponsors, develops and implements a number of programs that provide local government managers and administrators with expertise on a variety of topic areas.”

International City/County Management Association DC 2015 990 65 $15,057,789.00 36-2167755
International City/County Management Association DC 2014 990 63 $15,570,124.00 36-2167755
International City/County Management Association DC 2013 990 58 $16,443,151.00 36-2167755

Since 1914 (odd timing, 1 year after the income tax was established through US Constitutional Amendment).   Tax returns show it’s an IL corporation with a D.C. address and two related (Sched R) entities, one I reference below, and the other is an REIT holding their D.C. Headquarters.  They receive income from both (see Sched R), and spent around $7M in overseas activities (Sched F) the last year shown above, FY2014 only.  They took in $11M+ Contributions and $11M “Program Service Revenues” (including membership fees, a good chunk” and, per page 1, spent over $12M on salaries (158 employees) and over $12M in “Other Expenses” resulting (when combined with $349K grants to others) in an about $250K Deficit.  The year before they had radically higher contributions ($18M) but still overspent the budget.  The related “ICMA Retirement Corporation” while I’m here, has its separate tax returns.  WOW..  An entirely different picture.  Also, this one is FY1972 (it says, started with help from a Ford Foundation grant) and a Delaware Corporation — same street address except the Suite#.  The difference in size is predictable because after all, it’s handling retirement plan benefits:

Total results: 3Search Again.

More to be said on the above, obviously, another time!  However the next few images, when I noticed that they’d increased their assets held in “Other Securities” (Part X Line about 13) to $139M from $73M (approx), I looked them u (Sched D excerpt shows End oFYear holdings), looked at the “Disregarded Entities” (many — Schedule R, and related to what functions IMRC here is doing for the ICMA and public employees internationally) and some Sched O detail showing how many of their Board of Directors are also officers in which related (including Sched R Part I = “disregarded”) entities that they do business with. A “Center of Excellence” (image shows further below) also got $900,000 grant (others got a few coins tossed their way also) — while the other detail shows, again, Board or Officers ON the Center are also on the ICMARC.  As you can see, the Total (gross ) Assets are nearly ½ billion dollars (top row of table above).  This entity has few liabilities outside “accounts payable.”

These next few screenprints are just FYI; not to worry about them too much if it’s too much detail.  Anything would make much more sense if a person took time to compare the two corporations above and scroll through their respective tax returns, rather than just view a few images from them. They’re posted in reverse order I numbered them, view in any order (#s reflect order found in the Tax Return). Also click to enlarge any of them:

Sched R Pt I, Sev’l Disregarded Entities, Image 4 of 4 from EIN#23-7268394 (ICMARC), FY2015

Sched O (supplemental info) “Who’s on First?” (and which IMARC bd members are on which related entities) Image 3 of 4 from EIN#23-7268394 (ICMARC), FY2015

Sched D “Investmts in Other Securities” (Details an amount shown on Pt X Balance Sheet, ca. Ln12) Image 2 of 4 from EIN#23-7268394 (ICMARC), FY2015

From Pt X Assets, Image 1 of 4 from EIN#23-7268394 (ICMARC), FY2015

Back to the ICMA website/s (not its retirement plan):

They just wanna make a better (and more sustainable) world, and transform government to do so.  According to the Terms of Use, what looks like three different websites reflecting two entities (ICCMA and Alliance for Innovation, “AFI”) :

(ICMA home page theme)

Upcoming ICMA conference in San Antonio, TX.

The Alliance for Innovation/Transforming Local Government” is inspiring innovation to advance communities with the help of our partners Arizona State University and the International City/County Management Association.”

(See Terms of Use “TOU,” partial quote: I DNK if this refers to those who sign up for accounts, or for general viewers.  At any rate, I am not using for commercial purposes, data mining to solicit others, or altering the content or electronics of the websites.  I am simply telling people to be aware that this private association directed towards appointed government managers throughout the U.S. (and world apparently) exists and is functioning as a membership association for purposes of this private association’s agenda — which may or may not be a 1:1 match to the legallly appropriate to the jurisdiction of the USA, or the purposes of the individual states within the USA, either.  That’s MY disclaimer!):

https://icma.org/terms-use These Terms of Use describe the terms and conditions under which you (sometimes referred to as “you” or “your”) and other users (referred to as a “user” or “users”) may access and use the website for the International City/County Management Association (“ICMA”) available at icma.org, and the website for the Alliance for Innovation (“AFI”), available at transformgov.org and lifewellrun.org, including any mobile versions of the websites that you may access on a phone or tablet, and govern your other interactions with ICMA and AFI, including your access and use of any Content (as defined below), and/or other products, subscriptions, or services that are offered or provided to you by us (collectively, the “Sites”).  In these Terms of Use, the words “we”, “our,” and “us” refer collectively to ICMA and AFI.

ALLIANCE FOR INNOVATION, Inc. (Florida Corporation with, since 2007, an Arizona (State University) Address, and Longstanding Spelling, Categorizing, and Filling out Form 990 problems — BUT, apparently some excellent government connections in D.C. among its board members:

So, here’s an AFI strategic plan 2017-2020, visual. Notice top-right quadrant — “design practices to commercialize and implement research solutions” (!):  Alliance For Innovation shows an Arizona address, and its board (who are not City, County or Village Managers, which is most, or ICMA regional or other people, show an Arizona State University connection, such as “College of Public Programs” or “Director, Center for Urban Innovation” both at Arizona State.  Its street address (411 N. Central Ave. Suite 400 Phoenix, AZ 85004) matches the Street and Suite# for Arizona State’s “School of Public Affairs.”  IF you search Arizona Corporations Division for this entity (Search by its name HERE it’s Arizona Entity F14010691 (“the “F” probably stands for “Foreign” as its legal domicile is Florida — and address, a PO Box in Tampa Florida).  Also, it was only registered  as a foreign corp. for Arizona in 2007.

from Transformgov.org

I looked up the Florida incorporation & tax returns.  What a laugh — but not for this post except for a few screenprints right below this impressive-looking strategic plan, above  The EIN# is 59-1936650, Former name “The Innovation Groups, Inc.” (Claims, since 1979) with the name change (and change to an Arizona Address in 2007).  Florida Treasurer (consistent throughout, mostly) Jim Ingram.  The tax returns I reviewed were:  not completely filled out (Basic Header info, and once, prior year’s contributions — Line 8), and when read, mistakenly (consistently) ignore the pre-printed form categorization of “Membership Dues” a Contributions on Line 1 and put this considerable portion of their revenues, typed in under “program service revenues” (Line 2), which is then carried through on their Schedules A of Support (i.e. amounts which were actually Revenues are comingled with “Contributions”) which show tables of the previous 5 years on any year’s tax return.

In fact, although these seem to have been all before the earliest uploadable Annual Report in 1995, a search on the EIN# shows it had several prior names, each more expansive.  This is from a search at SUNBIZ.org (Corporations Searches for Florida):

AFI FY2013 Form 990, Pg1 top: Click to read annotations and a sample of our local (city|county gov’ts) public employees’ (partnering with ICMA) handiwork when it comes to their account to IRS.

The kicker was, in this partner with ICMA, the word “ALLIANCE” which is part of the company name since 2007, alongside the “F/K/A The Innovation Groups, Inc.” was misspelled “ALLIENCE” about three out of four times, in different places (page 1 top, Page 2 top, and elsewhere)!!

Click image to access website.

The key revenue of “membership dues” is paid by, boilerplate text says each year, ” 300 governments and 10 private companies who pay membership dues,” (with those ##s varying some by year) which wording leaves it unclear whether private companies only, or goverments too, pay those dues.  In the 2006 screenprint below (very fine print) I noticed that one of the directors’ address is right out of a “Government Center” in Florida.

Another D.C.address I also looked up (among the Alliance for Innovation, Inc., directors per Florida Corporate records) led to a different ICMA org (logo above), dealing with portable retirement plans for public employees and assets management/distributions, I gather (some more images below). After discovering this, I went back and posted its tax returns and some (4) images from them, seen already, above, and for comparison the ICMA tax returns too.  Had I not found this, I might not have gone there in this post featuring other organizations.

it’s a real study in contrasts, which for me raises the question, how was AFI allowed to be part of this major operation for so many years without confrontation on their IRS-filing habits in more than one state?

Alliance For Innovatn Inc (@1979ff in FL, EIN#591936650 in FL, AZ entity addr, FKA The Innovatn Groups Inc) partnering now with ICMA.

Alliance For Innovatn Inc (@1979ff in FL, EIN#591936650 in FL, AZ entity addr, FKA The Innovatn Groups Inc) partnering now with ICMA~SUNBIz Corp Registr Images (3 images, Click to Enlarge)

**AZ Corporations Filing for Alliance for Innovations

Click more links on this website to see what ICMA-RC is doing; there’s also an LLC.

The “MH” in NASMHPD stands for “Mental Health,” which is where the networking and public/private relationships with or without pharmaceutical (i.e., drugs) corporation sponsorships, gets real interesting — and, well, “complicated,” unless the basic operating relationships are identified.

For example, three out of the four organizations named in the title seem to be experts at forming and promoting chapters, divisions and affiliate networks named after themselves, and have and managed to find their own market niches and brand, despite actually similar “products and services” offered, although DBSA would be the most specialized.

First, the four main acronyms from this post’s title, translated  (Some of this overlaps with most recent post of July 3, 2017. but here I’m adding EIN#, dates founded (per tax returns anyhow) and legal domicile / entity home states (which may differ within each organization).

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

(Since 1963, per its tax returns; EIN# 5207484740. D.C. legal domicile, located in Alexandria, VA)

MHA = Mental Health America (the oldest of the four organizations in post title; 1950 per its tax returns (earlier, per its website), EIN#131614906, legal domicile, New York).

  • 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.

And the two organizations from the parentheses in the title:

(This image was actually found at mentalhealthamerica.net)

DBSALLIANCE.org (for Depression Bipolar Support Alliance) (formed 1985, in Chicago, Illinois, legal domicile Illinois; EIN#363379124).and

NAMI, (EIN#43-1201653) which on its website claims that mental health conditions affect 1 in 5 Americans and are the cause of other disabilities.  It provided no footnote, cite, or reference to this claim on the main page making it.

NAMI is the official business entity name; its former name until 1997 change was “National Alliance on Mental Illness.” Forms 990 read founding date 1985, as a Missouri entity, but (at least by 1997) an Arlington Virginia (i.e., closer to D.C.) entity address. HOWEVER, please note (taken from the website’s extensive footer, each title shown, for the most part, would be an active link, and the Terms of Use show both the trademarks, and that use of the website is considered to be controlled by Virginia — not Missouri — laws. (see two B/W images below home page, shown with spring-green banner):

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

NAMI Footer Banner (all, click to enlarge) SShot 2017July05

NAMI Footer Banner Terms of Use detail, partial. Notice Jurisdiction re: the website, says Jurisdiction is Commonwealth of Virginia. Also, look how many trademarks, which is an indicator what line of business NAMI is heavily into: branding, and establishing proprietary claim over (see the list) Goods &/or Services. SShot 2017July05

This post’s title is, like the mental health system around the turn of the 21st century and still in the century’s second decade, in transition.  So far, on deciding to spin off this update  to Part 2 of a previous Oct. 2014 udate (now split into 3 parts), I’m calling it:

Even More Considerations on NASMHPD (and DBSA, NAMI),and MHA + Their 501©3 Affiliate Networks. And Recent Epidemic of Attorneys-General Suing Big Pharma over the Opioid Abuse Epidemic (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-79i” previously-written contents moved here July 2, 2017)

That title echoes the phrasing of “Other Considerations on NASMHPD and MHA…” July 3 2017 post.  An alternate title, more descriptive on the situation and “the moral of the story,” but missing the specific entity names linking it to the series:

Historically, Governments Fund Mental Health Offices and Programming, So why Not Look at How the Networked Nonprofits Previously Set to Coordinate, Expand, and Standardize the Field Actually Operate, and See which Drug and Insurance Companies FUND them?? (has same short-link)

Whatever it’s eventually called, this post now UPDATES the renamed second part of the original started October 25,  2014, being published I hope July 1, 2017. It is a “spinoff” post from  “Part 2 of 3″ from an October 25, 2014 original, published July 3, 2014 (already revised/updated as promised, July 4):

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).

And, to review, Part 1 of the October 25, 2014, post, previously split into three parts and just published 6/30/2017, is 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”,

An upcoming Part 3 is, so far, named:

Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O and Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around Membership Admission for “men of color” despite existing suffrage and qualified men until long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 update, Pt. 3) (case-sensitive short-link ending “-76j”)

So far, each part has taken about a week to produce, between checking older links and information, and incorporating some newer ones and the feature of screenprints, parts of tax returns or websites which I didn’t know how to do three years earlier.  I always hope to do it faster, but it’s a lot of information to condense into a single few posts.

For example, this post mentions FOUR inter-related associations, ALL of which state they have multiple chapters — meaning many fiscally independent, but programming-and-resource (and branding) relationship. NAMI (founding documents) specifically identifies only one State-level organization per state, but there can be other Affiliate organizations, with requirements for each.


All four acronyms represent tax-exempt corporations which file yearly Forms 990, are dealing with the field of mental health (or illness), and influencing it.

However, NASMHPD is the only one of the four specifically limited in its membership to civil servants with decision-making authority over mental health programs at the state level.  NASMHPD, as I pointed out in the last post, and noticed (from its website) back in 2014, is or then was, operating under a cooperative agreement with a nonprofit government instrumentality, “NGA” (National Governors’ Association) of major influence.  The NGA apparently does NOT have to file tax returns, but does produce audited financial statements (“consolidated” because it shares office, employees with a separate-EIN# nonprofit, NGA Center for Best Practices (“NGA CBP” for short, my abbreviation). The form of these NGA’s audited financial statements follows that for the private sector, NOT for the government sector, as can be seen in their accompanying independent auditor’s letter. Here’s the “Consolidated Balance Sheet FYE2015” for the NGA and NGA CBP, notice where the assets are, and which one’s assets are larger.  This may be from the direct corporate partner contributions to the latter.

NGA + NGA CBP FYE June 2015 (which is only Fiscal Year 2014) Consolidated Balance Sheet (from its audited financial statemts). NGA CBP files Form 990s. NGA alone, does not. NGA CBP’s Form 990s reference the NGA as a “related entity” (Sched R, & probably Sched L of “Transactions with Interested Persons”)

NASMHPD in setting collective policy for the nation’s mental health programming apparently (per recent Forms 990), acknowledges those collective policies or strategies are subject to review by the NGA.

In addition, the NGA is networked, with others, in a “Big Seven” Associations list as representing themselves before the U.S Supreme Court, which I only discovered recently, and have posted immediately.

In describing this overall situation to friends, associates, and conversationally to people I may meet locally (who have asked about my writing), represent in effect a form of “shadow government” in that a “shadow” of each significant piece of legitimate government is echoed in the nonprofit sector.  When these themselves are networked to set at least federal funding policy towards the field of mental health – which absolutely is tied into the issues of family courts (and domestic violence as handled in them) — it is more than “late in the game” to take a sort of “shadow government 101” in looking at this particular private sector.

There already was a sort of “mental health archipelago,” warehousing the mentally ill in psychiatric institutions / hospitals, as reported by the historic founder of “Mental Health America” (Clifford Beers) a LONG time ago (he was born not long after the Civil War…).

Are we in transforming from “warehousing” to “New Freedom Commission” “Transformation Transfer Initiative” (TTI) policies, directing the focus on “recovery” and peer/consumer-directed entities, just switching what type of “mental health archipelago” exists, maintaining similar combinations of funding (government especially HHS and its operating divisions, and philanthropists setting up centers in universities, or separately as research institutions) and having set it up, now looking for more customers, also to drug — but in a supposedly gentler, kinder way?  TTI policy shows up in NASHMPD tax returns, and I referenced in 2014 and within the last two posts (Part 1 and Part 2, above; you are now reading Part 2’s “Even More Considerations” supplementary update).

In FY2010 it was the largest single expenditure at over $3M out of $12M total expenses that year (compare the two images below).

NASMHPD FY2010 Form 990 page 2, Program Service Accomplishments. (Shown to highlight the TTI, see red ink).

NASMHPD FY2010 Pg1 Pt I showing total revs, expenses, revs-expenses, and Assets – liabilities. Compare to page 2 Program Service Accomplishmts (with Expenses shown by line items 4a,b,c and d, “Other” on the Form 990

In addition there are major subcontractors.  NASMHPD had a specific subcontractor — in fact its largest in 2012 — which turns out to be a single-woman owned “full-service public relations” firm for “Social Marketing.” (Vanguard Communications).

NASMHPD also features one of its own spin-off organizations NOT recognized on its tax returns, but called a “partner organization” on the current website, and that’s NASHMPD Research Institute, or (its choice) “NRI” for short. I started an NRI folder on the computer; there’s much to mention, starting with how hard it is to locate, despite a flood of publications, reports, and self-description on its website, its EIN# (!). I haven’t found it yet.

Again, NAMI (since 1985), DBSA (since about the same time), MHA (much earlier) and NASMHPD (I believe it was since 1959) ALL network, including with each other, and in each case, while the top-level of the network organization’s single entity EIN# may not be huge, the collective impact of its networking IS.  In addition, there is the pull of subcontractors, plus the entire “edifice’s” (multiple networks’) interactions with the public through public funding, including care, medication, staffing, and housing assistance for the mentally ill, as well as research, pilot programs, and (of course) sponsored evaluations of some of the pilot programs to move them into operations faster.

My look at DBSA and the recent closer look for (if not “at” its missing-in-action tax returns) the NASMHPD Research Institute are my most recent lookups (during this update), but already within a SHORT timeframe of looking for “DBSA chapters” at the usual watering hole:  “990finder.foundationcenter.org“, less for that database’s labeling accuracy (it isn’t accurate!) than its scope and habit of producing neat, “last three results” tables on a basic, free, search — I found these chapters came in two varieties of names:  “DBSA” (the acronym) and “Depression Bipolar Support Alliance of ____” varieties.

I quickly sorted one of those search results pages by Total Assets, found “Greater Houston” had two different EIN#s by the exact same name (I clicked through tax returns on each to verify), whose EIN# varied by only one digit and out of the same street address, apparently (although one later used a P.O. Box, earlier tax returns showed).  One of them says, incorporated 2003, the other says, incorporated 2004. Now you tell ME what happened there….(see annotated image; to see individual returns, use the link above and look up EIN# or by name):

Similar but not identical EIN#s for similar but not identical DBSA names in Greater Houston raises questions (sorted by size this was among largest assets group of similar title in the network)

All these major organizations and their related, subcontracting, sponsoring, and/or “affiliate” (etc.) entities are still around, are still powerfully coordinated, are still working if not at the parent organization, at the affiliate or chapter levels, with government or major government subcontractors (such as — found in the last post) around the theme of causes and treatment of mental health, brain and nervous problems, including psychosis, and other things which are likely to require and/or be treated with — guess what — certain types of drugs; they are still running pilot programs then quickly moving the pre-paid pilots into practice, including “evidence-based practices,” MOST of which will happen tax-exempt in tax-payer supported institutions.

In combination with the “New Freedom Commission” Executive-Order prodded “Transformation Transfer Initiative” (TTI”) movement (to consumer, peer-involved, and recovery-oriented vs. institutionalized and assumed to be permanently mentally ill concepts), this a strong mix of incentives.  The organizations which were best, and earlier prepared for this (such as these three outside NASMHPD) are likely higher-positioned on the food chain for the funding.

The complexity and scope of the systems, plural, would be hard to humanly grasp — but an awareness that they exist, and are poised to direct government services according to privately-determined paths, is not.

Many of the most respected (and well-endowed) universities also tend to get involved, as I showed BEFORE these three parts (and this extra update to one of them) on the blog, regarding The Broad Institute (incorporated only in 2008, Harvard, MIT and Broad Foundation involved) and patent wars with UCBerkeley’s Doudna Lab (and associates) over “CRISPR” processes (ca. 2012, 2013ff) and gene perturbation situations.  In part, institutes these were targeting solutions for schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, psychoses, and things psychiatric, with some emphasis on the genetic components, I gather.

From Broad Institute AR 2010, the Dautens describe their situation and connection with a certain doctor.

There has been some personnel overlap, apparently with DBSAlliance main funders (FY2016) and a couple (Theodore and Vada Stanley, the older couple, pictured in their Frank Lloyd Wright home) also involved earlier with The Broad Institute (See TBI’s Annual Report 2010 featured in my July 3, 2017 post, “Other Considerations” — towards the bottom).  

Here’s just one example I discovered (today), reviewing a link to a 2009 study I cited in 2014, and about a major subcontractor for the study I was looking up, which was referenced on one of the (I believe it was NASMHPD) tax returns, as a Program Purpose:

(BELOW is INFO FROM the New York’s “RFMH” – RESEARCH FOUNDATION for MENTAL HYGIENE, EIN# 14-1410842, and how it came to my attention under a “TTI” Transformation Transfer Initiative in NYS – see next six images) and  three-row table of tax returns):

Total results: 3Search Again.

Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene NY 2016 990 32 $56,786,476 14-1410842
Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene NY 2015 990 32 $92,056,536 14-1410842
Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene NY 2014 990 27 $81,114,734 14-1410842

NY Mental Hygiene Research Fndt’n. Research Sponsor Logos. Website is  corporate.RFMH.org

NY’s Research Fndtn Mental Hygiene (EIN# 141410842) Form 990 shows 5 (only) primary subcontractors, $13.8M, note the institutions involved.

Cover page (March 31, 2010) to a NYS OMH Transformation Transfer Initiative “Final Report”, with CMS/SAMHSA funds, administered by NASMPHD, subcontracted to (and my reason for posting is to show) Research Foundation for Mental Hygiene, Inc. (NY entity since 1952). The rept is 78pp.

RFMH (in NY, EIN# 141410842), Bd of directors and officers FY2002 show affiliations, esp. with NY Psychiatric Institute. My annotations, handling my own curiosity, come from having looked up the only women named on the board or as officers at this time. Image includes other urls for further info.

(The RFMH information mostly in those screenprints and tax returns, now I am going back to the post subject matter in general).

THIS post updates several topics on Part 2 (above) and shows the current relevance of multiple, multinational/global pharmaceutical companies’ (plural…) ability to and habit of becoming corporate sponsors of the types of organizations, and some of the specific organizations, I’ve been featuring!

I’ve added more screenprints and a substantial preview narrative (showing current relevance from current news, i.e., states are suing the same “pharma” companies supporting some of the organizations I was blogging — in 2014 and earlier — for marketing campaigns contributing to the opioid abuse epidemic).

I also pulled in several screenprints regarding NAMI (relating to this), and more on Mental Health America and its affiliates, and one of its affiliates projects (in Los Angeles) which I’d referenced in 2014 also, simply for an overview of who it is and what it’s been doing.  MHA was formerly the “National Association for Mental Health” (or similar title), and dates origins to 1909.

I emphasized in the last post, but didn’t make a big issue in it, the networking aspect of MHA, and how having so many affiliate organizations (not really identified on the main website, or by its tax returns or individually by name on its financial statements, except that they are fiscally independent 501©3s), with look-alike business names, i.e., using the term “Mental Health America of  _________,” all with tax-exemption and probably a wide spectrum of rotating “shelf lives,” complicates monitoring of funds.  And, they do receive government funds.

For a sample, see full-sized table images below.

Sometimes in parent, umbrella organizations, there will be conspicuously NO real government funding — but their local affiliates ARE organized to obtain that government funding.  The same was true of the marriage/fatherhood curriculum peddlers, in different states, which I laid out time and again on this blog.  (For example, look for posts with Alabama or Georgia in the title, 2016 or later as I recall).

Even a quick look at “Mental Health America” Form 990s, sorted by “Total Assets” column (which represents gross assets at, I believe, beginning of the tax year) from largest to smallest, and by narrowing to just FY2015 (which if their fiscal year =/= calendar year, may include some FY2014), got 57 results (and possibly one straggler (3rd row, in FL) which may not be an affiliate).  It also shows that the Los Angeles one is far larger (by total assets shown) than the parent one simply called MHA.

Looking at the details on any of these, would then tell much more about the organization — for example, the Los Angeles one I see (as of FYE 2015) showed about $25M “gross receipts” — most of it in the form of Contributions; over 540 employees, and a reluctance to fill out even its own page 2 in detail, simply substituting “See Schedule O.”

Two screenprints don’t even cover all 57 results, but show first, assets over $1M, and second assets below $1M (that would fit on a single page screenprint).  To find these again, repeat the search, being aware that sometimes names are messed up on this database provider, (990finder.foundationcenter.org) however:

Earlier, I referenced more on the history of Mental Health America from its own terms, and some observations from various tax returns, which you can read on your own.

Search California Charitable Trusts Registry (Office of Attorney General, “OAG”) by any of several fields; EIN# recommended! Can look at RRFs to see government funding agencies any particular year, or (clicking on first search results for the entity, then on its name to see “Details” page) much more about its filing habits.

2 (bottom half of page)

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

4 – Immediate reference to New Freedom Commission in program provision.

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:

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 this preview/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 (next 5 images downloaded July 1, 2017 give the general idea).

From Affiliate Benefits pdf (Click any image to enlarge). Notice the “Bell” image here)

MHA of Illinois hooks up with Walgreens…

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.

MHA On-line “Mental Health Tests” (click image to view larger) comes with disclaimer and recommendations: “Following screening, you will be provided with information, resources and tools to discuss the results with a provider.
Please note: Unless specified, our screens are validated only for adults. By clicking on a screen below, you acknowledge that the screen is not a diagnostic instrument. You are encouraged to share your results with a physician or healthcare provider. Mental Health America Inc., sponsors, partners, and advertisers disclaim any liability, loss, or risk incurred as a consequence, directly or indirectly, from the use and application of these screens.


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

#3 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]

From The Hill, 6/30/2017, 5:30pm EDT (warning; viewers may get repeated pop-up or redirect ads for “Coalition to Protect America’s Healthcare” or others soliciting email.  I didn’t sign…)

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. ….

Johnson & Johnson, whose subsidiary Janssen was also named in the lawsuit, said in a statement: “We recognize opioid abuse is a serious public health issue that must be addressed. At the same time, we firmly believe Janssen has acted responsibly and in the best interests of patients and physicians.”

Mississippi and Ohio both recently filed a lawsuit over companies’s opioid practices, and The Associated Press reported that Teva recently agreed to pay $1.6 million for substance abuse treatment to settle a lawsuit brought by two California counties.

[There are also 52 comments]/

Another article, July 1, 2017, Hunter Sues Four Pharmaceutical Companies over Opioid Abuse, (archives/article? 44964) from apparently an Oklahoma blog, but its writer (McCarville) has his journalist “chops” as shown by the work history: About Mike and Jason (Jason Doyle is the editor, Mike McCarville, looks like, the writer; see next image which lists the four defendants — from the OK Attorney General Lawsuit.

Below that (another image) May 31, 2017, the NYT references an Ohio Lawsuit (Ohio Sues Drug Makers, Saying They Aided Opioid Epidemic)   and that this is a national epidemic promoted in part through funding provided to “prominent doctors, medical societies and patient advocacy groups” but made SURE not to reference anyone who might be associated with TMAP/PennMAP (such as NASMHPD, discussed in this post and referenced in the last one), or under “patient advocacy groups,” “NAMI” although what are the chance the attorneys general knew nothing about these?

In what seems real “odd” coming from Missouri (where NAMI was formed, it says in 1980, but not obtained its IRS letter (?) until 1985, and who now shows some of these same companies as its corporate sponsors**), June 21, 2017, the “Missouri Attorney General sues 3 drug companies over opioid crisis.”  The article references a strange over-use of a 1980 doctor’s letter, and links to another story on it.  See image below

**…although NAMI was not cited in the TMAP/PennMAP whistleblower suit (which said the “algorithm” to, see this post, light-purple background section, mandate state doctors at least, use more expensive patented (and known to be dangerous) “atypical antipsychotics” manufactured by, among others, Johnson & Johnson and (its subsidiary) Janssen), it shows both of the above among its sponsors at least viewed recently.

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.

NYT May 31 2017 article; click image to read all (at least while NYT retains the link)

Missouri AG sues 3 drug manufacturers (CBS.com, 6/21/2017) re Opioid Crisis. CLICK IMAGE for REST OF ARTICLE (at least while the source retains the active link)

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

July 6, 2017 at 8:54 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011), Cast, Script, Characters, Scenery, Stage Directions, Mental Health Movements + Orgs, Organizations, Foundations, Associations NGO Hybrids, Train-the-Trainers Technical Assistance Grantees

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

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    July 7, 2017 at 2:56 am

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: