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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare) and Collection Agencies (JustGive.org) so enamored of Funky 501©3 Filers — like Wisconsin’s barely still there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?

with one comment


Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare and others) and On-line Mass Solicitation, DAF-collecting Companies (like JustGive.org) so Fond of Funky, “Failed-to-File” 501©3s — like Wisconsin’s barely-still-there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Its Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?”

Technical details/stats: Case-sensitive short-link ends “-7So.” Started Oct. 29, published Nov. 28, 2017. About 10,000 words.

All images are “Click image to enlarge” unless otherwise labeled. (Some viewing devices may not need, but I believe laptop computers might, tablets, ipads, cell phones, probably don’t.. This blog can be viewed on cell phones, but was designed for larger display screens (width 700px is built into most posts)…Approx. words after post-publication addition of short section on fatherhood groups referenced in a CFFPP board member bio blurb (which referenced an NPLI (apparently “PLI”) institute run by CFUF, as well as NPCL  and, of course, HHS grants]: 9,646 10,000]

Can you keep the board relationships straight on this “CFUF”* return for 2013 (five years after a spinoff nonprofit/related entity, CFUF* Fund, Inc., for its capital campaign, was started up), on its first page, mis-labeling $2.2M of contributions (moved over from CFUF* original entity started in 1999) as “program service revenue”), in addition to $1.8M as “contributions”?  Or perhaps make an educated guess WHY this Baltimore-based organization isn’t posting its tax returns on the website?
[*Obviously, “CFUF” is the acronym, not the full name as shown in the Form 990 below, and as displayed on the Forms 990 for its spin-off nonprofit started in 2008].

CFUF who’s involved in which businesses with whom.. (Sched O, FY2013)

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #1 of 3 images, webite (Pg1) reads “N/A”

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #2 of 3 images, somehow a transfer of assets isn’t a (Line 1) donation

CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #3 of 3 images, Sched R showing the $2.2M transfer was indeed from related entity “CFUF” (the ‘parent’ company) and wasn’t “fees for services” or “Program Service Rev.” as reported on Pg.1, Pt. I, Ln.9 Summary AND on p.9, Pt. VIII, Ln.2a.


FYI, as the country’s “tax-cut” budget is pending, and news coverage of whether or not it will be passed, and in what form, continues, quietly and without news coverage, the ongoing federal funding under CFDA* 93.086 (healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood) which HMRF funding first kicked into gear under 1996 welfare reform act, “PRWORA,” continues, and basically, so does the infrastructure, now embedded in: child support, family courts dealing with custody and visitation issues, domestic violence prevention (sic), and social services provision of many types.  This (infrastructure of embedded HMRF funding or programming) also apparently includes various centers at universities, and/or nonprofits associated with professors or nonprofit management leaders (or social workers) with historic ties to such centers or such nonprofits…
[*CFDA stands for “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance” and is labeled by two-digits (representing a federal department) + 3 digits (identified program label). See more at “Grants.gov”].

Or religious orders controlling a system of hospitals and healthcare development organizations which got in on the trend, clearly, in the 1990s.  (Section in yellow borders with many images below relates to a South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families (I’ve seen it around for ages, and while looking this time whether any direct HHS grants to CFFPP, decided to follow up).

I may move the section later, but it’s here now to illustrate some of the complexities (and vulnerabilities) of having the federal government decide to sponsor fields of practice called simply “Fatherhood,” and how that works.  There’s “a surprise a minute” once you actually start looking closer.  Even after all these years on my part….

CFFPP in Wisconsin (street address)/ Illinois (legal domicile), by (major) contrast doesn’t seem to share the same conservative religious values as this group in Southeastern US — however, it’s still in the same basic field. And does share at least one identified funder, the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

Sample from TAGGS.HHS.gov Advanced search (name search for CFFP as potential direct recipient of such funds, that links saves the search specs, not the data). I discovered a new $2.0M/year grant to a longstanding (grants since 2006 shown) The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, shows grants 2006-2011, then a gap, then starting again in 2015, called “Destination Fatherhood.” (notice various award titles over time).  Entities that got grants under 93.086 also often obtain related-purpose grants under other CFDA#s.  On that link, the CFDA#93601 shows is “Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects“)(First two digits “93” representing the Department HHS overall) .

TAGGS grantee list, taken Nov 28, 2017, for South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. Click IMAGE to enlarge, or here (http://tinyurl.com/y7nteayj) to re-run the search (same specs and column headers, but if data changes meanwhile, so will the results. That version will be sortable by column headers, and clickable where you see active links).

While this represents only public grants, and for the most part, the different entity “CFFPP” mentioned in this title doesn’t seem to be funded primarily by public (HHS-originated) grants, although some state-level gov’t entities are listed among its funders then, and now, every professional IN this created field of “fatherhood policy and practice” likely knows that such grants exist, and many individuals are involved either as board members and/or founders, or as consultants TO such HHS CFDA 93086-funded organizations.  Nonprofits for years have been formed, and still are, specifically to engage as intermediary (passing grants through) or destination (final recipient providing some kind of services) for such grant-making (or evaluating results of the same), and then networked if not fiscally at least by reference so as to refer to their other accomplishments in the field on the board member of some different organization, i.e., career-building and credibility as an expert in the field, regardless of performance of the underlying nonprofits individually, or in their networks.  {{for examples of this regarding “CFFPP” see bottom of this post, which posts the biographies of board members.  For example:  of Guy Bowling:

[This next subsection’s background color is altered to signify the sub-section is not about the groups in South Carolina (in the light-green-blue background you see for this paragraph and above], but as an example of how just naming an association or affiliation can be misleading — or is at a minimum “not enough information.” The moral of the story?  when someone’s bio blurb spits out a series of references, especially in the HMRF field (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood] either “take it on faith” or “look it up.”  That also holds for domestic violence advocacy groups. Studying both sides of the cause-based rhetoric, in fact, is one way to find where leadership or advocacy groups are (speaking metaphorically! not literally) “in bed with each other” and collaborating (cutting deals) with each other on what is, and is not, classified as, specifically, abuse. Among other things.  

Generally, “taking it on faith” is not recommended, if the subject is of concern to you as a reader!  For example, see this next example:


GUY BOWLING {{<== link to CFFPP website checked Nov. 2017}}

Guy Bowling is the Program Manager for the FATHER Project, a program of Goodwill/ Easter Seals Minnesota. Mr. Bowling has been a leader in the fatherhood field for 18 years with a special focus on working with low-income, non-custodial fathers in culturally specific communities. He has been the Manager of the FATHER Project since 1999. In that role, he oversaw the successful implementation of a five-year $2.5 million grant project funded through the federal Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Family Assistance (OFA). He remains in that role as the FATHER Project has received a one-year, $1.7 million grant award from OFA to expand its proven service model across Minnesota. He received the 2001 “Spirit of Fatherhood” award at the National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership’s (NPCL) Annual International Fatherhood conference.** He received the Ronald F. Johnson Award to be inducted into the Spirit of Fatherhood Hall of Fame in 2012 at the 14th annual NPCL conference. Guy was recently selected as an emerging leader to participate in the National Practitioners Leadership Institute (NPLI). The NPLI Leadership Academy is designed to assist field leaders in growing their network and expertise in one or more of the following areas: Responsible Fatherhood, Family Stability, Workforce Development, and Black Male Achievement.

It’s probable (though not certain) that by “NPLI,” he means what’s now being called just “PLI” over at Baltimore’s CFUF (Center for Urban Fatherhood), and while “formally established in 2011” (Note: when another round of HHS HM/RF grants (CFDA 93086) were approved, as I blogged at the time, herein)  it’s still called an initiative of the other nonprofit, CFUF:


CFUF image, notice the subtitle, while the business name says “urban families” the focus is still on helping FATHERS (and families)..

Each year, the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore, MD is visited by social service and community-based organizations from across the country that wish to replicate its program models, by policy makers and community leaders interested in learning how responsible fatherhood, family services and workforce services directly affect the lives of those that participate, and by media outlets interested in featuring the organization’s successes.

Formally established in 2011, the Practitioners Leadership Institute (PLI) is a nationally focused initiative designed to provide Responsible Fatherhood, Workforce Development and Family Strengthening practitioners with experiences, skills and information that will strengthen their ability to improve outcomes for low-income fathers and families, impacting black male achievement.

CFUF Believes that men (who connect with women, children and “the workplace”) are key to restoration of (WHOSE — EVERYONE’s??) stability and optimism.**

Central to CFUF’s mission is the belief that men—the most disconnected and underserved citizens in urban communities—who connect with women, their children, and the workplace are key to the restoration of stability and optimism. Consistent with this mission, our organizational goal is to assist individuals in regaining the personal power needed to benefit their families and communities.

Since 1999, CFUF has served over 26,000 vulnerable Baltimoreans providing the bridge that many have needed to attain stability, while emerging as a leader in the national conversation on responsible fatherhood and black male achievement.

**Assuming an about 50/50 ratio of men to women in this country (although women tend to live longer), what does that say about permission for women, or fully-functional women raising children NOT to have a connected male, for example, particularly after experiencing violence within a relationship from the father?   

Does this entity post its financials on the website?  No!  (It’s also apparently not been updated as to the “history” since presidential election of 2016). Image for the first (2013) such PLI notes cooperation of: OFA (i.e., federal department of HHS), Open Society Foundation (Baltimore is its US program home, I recall from prior study), and this nonprofit:

1st PLI summit held under “CFUF” of Baltimore…

ALSO ON THE BIO BLURB ABOVE: CFFPP’s Mr. Bowling appears to work for Goodwill Easter Seals in Minnesota; Goodwill is also a major fatherhood grants recipient in general.   For example, in just the 90FK00__ grant series referenced for the SC Center for Fathers and Families near top of this post, Goodwill recipients of those grants across Texas, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota totaled $12.7M grants just since 2011 (that “tinyurl” shortlink is sorted by grant#, or click any column header to sort by that field).  (“…/ESM” in award title column no doubt means “Easter Seals Minnesota”) Or, not restricting the grant # to “90FK” but to Goodwill in Minnesota only and the two CFDAS 93086 (marriage/fatherhood) and 93601 (Child Support) $1.7M grants do show up, $9M page total, although he is not listed as principal investigator at least on TAGGS.  Click to repeat that search). This only shows results 2006 forward (possibly because I specified by CFDA 93086).

Acronym finder (click image to access that search result on-line)

The NCPL (“National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership” / Jeffrey M. Johnson) is (if I recall it right) in New York state, and another nonprofit — they do conferences, announce awards and honors, and this type of nonprofit sometimes also run “institutes” all focused on maintaining “Fatherhood Promotion” as a professional field, and lending it credibility– while the field is sponsored by a combination of federal grants AND private backing (including from groups sometimes as large as the George Soros’ “Open Society Foundations,” and others.  Acronym Finder says that the reference is its “former name” (possibly a spinoff?):

NCPL (I explored the website years ago, it’s not changed much) – “now moved to DC” and runs certification trainings in “building strong families,” etc.):  EIN# 521994048 — this is NOT an organization I would boast about my association with to anyone who is liable to ever look at its Forms 990! (Words consistently mis-spelled in “Program Service Accomplishments” obviously as a boilerplate situation, included:

workshop (“worksop”), leadership (“leardership”), strengthening (“strenghtening”) and fragile (“frazile”).

That’s in addition to: listing activities for which no $$ amounts are filled in (repeatedly); sometimes putting a board member’s name in the wrong column (under “Title”); major gaps in information; and it appears, functioning only so long as government grants were available, whether $200K or $400K, and then spending it on, typically, “Professional services” (Forms before 2008 ask for professional contractors paid over $50K; I saw FY2007? had Dr. Johnson — $75K and, possibly his wife or other relative, “Uriel Johnson” $75K — and no one else.  You’ve GOT to be kidding — but apparently someone isn’t, for this one):

Total results: 4Search Again.

National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2015 990 17 $0.00 52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2013 990 12 $298.00 52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2013 990 18 $298.00 52-1994048
National Partnership for Community Leadership DC 2010 990 20 $2,232.00 52-1994048

NCPL Image 1 of 3

NCPL Image 2 of 3, coaching nonprofits, etc.

NCPL Image 3 of 3, advertising a 2-day “strengthening families” certification, etc. date and time “TBD” (Click HERE for that URL)

Click on some of those returns.  Amazingly, in a year when it claimed to be receiving government grants ($40,000 — or more ,another year) and have 3 independently voting members on the board (on line1) and was signed by “Jeffery Johnson” — under “Key Officers, Directors, and trustees,” the word “NONE” was typed in, more than once.

Strangely, this one was revoked and reinstated on the same day in May, 2013, which the IRS posted the following October.  But it does not show up on a “revoked” list, although plenty of prior years tax returns are not found either on their own, or under Form 990-N filings.  The entity, “surprise, surprise” shows a 1996 start date…

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.

(Back to the South Carolina situation, not including some (actually SIX (6) 3 photo, 3 re: IRS + 990 excerpts) images from NPCL which will overlap some with the text:)

Since I mentioned this South Carolina example from a recent “TAGGS” search, I of course looked up its tax returns, and was surprised to find that this 2002-created nonprofit is operating from Cleveland OH and has many related tax-exempt entities, only a few of which are even based in South Carolina — because it’s a health system associated with the “Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine” (i.e., religious, Catholic organization).  Originally (FY2002 Form 990), some of the officers were paid directly from “The SC Center for Fathers and Families” but now, it shows “0” employees (leadership is paid by “related entities” — although which of the dozen-plus ones, isn’t shown), and redistributes most of its receipts to six fatherhood programs throughout South Carolina.

SC Center for Fathers and Families listing at SC Charitable Registration Search

So it’s easily showing a good charitable profile — “98%” goes right to charities — in part by simply having related entities pay their (very nice, incidentally) leadership salaries.  It looks to be closer to about 33% admin overhead, from what the tax returns are showing.  Profile for 2015 from SC Charitable Registration (with disclaimer, it gets info from the SC Sec of State Annual Reports (which SOS doesn’t independently validate!) and the IRS Forms 990:

A FY2008 Form 990 (tax return) of the “South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, Inc.” shows it’s controlled by a foundation (also based in OH) controlled by SCHS (Sisters of Charity Health System) associated with a religious women’s order (in Ohio too), takes credit for formation of its own grantees, i.e., the father-focused organizations.  While the much larger “Sisters of Charity Foundation” seems to give much smaller grants to various groups EXCEPT its spin-off Center for Fathers (and the State of South Carolina’s Social Services Department), once that(much smaller) SC Center for Fathers and Families gets the funding, year by year, it re-grants most of it in larger amounts (over $100, $200, sometimes $400K) to fewer organizations, giving them the “fatherhood promotion” edge in the state, I guess, with less than average transparency….

EIN# 364506347 SC CENTER FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES, Direct recipient of $8.7M of HHS grants (2006-2017) mostly under health marriage/responsible fatherhood promotion (CFDA 93086, and if not, under Child Support Improvement programs for noncustodial parents, strangely, is run from Ohio (although legal domicile SC), something not reflected in the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database (see this generated link from an Advanced Search run Nov. 28, 2017) which locates it in SC. Regardless of location, what it’s doing is, as a grantmaking organization, funding (currently, and it seems recently) just six fatherhood programs across the state, thus concealing from direct observation of TAGGS without other research, where and on what these tax receipts from the federal “coffers” or at least appropriations, are actually being spent.

Form 990, Sched O Supplemental Info for SC Center for Fathers & Families (EIN# 365406347, an OH-based, SC Legal domicile-entity formed in 2002 and re-distributing HHS grants to six fatherhood programs throughout SC, with leadership paid by its related entities in the religious health system. Sole member is as shown on image — another foundation..

Total results: 3Search Again. This “Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC EIN#57-0708391” with $93.8M Gross Assets, spun off SC Center for Fathers and Families only in 2002.

Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina OH 2015 990 45 $93,838,419.00 57-0708391
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina OH 2014 990 43 $94,488,556.00 57-0708391
Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina OH 2013 990 38 $92,938,192.00 57-0708391

This foundation, formed it says in 1983, is itself controlled by (has a “sole member”) of yet another, and its main income is from selling accumulated assets, almost all of which are held in “public traded investments. However (after all this writeup I finally went to the website) its own website says it was formed only in 1997 — meaning, it suddenly decided that “fatherhood engagement” was the way to go immediately after passage of 1996 PRWORA reform saying the same thing:

The Sisters of Charity Foundation, founded in 1996, serves the entire state addressing the root causes of poverty statewide through grant making, advocacy, and capacity building. The Foundation launched a statewide initiative in 1997 “Reducing Poverty through Father Re-Engagement” and [specifically, five years later] later established the SC Center for Fathers and Families to sustain the Initiative.

I finally went to the State of South Carolina, Business Entities search, and see that it goes back to 1937, with prior name “Providence Hospital Foundation.”  No images or further details are available at that site than the summary page, like this one:

SC Business Entity Search, Sisters of Charity showing 1937 founding (and in good standing)

Sisters of Charity Foundtn of SC (Bus entities search at SC State level) showing docts on file and prior name. Not that clicking on any will bring up a pdf image or further details.

Currently its website home page features (across top right) pro se modification of child support, visitation and “expungement” (see banner with dark-red background above the featured photo, “Need to Modify Your Child Support?” (next image w/ photo).

SCFathersandFamilies.com (see gray top margin of website for page title).

While it only grants out a small percentage of the total holdings — of just this one among its MANY related tax-exempt organizations — its two largest grants in FY2015 by far ($250K, $450K) were, respectively, to the South Carolina Dept of Social Services –i.e., a State government department —  (which elsewhere is stated as partnering with the fatherhood initiatives) and the above SC Center for Fathers and Families nonprofit created in 2002. Other grants (that year) were ALL of them, that I noticed, under $50K and many only $5- or $10K. The funded nonprofit (SC Center for Fathers and Families) is itself basically only receiving grants from (a) related entities (apparently this one) and (b) “government” year after year, while its employees’ income is reported from “related entities.”

Meanwhile, SC Center for Fathers and Families, once it gets those grants, is re-granting them to, according to some of the originating foundation’s descriptions, created by it in the first place.

So, if this organization is likewise funding the government funding SCFF or its fatherhood programs,  that does seem a bit circuitous!  I also saw references to involvement of Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Duke Endowment. Without reading the tax returns, I would not know this? A thorough follow-up would, for EACH such organization re-granting, to look up those grantees, or at least take core sampling of their legitimacy over time, and which programs they are running.  WHO’S EVER GOING TO DO THAT, OR HAS BEEN? is a point I wish to make in this post. It’s designed AND implemented in ways to logistically defeat monitoring of where the public (and private) funds actually went!

The above statements may make sense with a few annotated images which are below.  Know as you read that this is part of the larger CONTEXT of welfare reform, and proliferation of faith-based (in this case) controlled entities setting up their own nonprofits to commandeer more government grants and distribute them ‘where the sun don’t shine.  [I’d noticed this SC Center for years while researching TAGGS, so finally took a closer look this time. I had not noticed how deeply entrenched it is in (1) a health system, and (2) that health system and the associated religious order are focused on maintaining and supporting “Catholic women religious” (i.e., the sisters // nuns) in their ministries during a time when involvement is declining. There are also internal consistencies within the tax returns, with no formal preparers and no real outside contractors displayed throughout, it seems.]

Image #1 of 4 for: Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC (EIN#570708391, FY2015 Sched I GRANTS 250K, 450K to SC DSS (state govt) + SC Ctr for Fathers (2 images) of 2M Total

Image #2 of 4 for: Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC (EIN#570708391, FY2015 Sched I GRANTS 250K, 450K to SC DSS (state govt) + SC Ctr for Fathers (2 images) of 2M Total

Image #3 of 4 for: Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC (EIN#570708391, FY2015 Pt III descripx)

Image #4 of 4 for: Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC (EIN#570708391, FY2015 Pt III descripx)

These next four (4) images are from the SC Center, not the Sisters of Charity Foundation


Image #2 of 4 for: SC Ctr for Fathers & Families IRS 990 FY2008 (yeDec31) (EIN#364506347, 2002ff) Pt. III, Program Service Accomplishmts (notice $$)

Image #1 of 4 for: SC Ctr for Fathers & Families IRS 990 FY2008 (yeDec31) (EIN#364506347, 2002ff) Pt. III, Program Service Accomplishmts (notice $$)

Image #3 of 4 for: SC Ctr for Fathers & Families IRS 990 FY2008 (yeDec31) (EIN#364506347, 2002ff) Pt. VIII, Statemt. of Revenues (notice few are in Line 2, as contrasted with statements on pg2 of the same return)

Which this entity then went, as ever, and forwarded to the “seven sisters” make that “fatherhood organizations” in the amount of, obviously, over $2M:

Img #4 of 4 for: SC Ctr for Fathers+Families FY2008 having, received from Sisters of Charity Fndtn, granted over $2M to just seven entities for Program Purpose Fatherhood   (enabled in part by direct HHS grant-making and in part by $320K from its parent/related org. that same year).

Sistrs of Charity (570708391) FY2008 Sched I (cont’n sheet, partial) showing $1M to SCFF, of which 754K was to SCDSS)

I see from the corresponding (FY2008**) Sisters of Charity Foundation, that it made $4.2M that year (mostly through selling $53.5M of assets at a cost of $53.3M, thereby making $3.2M gains — in addition to $978K interest and dividends.  However, it being the year 2008, their $93M of assets (held in public-traded investments) declined $30M in value to only $60M.  having thus made $4.2M of gross receipts (and revenues) in this manner, they granted out not that whole amount, but just part of it ($2.3M), and of that $2.3M, as before the largest chunk went to (a) South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families ($312K) and (b) SC Dept. of Social Services ($700K). (**Go to Form 990 three-row table above, click on any year’s return and “tweak” the url to show 2008 to access full FY2008 return).

So, the many related health foundations cited on these returns file a single consolidated financial statement…


SCFathersandFamilies.com. Consequences of a father-absent home for children are “dire.”…”few programs have the expertise to deliver father-centered programs…” (well, they got in on the initiative almost as soon as HHS funds became available for it.!!)…

EIN# variant, and the missing years (2011-2015) apparently represent a period when the entity didn’t file tax returns 3 yrs in a row and got itself IRS-revoked. Do the staff, board members, and other continuing promoters of this entity (let alone its financial backers) care? Apparently not. Rather than working on encouraging leadership and backers of entities (such as thiswho historically have not and still are not showing a conscience or even any symptoms of belatedly sprouting even a vestigial conscience about keeping their own entities on the legitimate side of  the: (a) IRS, (b) state corporate and (c ) as applicable, state charitable registration AND (the follow-up) filing laws, to “GROW ONE,” I recommend that we who are not personally involved with these organizations instead work to develop our own consciences and to admit (from the ample, available evidence) to ourselves and in conversations (plural, ongoing) with each other that this lack of such conscience and repeated, needless registration and filing failures also reflects on their foundation backers and indicates the character AND PURPOSES of ALL involved entities; their leadership (esp. Board of Directors and Key Staff, such a CEO or CFO) AND their funders. [[Caption added 11/27/2017 for specific FamilyCourtMatters.org post.Click image to enlarge; read post for more info.]]

Entity changed its name on re-instatement ca. 2004 after getting revoked as an IL corporation for failure to file annual reports (with Sec. of State, not IRS). It resurfaced in Wisconsin, as I recall (but check legal domicile / entity address filings. I did earlier, but not recently). *|*|* {related image since found and is nearby. It had been attached to the wrong-number EIN# filing Amended tax return…}



Clues and signs of who not to take at face value but to be instead very concerned about are easy to find through simple fact-checking; entity website vs. entity financials at the IRS or state incorporation not to mention state-registration of charities (where it’s required) level.

By “who,” in this case and generally I don’t mean just the individuals running a featured organization, but also and even moreso those who set up this system and are obviously “working it” for larger long-term goals than those advertised on the various websites individually or even collectively   That said, the nonprofit “CFFPP” featured on this post has funders and people running it who know that it could as a nonprofit basically be considered “work product” of those who chose to set it up originally (starting with “The Ford Foundation” and implementing the “SFF” (Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative) as it acknowledges).

NEXT IMAGE (also posted on my March 3, 2010 post about CFFP’s name change and collaborations with famous DV leadership): It seems that — according to signed documents attached to a tax return filed with the IRS — after having corporate status suspended in Illinois) CFFPP underwent a corporate name change — and address change.  This was, however, recorded on a Form 990 (not at the Secretary of state corporate database search level for Illinois) filed under improper EIN#, using “39” where the correct number was “36.”

p17 ONLY, IL (Form NFP112.45:113.60) Appl for Reinstatemt (not stamped %22Rec'd%22)@CFFPP's Amended FY2003 Return as EIN#394038873 (2nd digit should be %226%22) showing Req for Namchange Signed 2-24-2005 in WI (Certific of Diss:Revoc Dec1,20014 (19pp)

p17 ONLY, IL (Form NFP112.45:113.60) Appl for Reinstatemt (not stamped “Rec’d”) @CFFPP’s Amended FY2003 Return as EIN#394038873 (2nd digit should be “6”) showing Req for Namchange Signed 2-24-2005 in WI (Certific of Diss: Revoc Dec1, 2004 (19pp)

The look of the logo has changed from black on white, to white on navy-colored:

Recent (Nov. 2017) article featuring WI SNAP changes, for CFFPP, from website.

Look for the following title and wording to see where this post began. The wording inside this next red-bordered quote, when repeated below is followed by two colorful images, one square, the other banner / rectangle-sized.  That’s where the post  started conceptually, as a backdrop for and an example to other writing:

WHERE THIS POST CAME FROM: Another organization I was writing on* had changed its acronym but not changed the related name, written out (*see italics in post title): Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as  ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; published  Nov. 5)

After segregating this information to a new post, (this one!) and as part of getting it published (along with at least six others identified, by posting their titles and contexts as “in the pipeline” since*), I also referenced two earlier posts (from March 3, 2010 and July 26, 2016) on this same nonprofit CFFPP which contained a drill-down on just one of its funders, “JustGive”, and looking into their formats and “readability,” I then split off (basically) the bottom third of the July, 2016, post (resulting in a third title, “The Dark Side of Web-based, Donor-Advised Funding:….”**).

Before we get into all that, and in part because it’s hard for me to repeatedly view all this information without some gut-level astonishment and disgust at the number of loopholes, internal discrepancies within individual tax returns (let alone discrepancies / disconnected dots between different entities where they should connect, such as how many millions recorded by the Grantor were acknowledged by the named Grantee) starting with the following paragraphs, I have a few sentiments to get off my chest… Which readers will have to either read, skim briefly, or scroll past, before I get to the supporting details which inspired me to again use this single, and not very large, nonprofit as an example of “what lies beneath (and behind) it.  See “Commentary, In general:”

I continue to realize that the overall problem is one of ethics, not just logistics.  The system logistically is just not subject, really, to being kept clean, ethical, and operating above-board, whether “system” references just the private tax-exempt sector, the governmental sector (which, remember, is also tax-exempt by definition!), or where and how they intersect, including with (both government//public and the (also) tax-exempt private sectors) various for-profit entities, typically as subcontractors or service providers for the other public/private projects, partnerships, initiatives, or whatever else they might be called when a MoU or written agreements exist between public and private entities.

In this past month, with further information on the background of the entire corporate law registration (professionalized) registered agent services and facilitation of getting around the anti-trust law (“the Sherman Act”) dating back to the 1890s (The Corporation Trust Company (“CT”) and James Brooks Dill’s assistance with the same) for effective monopolies anyhow…I discovered that my instincts on the same based on observation over time, had a factual basis well-documented by others.  

Commentary, “In general”:

Massive public manipulation and conditioning has long been in place, so “why not take advantage of it?” seems to be the ideology of those involved.  So long as “I get mine” (“my reputation is intact, and my social status assured long-term”) part of which includes the reputation for being a good guy, concerned, caring, activist, well-intentioned and working among good guys for the common good.

ALL of this gets back to use of the tax-exempt privilege in the United States, and that gets back to the entire justification of taxation (specifically, but not only, the income tax, we’re talking 1913 forward, and an Amendment to the United States Constitution to make it happen, along with the Federal Reserve System of private, centralized banking).  And I am writing about 104 years later… If the original purpose was NOT to perpetuate an existing but unofficial caste [let’s call this what it is:  population and infrastructure control based on race AND gender, especially within the middle and lower classes] system based on socioeconomic profiles (while declaring the purpose was the opposite, and still holding onto the means which helped perpetuate keeping family wealth in the same hands over the generations), then why has it so effectively done so?

If enough individuals, with or without the PhDs (or JDs, or MSW/LCSW’s etc.), actually had, and demonstrated, the capacity for embarrassment, shame, remorse for — that is to say, the ETHICS or HONESTY to ADMIT — their ongoing involvements with and public accolades for lending their names to badly-behaving 501©3s, (failing to file a tax return three years in a row, while advertising one’s concern for poor people and blaming the government for driving low-income  noncustodial fathers into the underground [unregistered] economy they, too, seem to inhabit…) …. let alone for non-entities talking as though they were the real thing … we would have a better world, and probably less criminal activity.  The thing about criminal activity, apparently — unless or until one is caught and punished (and even then, depending on the damages demanded that go with it), apparently it pays better than moral, ethical, and above-the-table business behavior.

Maybe for many, it’s also just more exciting than normal, law-abiding, tax-paying work for wages, or even working with tax-exempt entities, but keeping the filings current, and the Form 990s accurate and honest which, let’s face it, takes some effort, record-keeping, checks and balances, and attention to detail.  This takes caring enough to keep it current and accurate.

The hypocrisy of preaching ethics and morality to government itself, while privately funded and behaving, and congregating among others who continue to behave badly under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code AND under state business commerce codes, let alone where they may also file along the requirements for registering as a charity, state by state — should be called out.  I have this blog, and continue to do so, but…

But basically (large-scale, massively, and consistently), this hypocrisy isn’t being called out by the primary stakeholders and consumers of government services as informed and supplemented by their many private counterparts — the working public who are NOT working primarily in the nonprofit sector, government sector, and are not in bed with the rich tax-exempt sector, or facilitating its dramatic increase in size and influence over the decades.

Instead, ongoing, dramatic, and well-publicized -in-“MSM” (mainstream media) crises whether involving Presidents and the White House, elections, or (for example, recently) a governmental electric authority and contractor to restore power to the hurricane-devastated Puerto Rico (PREPA, Whitefish Energy Holdings in Montana, respectively), distract (us) from the basic responsibility of citizenship — understanding what we’re invested in when it’s spelled “government entity / operations.” Understanding principles (and practices evidenced in operation) of how it already self-funds while continuing to demand more resources, and that the term “budget deficit” is relative to the rest of the resources.

The procession of shocking news is endless, creating an insensitivity to the depth of the standing operational issues expressed in any functional terms and with vocabulary directing people to better understand the whole “map” of government itself, and just how many business enterprises governments run, and how many assets, collectively, governments control — other than those being fed by the crisis- and proganda-driven media.

Debt, devastation, deficit, and rebuilding infrastructure where not already, quietly, decade after decade, transforming it to exist more and more in the types of private holdings that are controlled by investment — by government itself.

[The word “government” singular or plural in last two paragraphs is used in the generic to represent financially reporting “government entities” as defined, for example, in the U.S. Census Bureau (Census of Local Governments) and being distinct — supposedly — from corporations or business entities organized and legally domicile under state constitutions — or the District of Columbia. (Then there are those “trusts” also which are NOT recorded as business entities adn not considered persons… etc.)  As I continue discussing regularly on this blog, a government entity reports in one format, and corporations, under different ones — which is one way to tell the difference between the two! The type of entity versus who controls it (whether government or business) is to be documented also]

The more layers between those taxed and the destination of the operations (that is, the more privatized it is) the less transparency exists for most people. This conflicts with the whole concept of representative government…]

PREPA = “Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority”; relevant in context of the recent hurricane destruction of the power grid in Puerto Rico.  “Whitefish Energy Holdings” is a Montana LLC with only two employees that got a $300M contract to restore power.  Search results from Google show FBI investigating the contract.

After some reading (It’d been on the radar to look up PREPA and for any related CAFRs in this context) I quickly off-ramped this information to: Hurricanes, Puerto Rico, PREPA, Whitefish Energy Holdings: How REGULARLY Reading CAFRs can translate Crisis Journalism into More Meaningful Language, Building Depth Perception and Transferable Skills to Better Decipher Future Crisis Reporting. (short-link here ends “-7V9” post written & moved here Nov. 6, 2017)

PREPA (a public corporation and Puerto Rico “instrumentality”) + Whitefish (Google) search results.

Reliance only on this media tends towards a feeling of being overwhelmed UNLESS one focuses on the “accounting” part of “accountability.” Again, the corporate-owned MSM while still important, so consistently distracts from the “accounting” that the work and consensus to hold the system of governments accountable FISCALLY and FINANCIALLY, which requires OBTAINING AN UNDERSTANDING (enough accurate MENTAL CONCEPT OF ITS OPERATIONS), that the public has become disarmed, unable to discuss it among itself (ourselves) without MSM- Left/Right, Male/Female, (Hetero/LGBQT), atheist/”believer,” or other “us/them” demographics, especially still, by race (color, or lack of it!) and undocumented immigrant/citizen status.  ALL of these are then also trending towards concentration and coordination at the higher (federal) vs. state level for problem-solving, but without taking full responsibility for what happens at the state level anyhow (I refer particularly — and relevant to this post and the organization CFFPP’s role in affecting policy) EXCEPT when parents responding to federal in put affecting them at state level and attempting to get it to the Supreme Court are told, so often, “that’s a state matter,” and the topic is marriage, divorce and custody.

But the federal government had no problem making its weight felt at the state and interstate level when it comes to child support enforcement…. which was then given a heavy dose of “fatherhood” promotion as an antidote to (“what ails you… poverty, juvenile delinquency, crime, almost any other social scourge that can be brought under the federal umbrella of subject matter jurisdiction”) and networked within universities, nonprofits, major tax-exempt foundations, and several, no longer just one or two, federal agencies, passed down through them (by the ten HHS regions, for example) to the states with corresponding state-level departments:  HHS, DOJ, DOE, DOL, etc.)

So this setup facilitates influence without actual responsibility and also hidden influence to most.

One need not go into the “spiritual” or “extra-terrestial” new-age, or old-age, religious trance mode, I believe, to comprehend that a system of government change IS in place and at least that, if not how, the shifts are being driven, decade after decade, by a cohesive group of the well-endowed.

And the cohesive group of the well-endowed has enough self-interest to comprehend that there must be maintained an APPEARANCE of real choice, freedom, and with it, hope for the future, by playing out the dramatic Left/Right political fights, each with a limited set of issues, and positions on those issues defined politically for the most part, with certain exceptions — like the common ground of fatherhood promotion (!!).

WHERE THIS POST CAME FROM: Another organization I was writing on* had changed its acronym but not changed the related name, written out (*see italics in post title):

Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as  ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; published   Nov. 5)  

{{“HiAP” = “HEALTH in ALL POLICIES” a WHO agenda being implemented in the USA, California, and other places…and involving major centralization of agencies for environmental and other planning purposes — see next “Concentric Circles” and tall “Banner” images:}}

Image, previously shown on my Oct. 20,2017 on “Smoking Cessation…” is from a CDC page.11

Image previously shown on my Oct. 24, 2017 “HiAP” post… Source: WHO. Click image to enlarge. Notice at bottom: “Health is the driver” and at the top “Health requires…. all sectors work together…” and a collective set of conditions, to re-organize society, throughout. (image is unusually long and looks like it might have been a hanging banner for a conference…

This reminded me of an unusual tweaking of another organization’s new legal, business name, but retaining the same acronym by letting the “F” formerly standing for the word “Fathers” to now stand for the preposition “for,” while retaining the word “Families” from the original, as seen in this post’s title.

I’d posted on “CFFP.org” in March 2010, again on July 26, 2016, and in reviewing it again while introducing a post on the other organization (ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.), was again startled by how many clues to what’s “off” are scattered throughout the internet in close association with personalities featured in post-PRWORA paradigm shifts involving the huge Social Service Act-based appropriations of the US Government to States, Territories and Tribal governments.
March 3, 2010 post

July 26, 2016 post (with some 2017 reformatting and an updated intro.  Also note, regarding the title, about one-third of the post as described in this title has now moved to “The Dark Sides of Donor-Advised Funding” new post.

What’s left on the original is more regarding JustGive, as the main portion I moved was on the Iron Planet, ZOPB (Houston freeway bypass project) and the Sun Trust bailout.”

I had to bite my tongue and take a time-out from that post on reviewing the facts of this one, showing one can change a name and even get IRS-revoked for refusing to file without falling from grace among the family-design (with a strong does of fatherhood and “let the government (meaning, the same public they’re supposed to be caring most about and helping) pick up the tab” promotions continue.
It probably doesn’t help my mood that I’ve spent also recent days reviewing some history and returns of another community foundation which acknowledged having modeled itself after the Cleveland Community Foundation, AND, last week marking the twelfth anniversary (a dozen years) of publications of the NIST account of why the World Trade Center towers collapsed, which doesn’t even “hold water” logically or, it seems, scientifically — but became a major basis for 21st century policy and law, anyhow, after 9/11.

Anyhow, here’s that “Time Out!” material I wrote up within the last two few days…

[FYI: A few other images precede in the “Before HiAP” parent post, then link to this one for follow-up].

The new CFFPP (image doesn’t show all paras. on that page, but notice which is first. Click image to enlarge.

(from the above image):

  • Enable HHS to provide grants for state-level Families First Commissions. Those commissions should be tasked with the ongoing responsibility for the following: (1) developing plans and processes that ensure broad-based access to services that shape and implement parenting time arrangements; and (2) developing plans and processes that ensure broad-based access to high quality family-dispute resolution services.
  • Change the child support agency incentive structure to reward states for their effectiveness in collecting support from noncustodial parents who have the ability to pay. And those who are too poor to pay should be offered a hand up into family-sustaining employment.
  • Collect racial, gender and economic demographic data in family and economic support agency activity and practice. This will provide the federal government and the public with basic information about how the system affects noncustodial parents.

Another strategy, same page (I’ll show the images) wants to de-penalize non-payment of child support when “a guy just can’t pay it.”  While the title (bold font) uses the word “parents” it’s clear the content still (Oct. 2017) means “fathers” — no reference to any mothers EVER having been sent to jail for this, although (especially since change of national policy to target single mothers as a social scourge, as in, the 1996ff) women are indeed getting incarcerated for non-payment, not to mention parental interference and/or “parental alienation.”  You’d never know it from this brief statement, still up 2017:

CFFPP.org website “Our Solutions,” cont’d. (partial). Headline…”parents.” Contents: “low-income black men…” “a low-income father…” “incentivizes** some fathers to work outside the mainstream economy.”

** re” incentivizes — some are already so incentivized (speaking personally), which some women already know, and can fake a “low-income” status when they aren’t.  Not all, however, restructuring child support when child support (at this time) is known to already have been restructured to better facilitate “noncustodial parent contact” (i.e., supportive services set up with federal grants) and help churn some of the family court cases, putting  mothers on welfare including some who, previously, weren’t on it and without the litigation (case-churning) would not have been — is the main goal.

Still on the “About” page but not near the top, and belied by the name-change omitting the word “Fathers,” and calling itself an “AGENCY” when in terms of corporations, it’s been a noncompliant nonprofit.  I guess if you add the words “of the Ford Foundation” then calling it an “agency” might be more accurate..


Founded in 1995 as the policy arm of the Ford Foundation’s Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative, the Center for Family Policy and Practice (CFFPP or the Center) examines the impact of national and state welfare, fatherhood, and child support policy on low-income parents and their children.

The Center is a progressive policy think tank that uses technical assistance, policy research and analysis, and public education and outreach to advocate on behalf of low-income families and develop public awareness of their needs. Because of limited advocacy and policy analysis from the perspective of very low-income and unemployed men of color, the Center focuses on their perspective with regard to these issues. In particular, we concentrate on noncustodial parents who are in financial positions equivalent to custodial parents who qualify for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) and other public assistance programs. These parents typically have very low earnings and have unstable and intermittent, if any, employment. While this scope may seem narrow, it includes large numbers of people, many of whom are African American and Latino men who are frequently the subject of economic and family policy in the United States. Due to their status as noncustodial parents, these men are largely ineligible for social welfare services and support, despite sharing the same level of need as their children and their children’s mothers. In addition, these men make up the bulk of parents who are struggling with child support.

Read that 2016 post to see who (such as JustGive, which started out US-based, but became JustGiving, K-based, and whose registered agent in Pleasanton, CA (by street and suite#) matched “IronPlanet” which was associated with a major public/private venture freeway bypass connection in Houston TX.  Some of the debt for that “Connecting Communities” freeway pass infrastructure project (I think the number referenced was $55M) was provided through a compendium (?) of entities, per Bloomberg.com, of which one, “SunTrust” had already been bailed out by the US Public in 2008 (!!).  I mean… c’mon!! Let’s get real about how many nonprofit entities and public/private ventures does it take to perpetuate poverty?

Meanwhile, CFFPP itself can’t (or simply didn’t) stay compliant at the state level as a corporation — or at the IRS level as a tax-exempt — and when it comes out of noncompliance at the state, level, files a tax return (2004) with the wrong EIN# (by a single digit).  While the CFFPP.org website I posted on in 2016 and 2010 continued boasting about its connections and funders…. And that doesn’t even deal with the name-dropping board of directors, which names also obscure similar behaviors in some of the entities, and apparently hope NO ONE will check facts, follow through, or bother to look them up. (see 7/26/2016 post for details and links; Disclaimer: I did review them recently, but above two paragraphs are still “as I recall.”)

CFFPP acknowledges it’s an “implementation” or “strategy” arm of the “SFFI” (Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative) originating from the Ford Foundation, and which connects to Columbia University’s famous fatherhood professor, Ronald D. Mincy, and center, at this point still bearing the word “fathers” in its name.  I gather at this point, it’s why even pretend to be concerned about women per se, custodial parents, per se, or mothers any more? State governments AND state agencies, and federal (child support incentive structures) and state-based legal procedures in the courts (“Parenting time) should all be altered, or sacrificed, perhaps, on the altar of an ideology which, I should mentions, bears an interesting resemblance to AFCC priorities too.  (for “parenting time arrangements,” the 1996ff “access and visitation” grants, if they’re still ongoing, are miniature by comparison to the marriage/fatherhood funding, both appropriated through HHS who should, presumably with government, fund almost everything.

Although I’ve blogged this before, for the record, this organization didn’t even meet the “public support %” for a non-profit (per 2002 tax return, fine print) and admits to getting most of its funding from large private foundations (naming three of them Ford, Mott and Public Welfare).

It also didn’t meet the IRS requirement for staying tax-exempt when it was status-revoked in 2014, which (typical) the IRS didn’t publish until a year later, fall 2015. In order to get “status-revoked” one has to not file (including not even a Form 990-N postcard) for three years in a row. To get status revoked in spring 2014 then, sounds like they didn’t file starting about FYE 2011, or for FY2010.

FY 2000 contribs. were $1M (but I haven’t been able to get this return on-line yet). Group only started, it says, 1996…

CFFPP 2002, pre-name change, and the EIN# begins “36-” (next year, it’ll be “39-“, with no correction since).

Jacquelyn Boggess only employee over $50K shown (CFFPP) at a moderate $72.8K

CFFPP FY2002 Bd of directors, incl. President David Pate paid $46K just over half-time. What was the other day-job at the time? Company philosophy is that having a job is being part of mainstream America; if people don’t have them, then the government should be the “employer of last result” (website as viewed 2017). Esta Soler, VICE-CHAIR in 2002, throughout held major if not a founding position over at Family Violence Prevention Fund (FVPF) in SF (now Futures w/o Violence), typically associated with the VAWA passage (1994) but here just 8 yrs later, she’s on CFFPP board, and as Vice-Chair. Did their website (then “endabuse.org” I think) reveal this?

Several (I didn’t do a 1:1 check) of these directors still shown on the website. Notice Elaine Sorensen, PhD of Washington DC and of course Oliver Wms. PhD in St. Paul (IDVAAC), among others. But all, 1hr/week volunteers. (FY2002). Four PhDs and an M.D. (in what, matters!)

CFFPP FY2002 admission it doesn’t meet the typical (33 ½%) public support level — BUT has famous foundations behind it, and does meet the “Facts and Circumstances Test” (although WHY is not stated). And, they are at least trying to attract more sources of public support (six years after startup)…

CFFPP got IRS-revoked recently, sort of, which the IRS Exempt Organization Select Check website, eventually, let the public know, about a year later. Referring to the EIN# starting 36- not the (typo?) starting “39-“

CFFPP one year post-name change (FY2003) — but using the wrong EIN# this time (39-4038873). Yet there’s no corrected version shown for this year (was one ever filed?).

CFFPP EIN#39- filing (first with its new name) FY2003 (YE2004), Schedule of Support, showing $1.1M rec’d in FY2000. The returns show, in general, this entity is on “weflare” itself (doesn’t produce enough program service revenues to be self-sustaining, or even half-way there, or a quarter of the way there, year after year)(See 2nd row, Ln 17, in image). It’s there as another platform from which the public can be conditioned to change its mind about (see issues, Our Solutions), and to which board members can, should they choose to, refer to their membership on. Meanwhile (see my 7/26/2016 post re: its major funders, and how “JustGive.org” does business (and doesn’t, really, show its grantees legibly) it helps contribute to the general image that these changes as structured and written up, are somehow grass-roots or representative of the common people, and not the elites in foundation and public policy places.

Meanwhile, the latest tax return shown anywhere is for the year 2014 (guess they got re-instated), which is YE June 2015. So where’s June 2016 tax return then?  It also posted once under the wrong (typo) EIN# after its name change in 2004, making it a bit hard to find in the usual places one looks for tax returns.

Meanwhile, it’s a “convening of the experts on family policy” on the board members, not paid for their 1.0 hrs a week, apparently still.

 THIS SECTION INCLUDES SCREENPRINTS** from CURRENT LISTED BOARD MEMBERS of  CFFPP.  The info posted doesn’t mention when they became board members, for the most part, but does show other affiliations, including university and in some cases, HHS (federal) involvements, and naturally focuses on their expertise and credibility.  I just wonder with all this expertise and credibility, including, I see even one bachelors in economics for the currently treasurer, who is also listed on the Illinois Corporate registration for the entity since 2005,  several other board members with major nonprofit leadership experience and (many) research work at the university level, whether consultants or professionals, why SOMEONE in leadership didn’t make sure the entity sent in its own (a) corporate registrations; (b) Tax returns — ALL of them, and all of them under the correct EIN#, and I also wonder why, with a Wisconsin address (per the IRS listing too) it hasn’t, apparently, bothered to even incorporate within Wisconsin!

Registered agent for this entity with a Wisconsin street address has, apparently since 2005, been Daniel Ash (currently also Treasurer) in Chicago.

(confirming that the former entity name was as shown above, Center ON (not “for”) FATHERS, FAMILIES AND PUBLIC POLICY.(common identifier is the “File #”)

I haven’t checked charitable registrations (or, not recently anyhow); there are personal limits to how much effort I’m willing to go into for just one entity.  In this case, I was also focusing on some of the acknowledged funders as the related posts also indicate.

**(except one where bio blurb wouldn’t fit onto just one screenprint, I used text quote, light-blue background, instead — Waldo Johnson).

Was it inactive 2013-2017, or just unregistered in Wisconsin, 2013-2017 (while getting its IRS status revoked in overlapping years…)?

I did look up the Wisconsin Charitable Registrations, and found two, with a four-year gap inbetween them; one taken up in 1999 expired 2013 (but no details on it since 2011), and the other one didn’t start until 2017.
Here’s the image showing both ID#s, and the details for one of them. While reading the wonderful board expertise, below, and undrstanding that they are still about 1 hr/week and unpaid (as I recall), STILL — cannot one of them figure out to keep this charity registered within Wisconsin (IF it’s operating within the state). Also, why am I finding NO (zero) corresponding corporate registration, so far, for it, in Wisconsin, even understanding it does show up with legal domicile Illinois?

Dr. Johnson is Associate Professor with the School of Social Service Administration and Faculty Affiliate at the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago. His research interests focus on the physical and behavioral health status of African American males across the life course, fatherhood among low-income African American males and the social construction of masculinity in urban contexts.

He is Principal Investigator for the Chicago Parenting Initiative Evaluation Study, a multi-year evaluation study funded by the Office of Adolescent Parenting Programs of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that assesses the impact of paternal enhancement services to young fathers on the wellbeing of adolescent African American and Latina parenting mothers and their children. He is also Community Engagement Chair for the South Side Health and Vitality Studies, a family of medical, public health, social science and community–based participatory research studies of the Urban Health Initiative designed to improve health, vitality and wellbeing of Chicago residents residing in 34 community areas served by the University of Chicago Medicine.

Johnson is family formation and stability consultant for the Urban Institute’s Race, Place and Poverty: An Urban Ethnographer Symposium on Low-Income Men, an empirical research and policy forum supported by the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and research consultant for Mathematica Policy Research’s Parents and Children Together (PACT), a multi-year, national mixed-methods program impact and implementation evaluation study of the Administration of Children and Family’s (ACF) Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood grants initiative.

Not referenced — that means “HHS/ACF” and we are talking the post-PRWORA diversions from TANF to promote marriage/fatherhood, i.e., those $150M a year grants for which nonprofits lined up to get, conferences were held to teach them how to get the grants for ten years in D.C. (SmartMarriages.org, trademark for an LLC owned by Dianne Sollee), and which some of the largest single-grants recipients were in fact for-profit corporations such as ICF International (mis-labeled in the grants database “TAGGS.hhs.gov”) and/or Public Strategies, Inc. in Oklahoma.  A good part of this blog — the earlier years — were spent looking at these grants, and grantees, and posting on them and their ramifications.

He has been a research consultant for the Warren Institute of Berkeley Law School, The California Endowment, Chicago Community Trust and United Way of Metropolitan Chicago in developing African American Male initiatives. He is also an investigator with the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study.

His memberships include Ford Foundation Scholars Network on Masculinity and the Wellbeing of African American Males; the [[Again, this is HHS, a major federal department]] Office of Planning Research and Evaluation (OPRE) Welfare and Economic Self-Sufficiency Technical Working Group; 2025 Network for Black Men and Boys; Chair, Commission on Research, Council on Social Work Education and editor, Social Work with African American Males: Health, Mental Health and Social Policy (Oxford University Press, 2010).

He received his B.A. degree in Sociology and English at the Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, MSW degree from the University of Michigan and Ph.D. in social work from the University of Chicago. He was also a Ford Foundation Postdoctoral Scholar at the Program for Research for Black Americans at the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan.

In other words, Ford Foundation was, as it often does (and plenty of other foundations also do) funding university work it was particularly interested in.   The Univ. of Michigan being a public university, but with plenty of private influence, obviously.   That’s the system we are in…

HERE ARE THOSE OTHER SCREENPRINTS (I annotated one in particular looking for identifiable employers, which seems to have been omitted in the bio blurb:  Bobby Verdugo):  See “CFFPP.org” website for order, due to layout variables, these are not presented in any particular order.

Daniel Ash, CFFPP Treasurer

Bobby Verdugo CFFPP bio blurb (Img#1 of 2 annotated)

Bobby Verdugo CFFPP bio blurb (Img #2 of 2 annotated)

Ozzie Cruz

Guy Bowling. Notice referenced to HHS-funded initiatives and various fatherhood nonprofits

Tonya Brito, Barnard + Columbia + Harvard Law School cum laude. Interest in “family law, children’s issues and poverty law.”

Oliver Williams, IDVAAC (now closing down operations since Dec 2016 I heard), plenty posted about this elsewhere on the blog. BSW Michigan State, MSW W Michigan U and MPH + a PhD in Social Work from U Pittsburgh.

Floyd Rose, also with PhD (Univ of Iowa 1976, in what, not shown) and other connex. Supporting minority-owned businesses through WSDC.

An attorney (UChicago Law School 1971, before that 1967, Dominican University (where?) Poly Sci major. and advisory to two Illinois State Depts currently.



Apologies for missing bio blurbs for two board members at first (Guy Bowling and Ozzie Cruz) in my hurry to publish this post yesterday, after days of working on its details.

They are now included (and as you can see, a brief section looking up some of Mr. Bowling’s referenced organizations also occurs in the middle of the “South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families” section (background-color, very light green/blue inside yellow borders, with the sub-section in lighter gray background color, and contains at least one set of tax returns from “NPCL” as well as several images, as well as quotes and a logo for the “Center for Urban Families’ (CFUF) in Baltimore, which apparently(?) was running the “NPLI” (or Practitioners Leadership Institute) the bio blurb reference. Which organization’s own tax return and filing record would be a joke, if it weren’t being referenced so often by others as if representing some sort of credible reference!

If I were applying for a job and gave less than credible or even legitimate-organization references, I wouldn’t expect to get the job.  However in the fatherhood practitioners (and also, it’s true, the domestic violence advocates, i.e., networked nonprofits with big backers for cultural transformations) world, obviously, different rules apply.  Does this reflect on HHS leadership this century, and the end of the last one, whether under White House Democrat or Republican, or Democrat again (and now, Republican again) leadership? (Wm. J. Clinton, G.W. Bush, Barack H. Obama, Donald J. Trump). I think so.

What do all the presidents to date have in common?  Well, in that list and historically, among potentially many other things (such as class origins and family connections) they are all men, and at least one in the last four was a known womanizer (before and after becoming U.S. President), and our current one, admittedly serial monogamy (three wives so far). With that power, apparently comes certain privileges — meanwhile the continued preaching to the poor about marriage and responsible fatherhood?? Whether justified socially or economically, or from the perspective of setting an example for the next generations??  Give me a break!

re: the Organization CFFPP — and any others —  What might be more helpful for readers other than board members’ credentials, would be the organization’s financials and (with any description of board members posted), since when they were on the board… That responsible backdrop could only add to the respectability of uploaded publications, while withholding it and failing to operate even ten years in a row “above-board” 100% only subtracts from it.

Also helpful would be an acknowledgement that its legal domicile is, apparently, Illinois with a Wisconsin street address. While that’s legal (although I’m not so sure about the apparent (?) failure to file EVER, under older or newer name as a corporation within Wisconsin….when it did file as a charity as far back as 1999) it’s also withholding relevant information. …..

One Response

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. daveyone1

    November 29, 2017 at 5:10 pm

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: