The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].
Post Title (as published): The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].
What would you call this post? After reading, if you have a better title, comment and tell me. Until then, in full, it’s:
But as posted in condensed form, I took out the ‘commentary’ part of the title, which may save some blog’s sidebar vertical acreage under on “Most Recent Posts,” making for a subtitle:
This material was formerly (but before publication there) labeled and in place as the Preface and “Pre-Preface” (I already had a “Foreword” and was starting to run out of meaningful section names) to:
The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”** + preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts. Both those posts had been weeks “in the pipeline”. The case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink to this one ends “-87w”). [[for what those “** / ***’s” refer to, see “The Money Maze / Giffords PAC” post referenced here.]]
This post as first published (including an extended footnote) is 16,000 words. Where it started may be seen by what looks approximately like this (next image) and is about halfway down the post. Feedback welcome — use the comments field. Keep it relevant, please; I won’t publish ads disguised as comments.
(Screenshot from my post of similar name, to be published Dec. 14, 2017. The image to left is from another blog I started in 2013 around the theme of the [poor, unreliable and dysfunctional, though still informative] condition of the TAGSS.HHS.Gov database)
For example does using the phrase “randomized controlled trials” (or “RCTs” for short), or previously more popular, “randomized evaluations” make any sponsored activity somehow more like medicine, or more scientific? And at what point is running RCTs on poor people’s “behavioral economics” (decision-making) while not reporting equally about one’s own financial activities and characterizations as an organization within the created fields scientific? For that matter, is “social science” as a whole really even a science, or instead more the process of collecting information with a view to practicing on populations and developing better demographic or functional labels said populations (such as “low-income”) and as such more of an “art”?
Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” (quoted below, the article associated with the next image explains the significance of being named Harvard “University Professor”). See Para. 1 of “Message from the Director” of the IQSS (“IQ.Harvard.edu”)
Whatever social science WAS, those helping run and fund it now have declared it a “new day” and the past thousands of years of learning are apparently nothing compared to what’s coming … and that’s coming from a decorated (“University Professor”) endowed or at least named (Alfred J. Whitehead III) professor at an elite (Harvard) private university, speaking as head of the fairly recent “Institute for Quantitative Social Science” which has already got its spin-off nonprofit, which nonprofit within the first few years of operation has already changed its business name.
As you may deduce from that last post title above (“The Money Maze…,” pale-yellow background, blue borders), there’s another post on the Robin Hood Foundation (or “RHF”) in the pipeline which getting out “The Money Maze” I hope will expedite. That post, “The Money Maze…” refused (so to speak) to be expedited as planned when I became also mentally absorbed with the topics below, in part because of the major media coverage of the national budget, tax reform, etc., with next to no consideration for the state of the tax-exempt sector, or naming major players in it affecting the economy, admitting that they can indeed and do outsource assets also.
Re-patriation of corporations makes the news, but as I discovered by looking, The Ford Foundation (a fraction I’m sure of Ford Motor Company itself) is (@ FY2015) holding $10.6 BILLION of its Total (Gross) Assets of $12.2 BILLION labeled “Investments – Other” and where the tax return (here, a Form 990PF) instructs filers to name those investment funds, giving three examples, Ford decided instead to produce a series of numbers. Were these held inside or outside the USA?
ICIJ regarding street address and PO Box in the Cayman Islands assoc. with a $28M transfer (Capital distribution) from an off-shore partnership by Ford Fndtn (per a recent return). No direct connection has been made from that partnership to the entities in the diagram that I know of, but it does show the potential. See ICIJ disclaimer (on nearby image or its website)
ICIJ disclaimer that merely being offshore doesn’t mean “illegal.”(International Consortium for Investigative Journalists)
We don’t know, however, I did note that $28M was transferred from a Cayman Islands-based partnership (not found by a basic name search), and that the ICIJ (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists), (see “U.S. Under Pressure as World Presses for Financial Transparency” (May 2016) and an internal link to a similar discussion in the Guardian) in part through leaks to them, has been publishing about some of the purposes to which off-shore trusts are being put (although simply having them is NOT per se illegal). Image from the Ford Foundation tax return showing a partnership address matching the PO Box shown in the diagram above, Grand Cayman… is in the body of the post. As tracked to the mailbox address shown, ICIJ has shown connections to that specific address, presumably a registering agent for multiple entities outside the Cayman Islands.
This post will reference interactions and commonalities (obviously not so much in overall SIZE!) several of the following organizations. Trust me, this connects with the subject matter above. The table re-appears again below as do tables of other organizations which, keying off some of these (and like these, also backed significantly by the Ford Foundation), are taking it to a whole new level (global) and faster (accelerating specialty technologies to get more people faster on public benefits, and/or technologies to speed up the movement of money outside the U.S. to better compare how poverty here correlates to poverty elsewhere, and what the (elites in specific fields sponsored for this specific purpose for decades) could do, while maintaining their own upper or middle-class lifestyles and social niches, manage and run “randomized controlled trials” (and that IS the theme and what they’re called) to discover “what works best” in solving the intractable social problems such as — poverty.
In the list below, which entity do you think MIGHT be best positioned to throw the most weight around by picking and choosing favorite organizations to get the grants while putting the investments “where the sun don’t shine” and paying reduced taxes on them, obviously (the natural goal of ANY business is hardly to pay as many taxes as possible and ignore ways to get around paying as much as the average middle or lower-income person might)?
Total results: 6. Search Again. (I compiled this table from 6 different searches)
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Family Policy and Practice | WI | 2015 | 990 | 10 | $299,210 | 36-4038873 |
| MDRC | NY | 2015 | 990 | 68 | $121,599,657 | 23-7379473 |
| Urban Institute | DC | 2015 | 990 | 55 | $165,064,431 | 52-0880375 |
| Brookings Institution | DC | 2016 | 990 | 63 | $473,918,510 | 53-0196577 |
| Fund for the City of New York, Inc. | NY | 2015 | 990 | 51 | $115,865,634 | 13-2612524 |
| Ford Foundation | NY | 2015 | 990PF | 428 | $12,242,896,362 | 13-1684331 |
Meanwhile, (see this again, and more tax tables below) when it comes to welfare reform and restructuring government to better internationally align it with other countries globally, and produce, I guess, a more just, equitable and sustainable world, Ford in just one year has funded many nonprofits I already know (MDRC, Urban Institute, Brookings Institution, Fund for the City of New York) from their roles in evaluating and conducting projects for “welfare reform” and as associated with major personalities (professors, PhDs, etc.).
The subcontractors, assets controlled, and payroll for nominal hours per week (let alone full-time) employment within these sponsored nonprofits, and what they are doing with their (a) maintained assets and (b) millions of dollars of grants (some, mostly private, some, about half from government) is yet another cash-flow circuit on the home (domestic) front, whether New York, Delaware, D.C., or in the case of Ford Foundation itself, Michigan. And something to behold.
When it comes to the Robin Hood Foundation-connected (spinoff) nonprofits also, I see at least two spinoffs in recent years under the direction (Chairman of the Board in one case) and credited to a single individual, Michael Weinstein, formerly for many (about 14) years “Chief Program Officer” at RHF. These two spinoffs were (and as organizations still are) SingleStop USA, Inc. and ImpactMatters, sharing common board membership and, it seems, policies.
However, RHF chose only to feature one of those two in their announcement about Mr. Weinstein’s move: ImpactMatters.
ImpactMatters is identified (on its own web page) with “Innovations for Poverty Action“ another nonprofit dating back to only about 2002, and so far, clocking in at about $35M of government grants in a single (recent) year, while working alongside the MIT-based, and MIT-professor-initiated “J-PAL” or Abdul Lateef Jamil Poverty Action Lab.
Which I see is now as a US nonprofit taking directly also from the UK DID (Department of International Development), while based in Cambridge Massachusetts. And focusing globally (especially but not only in Sub-Saharan Africa) what has already been tried and successfully managed to disrupt families and help get more of them ON welfare while promising the opposite, domestically, in part as demonstrated through the MDRC (1974 forward and acknowledged to have been started by a combination of the Ford Foundation and federal agencies).
The best place to see such connections is not, generally speaking, organizations speaking about themselves on their own websites, or promotional foundations speaking about them (or even nonprofit publications such as “Philanthropy Circle” or others announcing new personnel) but by sooner or later getting to where they are registered and what financials they may have coughed up… For example, a recent article announcing the new executive director of “Impact Matters” (which was Michael Weinstein) had an earlier link to their searching for more staff — which was on no related website whatsoever.
I go over this again separately on another post (in the pipeline…), just bringing it up here for repetition and points of reference.
$16M USD for Governance, Crime and Conflict Research including some from a Development-oriented part of the (see “former British empire,”) UK. Link to J-PAL website here which at the top declares: Our mission is to reduce poverty by ensuring that policy is informed by scientific evidence. We do this through research, policy outreach, and training while minimizing the name of its billionaire Saudi namesake on the logo (and, in fact, barely referencing it on the site). “J-PAL AND IPA makes sense as J-PAL doesn’t seem to have registered itself separately from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, i.e., “MIT, while IPA actually did (although it’s a NJ corporation, not an MA one). Money donated TO MIT would be difficult (if even possible) to trace, while through IPA at least must be recorded on an IRS tax form under US Internal Revenue Code”
“randomized evaluations in 80 countries” a J-PAL recent home-page call-out amid the various photos and links to project descriptions.
A closer look at the various organizations also shows major focus on behavioral modification tactics for the poor, as further emphasized by an organization started by one of the J-PAL originators which began as “Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc.” but then changed to “Ideas42.org.” On following those leads, I found that Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc.” was a successor to a Harvard Center called the IQSS (Institute for Quantitative Social Science), and connected through board membership (and President) a man Eldar Shafir now directing a 2015-inaugurated Kahnemann-Treisman Center for Behavioral Science and Public Policy. At “psychology.Princeton.edu.
[Better link: https://www.princeton.edu/news/2015/05/04/gift-establishes-kahneman-and-treisman-center-behavioral-science-and-public-policy
If I may compile some of this and warn about the trend of corporations paying big bucks (and through a variety of multi-layer disguises of where the money actually came from, including by having it come from one place, be reported on a second’s Form 990, handled by a third, and then periodically switching it up; choosing website names which do not match organization names, and so forth.
The Princeton connection to “IDEAS42.org” comes in part from Israel, through military training needs (obviously this will involved the fields of motivation and behavioral modification strategies), and Brown, Harvard, MIT (of course Princeton) with a dash of Stanford, and more.
This is interesting and relevant to the direction public policy is moving, so….FYI:
Eldar Shafir has sterling academic credentials (his bio on that website: BA Brown, MIT PhD, now professor of psychology at Princeton) as well as some background in the Israeli military, and I see in only 2014 he was being interviewed by the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, talking about how he got interested in this field, which he answers up front. (For the curious, my awareness of him came only through reading tax returns for what is now “Ideas42” — he was on the board of directors and for at least some years, President):
Interview with Eldar Shafir (there’s also a video and this interview in a better format (6-page pdf with call-outs, photos, and footer references for the interviewee), ClevelandFed.org, Jan. 13, 2014
Economists work under the assumption that people make rational decisions. Psychologists don’t, at least not in the way traditional economists think about the rational model. Behavioral scientist Eldar Shafir straddles both worlds. In his quest to relieve the tension between rational versus real life, Shafir reminds us that conflict, context, and uncertainty can’t be accounted for.
Eldar Shafir is the William Stewart Tod Professor of Psychology and Public Affairs at Princeton University, and co-founder and scientific director at ideas42, a social science R&D lab. His current research focuses on decision making in contexts of poverty and on the application of behavioral research to policy. Shafir was a keynote speaker at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland’s Policy Summit on Housing, Human Capital, and Inequality in September 2013. Mark Sniderman, the Cleveland Fed’s executive vice president and chief policy officer, interviewed Shafir during his visit. An edited transcript follows.
Sniderman: You began your career as a cognitive scientist, but now are in the business of behavioral economics. How did that happen?
Shafir: While at MIT, I attended a series of lectures by Amos Tversky [a cognitive psychologist who challenged economic theory by showing that people frequently do not behave rationally]. I didn’t even know the topic before, but I was blown away and thought it was wonderful and ended up going to work with him. Soon after, I wrote my first real economics-focused paper with Amos and Peter Diamond [an economist and professor at MIT].
Eldar Shafir (Ideas42’org) 2015ff [psych’PRINCETON’edu] Kahneman-Treisman Ctrr for BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE + PUBLIC POLICY [CV~Israel Def til 1980, Brown BA (1984) Harvard PhD Cognitive Science, etc.)
“Dr. Tversky was not averse to taking personal risks himself, Dr. Kahneman said. Dr. Tversky was born on March 16, 1937, in Haifa in what was then the British protectorate of Palestine. He fought in three Middle East wars, in 1956, 1967 and 1973, winning Israel’s highest honor for bravery in a 1956 border skirmish.
Dr. Tversky got his bachelor’s degree from Hebrew University in 1961 and his doctorate from the University of Michigan in 1965. He won many awards, including a MacArthur Foundation fellowship in 1984. | In addition to his wife, he is survived by two sons, Oren, of San Francisco, and Tal, of Stanford; a daughter, Dona, of Stanford, and a sister, Ruth Ariel, of Jerusalem.
You can learn alot from this New Yorker article, 20 years later, talking about Tversky & Kahnemann (eventually mentioning in passing that Kahnemann had married Barbara Treisman (which even the center named after them doesn’t mention — I found it out in a minor detail on her wikipedia which, oddly, didn’t even provide a maiden (birth) last name for her.
This image of the title is the link. Click the image to access the New Yorker 2016 article described.
From “Two Friends Who Changed How We Think about How We Think” (Newyorker.com 12/21/2016 article)
The Kahneman and Tversky partnership was extraordinary in terms of its scientific impact—they are the Lennon and McCartney of social science—and even now, when joint work is increasingly common in academia, enduring teams like theirs are extremely rare. In Lewis’s account, the relationship between Kahneman and Tversky was as intense as a marriage. As anyone who has been married knows, marriages can be fraught, and they sometimes dissolve entirely, rarely amicably. Tversky and Kahneman never got divorced, but they did start dating other people, and their relationship became strained.
After the two decided to leave Israel, in 1978, Tversky quickly received offers from Harvard and Stanford (where he ended up). Kahneman, who was looking for jobs jointly with his equally distinguished wife, Anne Treisman, was hired at the University of British Columbia, in Vancouver—a fine university, but lower in status than those that pursued his friend. At a relatively young age, Tversky received honorary degrees from Yale and the University of Chicago.
Although their work had been a true collaboration of equals, Tversky had unofficially been declared the star of the team, which didn’t sit well with Kahneman. Tensions were aggravated in 1984, when Tversky was given a MacArthur “genius” grant, and Kahneman wasn’t. Kahneman was not actually eligible for the award, which is given only to American citizens or residents, but not many people realized this—and, what’s more, when Kahneman moved to Berkeley, two years later, thus becoming eligible, the MacArthur Foundation still did not give him a fellowship. The incident illustrates another one of Kahneman and Tversky’s most famous concepts: loss aversion. When the MacArthur grants are awarded every year, only the most egomaniacal of us read the list and say, “Damn, I lost.” Unless, that is, your best friend wins the prize for work you did entirely together.
Later, Kahnemann got a Nobel prize for his work. Tversky only didn’t because they aren’t awarded posthumously. Now, to repeat my statement about the maze of funds circuitry this creates for (say, Americans or) those who may wish to track the funding, especially those of us whose taxes are partially sponsoring it (and tax-exempt, itself a privilege, is also “sponsored” in part by those who are not functioning tax-exempt, whether or not appropriately compensating services are delivered to us to justify that status. Instead, as I am warning, the behavioral/social science/ mental health (i.e., population control and exploitation) archipelagos are set up:
I said, If I may compile some of this and warn about the trend of corporations paying big bucks (and through a variety of multi-layer disguises of where the money actually came from, including by having it come from one place, be reported on a second’s Form 990, handled by a third, and then periodically switching it up; choosing website names which do not match organization names, and so forth.
Not to mention starting them out as university “centers” which obscures the financial trails as documentable on the type of reports universities produce. One begins to wonder (at least I do), who, really, owns the universities.
This quote is taken from the 2010 Financial Statements of what is now called “Ideas42” and was featured at a Robin Hood Foundation January 2017, invite-only “Poverty Solutions” conference, with one of the keynote speakers (Sendhil Mullainathan — also involved with J-PAL above) referencing this entity, although not on Harvard’s description that it was an outgrowth of a Harvard “Institute for Quantitative Social Science.”
Two images showing the RHF conference and reference to “Ideas42.org.”
This caption previews what I found after noticing the following (and this [12/14/2017, “ongoing racism misogyny…Moynihan PRWORA legacies..] post will discuss with some exhibits) Keynote speaker Sendhil Mullainathan (also associated with J-PAL as one of three founders at MIT) mentioned in reference with “Ideas42.org” which began as “Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc.” (taking over from “Institute of Quantitative Social Science” at Harvard, and sponsored at (2010) startup by the Ford Foundation, first working (by agreement) through “New Venture Fund” (which the year before had a different name — Arabella Legacy Fund), then, on demand to the sponsored nonprofit, insisting they break that agreement and return the money to the Behavioral Ideas Lab. Details shown below (as found only in a financial statement which happened to be attached to the initial tax return of the new entity…
If whoever filed the 2010 Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. (which later was renamed “Ideas42” to actually match its website, “ideas42.org) Form 990 had not bothered to also upload the financial statements, I probably wouldn’t have known without yet further research.To illustrate the situation, here are the most recent tax returns of the two named foundations sponsoring an invitation-only anti-poverty conference in January 2017 (above images). First RHF (EIN#13-3441066) is clearly stabilized somewhere just south of “half-billion total (gross) assets” as you can see. It’s been around since 1989 which may have helped. Below that, the Russell Sage Foundation, from the publishing industry with a special focus on social sciences, has closer to $331M.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robin Hood Foundation | NY | 2015 | 990 | 132 | $462,935,695.00 | 13-3441066 |
| Robin Hood Foundation | NY | 2014 | 990 | 295 | $446,826,179.00 | 13-3441066 |
| Robin Hood Foundation | NY | 2013 | 990 | 528 | $447,689,231.00 | 13-3441066 |
Board of Directors and key officers (top row’s return) annotated give an idea of the connections, and include some people I’ve written about previously on this blog, by virtue of my interest in PRWORA (1996 Welfare Reform Act acronym) and the marriage/fatherhood promotion issues.
New Venture Fund: I finally located an EIN# for New Venture Fund from its website, as “Foundation Center” (incidentally, also a Ford Foundation grantee, although not one of its primary ones it seems) somehow managed to find three wrong names for three consecutive years of this organization. Searching then by EIN# 265806345, I was then able to locate, and I kid you not. This foundation comes up below in discussion of Behavioral Ideas Lab, now called “Ideas42.org” but its first return (2010) listed that website.
Total results: 3. Search Again. (See EIN# in the table below showing three different organization names is all the same #).
Reminds me of the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan model: make the money in consulting (and managing investments), keep the cash cows and ditch the dogs (non-producing projects), acquire more.
The database provider “990finder.FoundationCenter.org” helped by placing a few more obstacles to even a simple name search for “New Venture Fund, as you can see here (and I printed an image to show it’s their handiwork, not mine!):
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Make it Work | DC | 2015 | 990 | 160 | $264,453,055 | 20-5806345 |
| Amplify Us | DC | 2014 | 990 | 444 | $143,413,906 | 20-5806345 |
| Groundswell Fund | DC | 2013 | 990 | 290 | $85,262,349 | 20-5806345 |
(p. 14 of the most recent tax return for Russell Sage Fndtn, Officers Directors and Trustees (annotated) Click to enlarge. For example see Kathryn Edin’s CV (bottom left Johns Hopkins (JHU.edu) link leads to it also)
Further below, I show the Ford Foundation returns (single-year) in a compilation table emphasizing relative size of this foundation (for its role in the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative) as compared to several other policy think-tanks, well-known ones with connections to (and board members from) major (elite) U.S. universities. By size – -it dwarfs them. I also found looking at its grants, other information, such as how many of them it’s also continuing to fund (donate hundreds of thousands of dollars to).
The next discussion references also a New Venture Fund as doing administration (year 1 only) for this Behavioral Ideas Lab nonprofit, so for convenience (and for comparison), I showed the New Venture Fund tax tables above also.
Behavioral Ideas Lab EIN#271678009 INITIAL 2010 (website Ideas42’org in Boston) 350K (now ca 14M) cf RHF, cf Sendhil Muliathan (IPA (ImpactMatters) J-PAL at MIT) 32pp (<==a second click on the blank “page” icon may be necessary to load the pdf, after initial click on the link here). This is a tax return followed by the financial statements for its first year; required apparently because of the amount of first-year revenues.
(More on Kathryn Edin, from the list of directors above. She’s been from PhD years actively supported by Russell Sage, has a PhD in Sociology from Northwestern (top university in Chicago area, with University of Chicago’s influence on Social services also significant) and has made a career writing about the poor, with an emphasis up through at least 2015 on fathers, although the first publication seems to have been about mothers. Single mothers on welfare (and so making also a point about fatherlessness, etc.). Because I had so much “caption commentary” for the image, I made it full-sized. I also notice that so many of the honors and positions come with attached names: Bloomberg, MacArthur (twice in fact), Russell Sage, Zanvyl Krieger,** and she advises “poverty centers” in several states, as well as has an HHS connection.
(**Zanvyl Krieger, per NYT, Dec. 21, 1992, donated $50M to Johns Hopkins where he’d graduated from in 1928 (and Harvard Law School in 1931); the article details the impact of upon the school, compares it to other large donations up to that point, and describes what industries he was active in (real estate, investment banking, and a stint at Maryland’s assistant attorney general..)
I looked up the Zanvyl & Isabelle Krieger Fund, Inc. enough to realize that its controlled by (and is a supporting organization) to the larger, and pre-existing “The Associated” a.k.a. The Associated Jewish Community Fund of Greater Baltimore, which has a partner or affiliated agency (for holding the funds). The Zanvyl & Isabell Krieger Fund is only one of several pages of (Sched R) related entities to “The Associated.” I could show these, but don’t believe it needs to be on these page, as interesting as it is to Baltimore itself and to show collective impact when people cooperated under local (nonprofit) organizations. The related entity (not the Krieger fund) pays to run it, and in recent year (as in, 2015) showed $22M collected through “federated campaigns” and $19M through “related entities”
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund | MD | 2016 | 990 | 34 | $28,992,088 | 52-1126684 |
| Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund | MD | 2015 | 990 | 34 | $36,592,951 | 52-1126684 |
| Zanvyl and Isabelle Krieger Fund | MD | 2014 | 990 | 33 | $39,586,669 | 52-1126684 |
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore | MD | 2016 | 990 | 79 | $32,516,056 | 52-0607957 |
| Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore | MD | 2015 | 990 | 78 | $31,957,464 | 52-0607957 |
| Associated: Jewish Community Federation of Baltimore | MD | 2014 | 990 | 99 | $30,752,267 | 52-0607957 |
Total results: 3. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore | MD | 2016 | 990 | 164 | $318,100,682.00 | 52-6024192 |
| Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore | MD | 2015 | 990 | 149 | $325,887,533.00 | 52-6024192 |
| Associated Jewish Charities of Baltimore | MD | 2014 | 990 | 298 | $332,740,914.00 | 52-6024192 |
Read the current Johns Hopkins bio blurb under its School of Sociology and Edin’s related C.V. (excerpts posted nearby; she is co-authoring with Ronald Mincy and others on fatherhood issues throughout the post-PhD career and recently was honored by the NFLG (National Fatherhood Leaders Group which is a(nother) badly-behaving nonprofit whose leadership entails some of the HHS grantee organizations profiting from those income streams since PRWORA 1996…). My point is not to say this person isn’t a good scholar, or hasn’t earned the academics. However, I find it odd that while she was getting her PhD in one field, I was dealing with an abusive spouse (same timeframe) intent on driving me out of the equally (in its benefits to children, families and society) profession, and through the collaborations denigrating single mothers (such as I later became by virtue of demanding the battering stop and separating myself from the man so attached to the habit, along with other classic, controlling, woman-denigrating, and economically coercive traits that characterized our time together as “man and wife.” It doesn’t seem right within a society that some professions are exalted because they are better for controlling and manipulating poor people (and running studies on them for fame and profit) while the professions some of those are working in, are dishonored. I also protest that there’s no comparable transparency from the same sector on the reality that these professions are sustained by, generally speaking, the poor (when it comes to public funds) and/or private foundations for which the working poor and middle class, are likely working, and via tax differences, not keeping as much of their earnings as the tax-exempt foundations which help preserve historic and family wealth under PRIVATE control. And I also know that some of this post-welfare Policy is turning competent, formerly employed single or joint-custodial mothers by way of the courts and child support battles (staged in the name of “healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood” and such) have been made: homeless, turned into fugitives (some from the country), forced onto welfare, and cut off from their own offspring without good cause. Others have been imprisoned for taking a stand against abuse of their own children, all reframed as itself “abuse.” they are also being extorted and threatened with loss of contact with their children, or having custody flipped to the abuser — which is in many cases followed through on. Does EDIN acknowledge or even reference these situations from the “street” level since she first wrote on how to live on $2 a day to jumpstart her PhD-plus career?
{Kathryn Edin C.V. excerpts (Major Grants-funded research section, probably} Notice (1996-2002) a six-year project under what’s now “MDRC.” and during that time, a Russell Sage Foundation “The Father’s Project.”, not to mention 1996ff HHS research.
K. Edin C.V., years 2006-2009 only show more work with fathers’ rights, fatherhood researchers.. This will continue through the current (latest reference on the C.V., 2015)
I included this excerpt because 1991-1992 shows Russell Sage Foundation involvement, and by 2000, testifying on “Welfare and Marriage.” and again, in 2004.
Just showing another university “Population Studies Center” (UPenn by the way is a private, not public, university). Edin has taught her, per the bio blurb at Johns Hopkins.
[found on p.28 of 32 on nearby pdf for the initial (2010) tax return].
Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. has taken over activities formerly conducted by its directors at Harvard University’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science in Cambridge, Massachusetts (“IQSS”). The directors of ideas42 formed ideas42 to take over the activities they formerly conducted at IQSS to conduct such activities independently of Harvard University. Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. is organized and operated to advance economics and psychology and to improve the effectiveness of public and private sector policies and programs in the United States and abroad. ideas42 will further these purposes by engaging in economic and psychological research and by making its research findings publicly available. The purpose of ideas42 is to use scientific insights from the fields of economics and psychology for the betterment of the lives of people in the United States and abroad. The Organization’s staff conducts economics and psychological research by field-testing product. For instance, the Organization’s staff have conducted economic and psychological research in the following subject areas: interactions between impoverished individuals and the financial sector, the economic choices of farmers in developing countries, the psychological mechanisms underlying individual’s choices of health coverage in the United States and educational opportunities in low-income communities. A team of researchers and practitioners conducts research and development activities primarily in the United States, but also in India and Columbia. Approximately 80 percent of ideas42’s time and resources are devoted to research and publication. In addition, Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. creates educational materials to convey the information discovered through its research. These materials allow private and public sector entities to apply the research results to improve their policies.
Curious about the Harvard IQSS referenced above, and before getting into the details of the Ideas42/Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. nonprofit above, I looked it up. It’s already a given that “social science” and behavioral interventions is BIG business in government, especially federal HHS, circles. Money is poured not only into university centers featuring this, but also to, before and after getting their various PhDs, professors sometimes working in those centers, and/or for the major thinktanks or policy evaluators (conducting, like MDRC or J-PAL+IPA, remembering that “IPA” started only in 2002 by a man from Harvard and stands for “Innovations for Poverty Action” randomized controlled trials” on changing the behavioral habits of poor people to see if that changes their income levels…). But the Harvard IQSS is cross-university and was only formed (replacing a previous center) in 2005.
An APSA article (May 2016) posted by Gary King (who it turns out is director or co-director of Harvard’s IQSS) references a 2014 article at Harvard about how Social Science is no longer just about the “science” but about the “solutions.” Essentially, the transformation seeks to be the lever, pivot point, for setting all other kinds of policy (read the description before you turn skeptic there…) affecting the rest of society.
I’ve already posted on the drive from WHO to classify all things under “HEALTH” (“HiAP” – Health in All Policies). Underneath that, or contained within it seems to be also “Social Science” which I would label, basically, “population control.” If something can be labeled healthy or unhealthy (for example, if or when “single mothers” are labeled “unhealthy” for society), it can be promoted or attacked. As that IS the intent (to drive away “unhealthy” and promote and support what the experts and thought-leaders declare “healthy”) the overall intent could be correctly stated as an attempt to take over the reins of society, as determined in collaboration with the universities, federal (and state) agencies and their priestly professorial/academic class, utilizing state-of-the-art technology (it comes up in this context) also rewarding those.
From an APSA (“American Political Science Association”) website, “PSNow” which barely acknowledges it’s an APSA journal and posts nothing much about itself except solicitations to become a follower or subscribe, we get: “Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” The three dates showing here are: March 21, 2016 in PSNow, with a footer to January 2014 with a Harvard link, to which (if one clicks through) it says, “online 29 December 2013.” I recall the APSA had given Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill a joint “Moynihan Award” for 2016, as noticed in Princeton’s (Sarah McLachlan-run) Center for Child Well-Being, labeled later the Bendheim-Thomas Center for Child Well-being. This Center (at Woodrow Wilson School in Princeton) jointly publishes “The Future of Children” with the Brookings Institution, and actively applauds marriage-promoting professionals such as (well, Haskins) and Opus-Dei-connected writers such as Bradley Wilcox, etc. (the Opus Dei connections at Princeton were also making headlines some years ago). Some discussion of the Princeton Center and the inbreeding (sic) between the publishing professoionals and their sponsoring organizations or universities can be found in my Sept. 21, 2017 post, towards the bottom.
(Image title is partial to preserve size of the related article: click here for the article READ THE SUMMARY!
PSNow is obviously a publication, but little about its publisher shown except on this footer.
Another politically correct headline by APSA about itself, viewed Dec. 2017
So, Harvard is announcing a “new type of center.”
(this is the abstract; the article is copyrighted):
The social sciences are undergoing a dramatic transformation from studying problems to solving them; from making do with a small number of sparse data sets to analyzing increasing quantities of diverse, highly informative data; from isolated scholars toiling away on their own to larger scale, collaborative, interdisciplinary, lab-style research teams; and from a purely academic pursuit focused inward to having a major impact on public policy, commerce and industry, other academic fields, and some of the major problems that affect individuals and societies. In the midst of all this productive chaos, we have been building the Institute for Quantitative Social Science at Harvard, a new type of center intended to help foster and respond to these broader developments. We offer here some suggestions from our experiences for the increasing number of other universities that have begun to build similar institutions and for how we might work together to advance social science more generally. COPYRIGHT: © American Political Science Association 2014
To foster AND respond to? Which is it? Or in the midst of productive chaos, answers will not be given? Here’s J-PAL (referenced above) advertising the IQSS at Harvard: the website “povertyactionlab.org” apparently is J-PAL’s web address: https://www.povertyactionlab.org/partners/harvard-university-institute-quantitative-social-science-iqss and IQSS at harvard has the link, predictably, “IQ.Harvard.edu.” (next two images, not that either one says a lot, which isn’t to say, it doesn’t “communicate.”):
Catch the link at bottom: How Bill and Melinda Gates can help people give more….
If this doesn’t sound grandiose and overconfident enough, read the “about” message (and notice how it’s university wide and having social science become central to Harvard’s infrastructure, while creating “products” that are usable worldwide — and of course, metrics to go with them. The first paragraph indicates that thousands of years before this point were just a prelude to what’s up next. IF that’s so then I want to see ALL financials, and wish to mention that during the few hundreds of years Harvard has been around, it historically (until what — the 1970s?) has excluded women from full participation:
Where we’re going
We aim to move the social sciences from thinking about the greatest problems affecting human societies to understanding and solving them. After thousands of years of trial and error, social scientists in this generation have finally figured out how to amass enough information about the people, groups, and societies we study and to invent the methods, theories, and technologies necessary to make these data actionable. The spectacular successes we have seen in the last few years are nothing compared to what is coming. Please join us; there’s nothing more exciting.
IQSS builds cutting edge social science infrastructure, fosters a flourishing community of social scientists, and does whatever it can to help students, faculty, and staff leverage each other’s advances and take us all to the next level. We even apply the tools of social science (big data, bigger analytics, novel theories, and behavioral science) to improve the administrative operations of our own Institute and the Harvard administration more generally; see our unusually transparent metrics on Institute performance, detailed roadmaps of where we’ve been and where we’re going, and some of our products used very widely across the university and the world. For more information, see Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.
Where we’ve been
We founded IQSS on March 1st, 2005, replacing the Center for Basic Research in the Social Sciences. Fourteen months later, IQSS was formally designated as a Harvard University-wide institute. Over the next two years, IQSS incorporated within it the Harvard-MIT Data Center, the Henry A. Murray Research Archive, the Center for Geographic Analysis (CGA), the RWJ [[Robert Wood Johnson obviously]] Scholars in Health Policy Program, and others. Since then, IQSS has helped create numerous programs, centers, and initiatives that are now part of the Institute; elements of other Harvard units; ongoing collaborative efforts between IQSS and other Harvard groups; separate organizations within Harvard; and independent nonprofits and commercial firms outside of Harvard. IQSS is now the university’s largest social science research center and an integral part of the Harvard administration.
Great. So where are the stats to back up that claim? If IQSS is into quantitative metrics, how’s about posting some financials about itself and its operations (under that name) as well as a tree of the spinoff organizations, and collaborations with the “independent nonprofits and commercial firms” outside Harvard. If “Behavioral Lab, Inc.” is one of those, it’s hardly independent — it took a Ford Foundation startup (two-years $700K promised) managed through a third nonprofit — that Ford Foundation (and a Schedule B shows just how many others) propped up with BIG grants ($39M, $20M, $10M), or so they say… citing from the latest year uploaded to its website, or the 990finder database.
Gary King
Director, Institute for Quantitative Social Science
Albert J Weatherhead III University Professor
Albert J. Weatherhead III (obituary, age 86, Sept. 20, 2011) shows he was 1950 Harvard (Harvard Business School), then after serving in both World War II and the Korean War went to work for ten years 1956-66 at his father’s company, then in 1971 acquired another one which produced plastic caps and closures for the food, spice, pharmaceutical and “nutriceutical” products (Weatherchem). I’ll footnote this section, however note that it would fit in here well for anyone who notices how professors, and centers (or sometimes, schools) at universities have become virtually like race-cars — advertising their named sponsors, who claim credit (through donations) to the point one wonders, what parts of the school are not previously stamped by their owners?
There’s a footnote at the bottom of this post demonstrating my point Weatherhead is third generation businessman and at least second generation (I didn’t look up the grandfather) Harvard.
Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. (which Jan. 2017 joint Russell Sage Foundation / Robin Hood Foundation sponsored “Poverty Solutions” keynote speaker co-founded)
So, it starts out with a $350,000 “corporate or foundation” grant from, per the attached financial statement, the Ford Foundation, and only $100 from (an, or some) individual(s), and after one year of operation has $77 cash reserve only — in part because Ford Foundation wanted the contracting done through the New Venture Fund (which I noticed was also a favorite grantee of Ford in 2015). If you can figure this one out from the images, with the first (pdf) link containing the whole tax return and (brief) financial statements. The first image shows Page 1 of the initial tax return (I notice there’s no time and date stamp from the IRS, however) reporting $350,100 initial revenues, and showing one company name, but a completely different-named website. I noticed a similar pattern historically with “Guidestar” which had the website by that name before its name changed from “Philanthropic Research Associates” (or similar name). Guidestar dates to only the mid-1990s… and compiles tax returns and nonprofit profiles, either for free (if you register only) or for subscription. (See my “SimpleCharityRegistry.com” new page for more).
Below that, under the explanation of “Accounts Receivable,” on the image, a description of the arrangement with Ford Foundation (who is clearly “calling the shots” here as it is financing) at first saying” store it in an “Ideas42” fund at the New Venture Fund, then changing its mind and requiring the new nonprofit to terminate that agreement and take the money (back from New Venture Fund) itself, making for “grants receivable.” For that all-text (vs. Form 990 form) image, my filename for the pdf is faintly visible at the top margin (window frame) of the image.
Behavioral Ideas Lab, Inc. FY2010 (YE Dec31) showing only $100 did NOT come from “Foundation and corporate grants.” Not exactly a grass-roots demand for this one.
NOTE: “New Venture Fund” I’d already flagged (and set up a folder for) in Sept. 2017, after discovering it was, before 2008, called the “Arabella Legacy Fund.” In addition, as it must file in a number of states, I’d looked at the California Registry of Charitable Trust. As well as NOT posting any but Year 2015’s Form 990 on the website, I was reminded that the State of California had to keep prodding the organization to produce its “Schedule B of Contributors” (for the OAG to view — the public doesn’t get to see these unless an organization chooses to review), AND that there were as early as about 2010, internal consistencies in revenues reported within a single return. And now, above, we have Ford Foundation saying “put the money there — not, take it back!” while the same year (FY2015 for Ford, I believe) while I was skimming their ($511M) of grants distributed that year, one name that came up repeatedly was “New Venture Fund.”
New Venture Fund FY2015 (Public Disclosure) Sched R pg94 (was horizontal) 1pg only @ 2017Dec13 657pm.pdf ~|~ New Venture Fund (EIN#20-5806345, since 2006, DC-domicile) FY2015 (=calendar yr) Public Disclosure (Amended) SCHED B (3pp, 18M in Stocks, the rest CASH)
New Venture Fund (formerly “Arabella Legacy Fund”) did indeed start in 2006, but changed its name by 2009, possibly here’s why (See top contractor — and that there are 148 others claimed (!!) An annotated version of this also shows up among a series of NVF images, below, as it’d caught my attention earlier, also…
========
The families (whether “female-headed households” and noncustodial “parents” (meaning typically, fathers) or prisoners facing re-entry and struggling with child support, etc. have been a captive population to run “randomized evaluations” upon to justify the current social policy towards men, women, children, minorities, or any other demographic targeted for research.
I may have posted some of these images before, DNR offhand, regarding NVF.
I referenced this organization on Sept. 21, 2017 in a post title (not that long ago). Only my tendency to look things up unearthed this information; I’d found another source of “CRS” (Congressional Research Service) reports, while looking for info on the “Reorganization Authority” (granted by Congress to Presidents over some decades, and requested again by Pres. Obama ca. 2012); that’s how it all started:
EVERYCRSReport.com: Project of Demand Progress (a 501©3 + 501©4 each w/ fiscal agent~New Venture Fund (formerly Arabella Legacy Fund), Sixteen Thirty Fund), the R Street Institute (formerly DC Progress). So, Will the Real Sponsors Step Out from behind their Fiscal Agents, WITH NameTags, or Shall I Continue Outing Them?) [Last revised Sept.11, published “As-Is” Sept. 21, 2017] (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7zh”).
And the answer to my rhetorical question in that title is apparently, “Not if they can help it…”
(Now called “New Venture Fund”, same EIN#, showing a Disregarded Entity of interest. Must’ve been before 2009, when it changed its name, and is probably pre-2008 judging by the format).
In FY2009, $23M of donations and $29M of vaguely described “consulting revenue.” “Such a deal…”
These annotations were taken in Sept. 2017. I am saying that the surrounding return does not seem to support the $10M of Revenue claimed on Page 2 (Pt. III Ln.4b) here, although it did support that in Ln.4a. What does that say about its managers? The organization is now even larger and taking $39M, $20M, $10M, and other multi-million-dollar grants ANNUALLY from what I can tell…
Look at the sudden increase in donations FY2009, the year of the Name Change…(Arabella to New Venture Fund)
Annotated excerpt of Sched I (Domestic (USA) grants to Org, Gov’ts and Individuals). Apparently includes to one that later fizzled out as an LLC.
So how much did the Ford Foundation donate here, in 2015? (Although the above, last image was from FY2013….), well — lots!!
For the State of California attempting to get a record of excess contributors to this entity, see my Sept. 21, 2017 post referenced above. It’s on there, alongside some, but not all, of the above images.
So, the more recent “Innovations Poverty Action” and J-PAL (an MIT center, which doesn’t seem to have registered as a corporation or 501©3) also run, and feature their RCTs or “Randomized Controlled Trials” for anti-poverty strategies they wish to promote.
While the organization’s own “anti-poverty strategy” for itself is a historic winning strategy: get government grants to study poverty, associate with a prominent university to make it more respectable. Pay the professors well, and commend them for their concern for the global poor (if not for the American public and economic transparency of where its tax receipts, after distribution by various federal departments, or state, or local departments and agencies, are going, and maintaining checks and balances to deflect any misappropriations or criminal activities (money-laundering, racketeering, fraud, etc.)).
I say that because with even the Single Stop USA nonprofit, there’s already a million-dollar discrepancy with a single grant from the RHF to it. In looking through the Ford Foundation grantees (which comes up below) I also noticed at least one grant to Single Stop (There were $511M of grants listed in FY2015 alone, so I may have missed others; and several organizations are showing multiple grants in different places within that list on the same tax return). It looks like this (excerpt):
Ford Foundation Form 990PF for 2015 listed $511M grants distributed (representing a bit less than 5% of its non-charitable use assets that year). This excerpt shows $750K paid “During the year: to Single Stop USA, which nonprofit was formed to streamline enrollment in public benefits (utilizing a software it helped sponsor the development of, “Self-sufficiency Solutions, LLC,” which in 2016 changed its name (see NYS Entity search) to “Benefit Kitchen.” I.e., the route to self-sufficiency and reducing the national deficit is make sure as many people as possible, as fast and seamlessly as possible, sign up for public-funded benefits and other social services.
I describe this separately (on a separate post, in the pipeline), but recent screenprints give a few clues:
At close to 12,000 words of Preface and Pre-Preface on the above post, realizing I needed to sound off as Congress is passing a new “tax bill” promising to save the middle class, grow the economy and (make America great again, I suppose) about how this works for women post-PRWORA, still, the decision to split took effect even though the topics are inter-related, gun violence and corollaries to PRWORA involving the treatment of domestic violence within or among family members.
How sad that it took an article from an IRISH (Dublin University) professor of US History (featuring a book published in 2015 by the University of Pennsylvania, however) to mention enough feminist names protesting the Moynihan report (of 1965), and why just addressing racism, but not sexism, wasn’t good enough, for me to “get” that my sentiments and instincts were not solitary among my “kind.” (The kind of woman who by virtue of standing upright is liable to get knocked down by certain kinds of men, including the kind I mistakenly married shortly before Welfare Reform was passed). The author had published at least one extended article on the Moynihan Report a few years earlier (2013), but in that article didn’t even mention the sexism.
Both sources are quoted and linked, below.
It also appears that the foundation of the famous NOW (National Organization of Women) in 1966 was a direct response to that (sexist) report titled “The Negro Family: A Case for National Action.”
All of this continues to help me put what I’ve learned experientially, through speaking to people over the past two decades, and through the research involved in producing this blog (and a few related ones, not as active but formerly also at significant investigative effort; some were, by request of others, featuring a specific local county; another I attempted to segregate the economic issues into a different blog (ca. 2012). (Economicbrain.wordpress.com)
In 2013, I started but alas, didn’t get to complete, a FULL printout of an unsorted HHS TAGGS database (HHSGiveawaysGovernmentShutdowns.wordpress.com) showing its (already mentioned) lack of style consistency for data entry and consistently producing mis-leading (internally discordant) reports, whether Advanced or Basic searches, not to mention what are obviously more than “accidental” typos regarding major HMRF (Healthy Marriage Responsible Fatherhood) grantee and grant names, and/or categorization of the grantee (for example). Defeating “transparency.” I did this in the fall, during a time of threatened government shutdown (again). (Next three images with yellow-highlit captions).
My blog on TAGGS database (home page, top)
Before it was complete (44,783 line items (records) displaying @500/page were involved by my second attempt in 2015), the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database user interface and possibly data got restructured, completely removing a few sort-and-report categories (specifically, EIN#) and adding some functionality, and completely removing the ability to choose how many results displayed on a single page. It’s now set to 25 records/page only — and the database contains hundreds of thousands of records of grant awards back to (about, the earliest) 1994 in some cases. So much for getting an overview without the utmost diligence and persistence, and than having to transcribe it in formats that TAGGS.hhs.gov no longer permits..
Link to a published Pg.1 at HHS GivewaysGovernmentShutdowns (scroll down to see the first 500 records), top part shown in two nearby images.
My blog on TAGGS database (home page, top) (“Got Eyes? See This!” top)
My blog on TAGGS database (home page, top) (“Got Eyes? See This!” 2nd screenshot (below which are TAGGS table, first 500 showing the sort characteristics)
LEGACIES OF PRWORA, THE FORD FOUNDATION, AND “MOYNIHAN” (Divide and Conquer Tactics, Keeping (most) Women In Their (subdominant) Assigned Places while Placating, if possible, Also exploited Men of Color, i.e., high-stakes, rigged conflicts)
Click to enlarge, p. 1 of 110, “Written by Barbara C. Cleveland, edited by Ronald B. Mincy / US DHHS Aug. 1993”. Image appears again later in this post.
FYI, I found this 2002 Urban Institute-posted TANF Reauthorization testimony on a search for Barbara Cleveland [a name unknown to me, but author of the cover page of that 110-page packet “Services to Noncustodial Parents] in association with Ronald C. Mincy [known from other associations and writings], and found her among the references here, co-authoring with Daniel O. Ash,
(click to enlarge; image shown later in this “The Money Maze” post)
who through recent review, I remember to have been involved with the Illinois nonprofit of Wisconsin entity address with one corporate and one IRS revocation for non-filing in its (still short) history since 1995 and maintaining a fairly small financial profile despite a rather LONG and PROMINENT list of foundation backers. And known to be favoring fatherhood promotion, despite having taken the word “fathers” out of its legal business name back in about 2004, which is my roundabout way of saying “CFFPP.org.”
Recent (Nov. 2017) article featuring WI SNAP changes, for CFFPP, from website.
Earlier logo, but still under the revised business name (with my comment apparently)
CFFPP (Center for Family Policy and Practice) was on my own watch list as far back as 2010 (I just started this blog in 2009), in part because <>of its purpose-obscuring name change, in part because <>”Futures Without Violence” (Family Violence Prevention Fund) and early VAWA-advocating nonprofit leader, Esta Soler, was found on its board of directors early this century, and in part <>because it admits to being the “strategic arm” of a Ford Foundation initiative, i.e., “Strengthening Fragile Families.” Ford also funded since the 1970s, an organization “MDRC” to run social service R&D trials (pilot projects) and then evaluate them, including those under this umbrella, no doubt, and plenty of others around the same topic (such as “Parents’ Fair Share,”). Ford also originally (1968) started “Fund for the City of New York” which has combined with the NYS Unified Court System in what both call “Center for Court Innovation.” Like other major corporations public & private in place by at least the early 1900s, and others started mid-1900s and some even later, Ford Motor Company’s tax-exempt wealth (i.e., its primary foundation has provided leverage for private influence on public policy by partnering with government, partnering with universities, sponsoring or hiring PhDs to publish along the chosen lines, and so forth. The state in parentheses is legal domicile as stated on the return, and may not match the address on the table, which is typically “entity (main business) address.”
CFFPP (1995ff IL), MDRC (1974), Fund for the City of New York (1968), and “the” Ford Foundation tax returns (as current as possible) show some size differences in total gross assets..and The Urban Institute (1968, DE), since I’m quoting it, and Brookings Institution (1939, DE) because the Urban Institute document’s House Testimony “Fragile Families Initiative” referenced a publication (with two of three its authors on testimony list; the third one (who happens to be wife of one of the others) has a Princeton University connection, and through that Princeton Center’s publication (The Future of Children) to Brookings Institution…
Total results: 6. Search Again. (I compiled this table from 6 different searches)
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Family Policy and Practice | WI | 2015 | 990 | 10 | $299,210 | 36-4038873 |
| MDRC | NY | 2015 | 990 | 68 | $121,599,657 | 23-7379473 |
| Urban Institute | DC | 2015 | 990 | 55 | $165,064,431 | 52-0880375 |
| Brookings Institution | DC | 2016 | 990 | 63 | $473,918,510 | 53-0196577 |
| Fund for the City of New York, Inc. | NY | 2015 | 990 | 51 | $115,865,634 | 13-2612524 |
| Ford Foundation | NY | 2015 | 990PF | 428 | $12,242,896,362 | 13-1684331 |
The Ford Foundation in Sept. 2009 moved $40M (and later, $19M more) into an Employee VEBA [Voluntary Employment Benefit Association] Trust also, as shown in next image, below.
Obviously “Ford” is a whole other class that is, value of total assets held, of privately controlled assets and how they are managed. In the list above, it’s the only private (990PF) filer as opposed to the others which are public charities (filing different Forms 990). While the Form 990PF doesn’t ask or show (at least on pg1) what is year of origin and legal domicile, the related VEBA Trust, in relating itself to the Foundation on Schedule R, says the primary foundation’s legal domicile is Michigan, which makes sense if you remember Detroit, the auto industry, etc.
FORD FNDTN 12’2B EIN#13-1684331 (Michigan legal NY Bus addr) and its VEBA TRUST (EIN# 27-0904683 2009ff in NY 47M
Ford Fndtn Detail – Transferring 28M from a controlled Cayman Islands partnership (!). The Parvatnum Partners Fund I didn’t find, but the Grand Cayman PO Box and street address is referenced on an offshoreleaks.ICIJ.org site regarding off-shoring (Panama Papers, Paradise Papers, where “ICIJ”=International Consortium of Investigative Journalists).
FORD FNDTN (Gross assets FY2015 $12.2B, EIN#13-1684331) shows $10.6B of total $12.2B held in “Investmts – Other” (not shown — $115M in Savings and about $10M in Cash, near top of the same page)
I wanted to look these “Investments – Other” up, and see their specifics.
But… although the IRS Form 990 (during Capital Gains and Loss section), giving a few examples, clearly asks for EXACT name of securities, the Ford Foundation, when it comes to both Capital Gain and Loss section (nearer the top of return) and it schedule of “Investments- Other” (near the bottom) which the above excerpt clearly states is $10.6B worth for FY2015 (Year-End Dec. 31, 2015), opts to give instead, page after page of “Fund#s” in both places (!). As in the next examples (three images):
FORD FNDTN EIN#13-1684331, FY2015 990PF. Form shows examples of NAMING investmts sold (for tax purposes) but Ford just numbered the funds…
FORD FNDTN EIN#13-1684331, FY2015 990PF, Sched to Identify “Investments – Other” basically doesn’t. And that’s over $10B (where MOST of its assets are held), too!
FORD FNDTN EIN#13-1684331, FY2015 990PF, Sched to Identify “Investments – Other” basically doesn’t. And that’s over $10B (where MOST of its assets are held), too!
While I’m not sure how Ms. Cleveland connects with the other fathers’ rights personalities and organizations (i.e., if on the board or staff, since) she publishes with, it seems that at least in 1996, Barbara Cleveland was working for HHS in OCSE (Child Support Enforcement), which also makes sense given the 1993 paperwork, as “edited by Ronald Mincy.”
Found at: Recommendations on TANF Reauthorization from the Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative (at The Urban Institute, a nonprofit). Although this is dated 2002, it may have been posted on Urban.org only about 10 years later. I’ll also annotate it. There are three images, and the one “References” is annotated in 9pt font, and not even room for everything. As one of those “not room for” included one of the entities cited near the top which I had occasion to revisit (the filings for) not long ago (NCPL, or National Center for Strategic Nonprofit and Community Leadership, under Jeff Johnson) with two men joining in the testimony under that name, and Barbara Cleveland & Daniel O. Ash publishing under it under “References,” I also included one reference found at another men’s org. (NCFM in San Diego) with link, and some showing the professional background and (major) connections of Mr. Ash, who happens to have attended the same undergraduate college as myself, although my degree was B.MusEd. from the Conservatory (one of the nation’s top ten, incidentally), not B.A. from its College of Arts and Sciences.
2002 Elaine Sorensen FFI testimony before House Ways & Means subcommittee on TANF Reauthorization, found at the Urban Institute (#1 of 3 images) (**Superimposed image inside the yellow didn’t “take” and is shown in next image, labeled “#1a of 3” on this post. It was just the “cite” of 2012 from the Urban Institute).
2002 Elaine Sorensen FFI testimony before House Ways & Means subcommittee on TANF Reauthorization, found at the Urban Institute (#2 of 3 images, What They Wanted)
Click image to enlarge: 2002 Elaine Sorensen FFI testimony before House Ways & Means subcommittee on TANF Reauthorization, found at the Urban Institute (#1a of 3 images) (intended as superimposed image on #1)
2002 Elaine Sorensen FFI testimony before House Ways & Means subcommittee on TANF Reauthorization, found at the Urban Institute (#3 of 3 images, some References “Fatherhood Promoters Family Genealogy” Tree annotations)
The “References” annotated image above (from the 2002 Elaine Sorensen-referenced Urban Institute website) also mentioned publication co-authored by Daniel O. Ash and Barbara C. Cleveland (2001, by National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership, FYI a fathers’ rights nonprofit whose filings I (again) looked up recently. It’s less than credible, but was still cited anyhow… here). I ran out of “annotate” space and so looked up some more bio. blurb on Mr. Ash, who I also realized was currently listed as CFFPP Treasurer, and seemed to have been historically based in Chicago. A few recent changes were announced, the latest of them to the Chicago Community Trust. Notice (2nd image) it doesn’t exactly mention that his early professional career probably includes a current boardship.
The preface [referring to, when formerly on to the “Money Maze” post] also responds to a recent headline by Rep. Paul Ryan dragging out the same and old “welfare pays people not to work” message.
As well as talking back emphatically to that same old message, this section may help reassure readers who perhaps [like most of my friends and acquaintances, unfortunately] still believe it’s “EITHER Democrats OR Republicans” primarily and while reading the papers, identify with one of the above as the good guys, making the other, the bad guys may (mistakenly) and in doing so, may mistakenly deduce…
….from my featuring and criticizing the operations of a Super-PAC started by a well-known (though not to me, until recently), recently deceased Democrat megadonor lawyer pushing for more gun control, which Super-PAC started only in 2013 as Americans for Responsible Solutions PAC, but somehow switched to the Giffords PAC,
….AND because I also (already published) criticize another San Francisco, California-based nonprofit which started under one name, changed it once to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, and changed its website to the Giffords name AFTER its most recently available tax return,…
NRA on the Record website (about) with callouts, and calling attent’n to the footer reference to CSGV. Language references the GOP and Republicans, and the Conservative Movement party as (involved with) this “odious” and “rogues gallery” organization throughout just a few paragraphs, but avoids mentioning the word “Democrat” or “progressive” anywhere. Instead, it’s them Republican Conservatives and haters against… (see last sentence) the better members of the American public…
..AND because I also (in the same post) criticized the DC-based Coalition to Stop Gun Violence’s rhetoric on “NRA on the record website railing against Republicans and Conservatives while (in the footer) barely identifying themselves, and falsely stating they are not affiliated with the NRA or any other organization, when in fact the are a 501©4 with a larger sister 501©3.
…that somehow I am a closet conservative, or Republican.
I’m not! I’m a full-grown woman who historically finding it hard to stomach either side, and wishes to point out that as with dog-fighting, cock-fighting, and as (if or when prison guards have forced prisoners** to fight each other), and bet or helped place bets on which side’s going to win neither the animals, or the prisoners are the actual winners. They are instead, conscripted combatants, or (if paid) mercenaries. Neither the dogs, nor the roosters, nor the prisoners, or any one else forced to fight chosen opponents in high-stakes, RIGGED battles ever really win.
Click image to enlarge or Here for the 9/4/2016 NBC News article on Federal Prison-owned “Factories with Fences”… incl. section on hazardous exposure to workers, defective helmets litigation (2006-2009) for the Army, and “repatriation” offers to non-gov’t. private companies
(**Literally, a captive audience and known slave labor force, as well as extensive subject matter for behavioral modification product development, complete with pilot projects and test runs, of all sorts..) [Wiki on Federal Prison Industries or “FPI” and Unicor]. See also nearby image (Sept. 2016 NBC News):
**Here, I’m using the analogy for something readers might comprehend or have heard of to describe large-scale staged battles (by chosen rhetoric/values) that may be less familiar, and I’m doing it to call attention to how these are set up through “public policy” and public funds with profits for private parties, identifiable by (market, basically) sector and organization type. In referencing the “forcing prisoners to fight,” I’m not following this topic, but headlines do occur. It’s not unknown. Examples: April 7, 2015, Nevada Dept. of Corrections. “Family of slain Nevada inmate alleges guards staged ‘gladiator fight.”(Chicago Tribune Wire Report). Or, in 2000 “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings Blame the Prisoners” (April 24, 2000 in the L.A. Times, Staff Writer Max J. Arax), said to have gone on since 1989…
I took a look at the two situations (especially the second one, which involved several guards) and am outraged that a state can figure out how to stop this at a state prison (but didn’t until the negative press and finally some whistleblowing) — but did NOT yet figure out, same general principle, when it comes to forced interactions between the abusive and non-abusive parents involving supposedly neutral supervisors (supervised visitation). The statement is relevant especially to this post on groups that want to reduce gun violence, and are calling upon some domestic violence rhetoric (and involving some known DV-focused groups/nonprofits among, I see several “Giffords coalitions”) — but are not taking a stand against family court policies encouraged by federal grants TO the states as federal policy, ordering forced, ongoing interactions under fatherhood / welfare theory (of which this post will say more, again, below) — and court-ordered (i.e., forced) attempted indoctrination of both the women and mothers protesting abuse to submit to male-dominant society, AND if they want to retain contact with their own offspring, make sure their minor sons and daughters also do.
The protest for dissidence with this policy is severe, and can involve cutting off contact with one’s own children for alleged danger to the state in standing up for basic human, civil, and under criminal law, demand for enforcement sufficient to protect onesself and one’s children from becoming another generation of victims, under this rhetoric.
I’m not referring there to just supervised visitation (although it was the policy — and the systems I’ve come to know which go with it, through writing this blog — which first came to mind when I realized that corrections could be made to state policy which allowed (or, the acquittal basically says, “forced”) prison guards to stage gladiator fights for their own entertainment in a Central Valley California prison where it was the main non-farm employer in the area.
There’s more, but I will take this, and the “prison population / slave-labor force” discussion with its quotes to a separate place. The current name (and a lasting link to access) of this “place” is:
If we want such situations to change, we should quit letting the executive producers and private financiers needlessly setting up such staged and rigged fights, artificially producing winners or losers (which can be altered from generation to generation as the political winds blow, or for any other reason, like using one social demographic for a national scapegoat is starting to lose its impact, and a new one should be chosen….) dictate in what terms we converse with each other and, together, start talking about what’s occuring off-stage, behind the scenes, and who finances it, and who stands to profit if the fights are NEVER resolved.
And I believe political debates themselves continue to distract from who organized the battles, and WHY and makes honest, accurate, and in-depth conversations (macro-economic, geopolitical, etc.) almost impossible. Such conversations are, it seems, supposed to really occur at the “thought-leader” levels and under the Chatham House rule, at the NGO and/or university levels, and the rest of us are supposed to follow, but not have discussions with access to the truth, the whole truth and (my particular irritation) nothing BUT the truth, when it comes to our own government and its finances, and the economic systems it endorses and facilitates to control and profit from us, in the name of serving and protecting us.
I understand there are places and times for privacy, but when the underlying rationale for such major systems doesn’t hold water (of which welfare reform is just one example of “doesn’t hold water” rationale) and can’t even be talked about without getting into some values-ridden fight, ** it’s time to take a harder look at how these conversations are getting framed to “divide and conquer,” and who profits from them. That’s where needless “Money Mazes” indicate obstruction, not better dispersal of resources for the good of man (or for the love of him: “Phil–anthropy”) and to counter imbalance towards the already-rich in the system. **or just walking away from inane conversations, continuing to wander through solitary places looking for others who have opted out but are still susceptible to engaging outside the classic fighting spaces.
Following this maze and mapping it (who even bothers any more?) even to effectively illustrate that it’s a maze by design is exhausting and once done, continues to, by befriending that truth, make enemies on both sides of the political fence, the gender divide (men v. women, mothers/fathers in particular), any ethnic divides, not to mention the “faith” divides, plural. And isolate one socially and when it comes to conversation on the reality that MAZES have ARCHITECTS and DESIGNERS (to borrow an analogy from the building trades), and DESIGNERS have purpose.
Designers may or may not be the ultimate project financers, but they do make a living at it, generally. The rats inside do not….
The next two images (“Sole Custody disastrous for children” and “Welfare Reform: No Room for Daddy?“) surfaced among my earlier files when I was looking for anything on “MDRC,” which was a player in welfare reform, evaluating (through a certain “randomized” method that’s being copied now, but globally, by nonprofits associated with major East-Coast universities, and international (both origins and academics) professors working at them. The source was a 110-page pdf representing part of some document associated (as I recall) with the Clinton Library Welfare Reform Task Force.
Some years ago I’d run across the Clinton library list of files relating to the Welfare Workforce, some (not all) of which were accessible through pdf. I grabbed at least one pdf (110pp) and this news article typifies some of the pre-Welfare Reform, back-door manipulations through positive press references (omitting the connected parties) of first, women, then men, seeking to get federal legislation involving CHILD SUPPORT passed, federally, and regarding CUSTODY and VISITATION at the state level (where jurisdiction for it lies). My original filename was dated Sept. 11, 2014.
So my “preface” reiterates that while I may vote Republican or Democrat, and I have done both, at this time I’m absolutely not identified as to issues particularly with Republicans, and as a woman, probably never will be. As a woman and as a person who was forced to get answers not forthcoming after years of destructive case-churning in the family court system, and belatedly (because most advocacy groups CENSORED this information at the time — first decade of the 2000s, I’m talking — and so did most overtly feminist leadership (with one notable exception, and only briefly; the issues is now back-burnered and was never a top priority, California NOW)) learned about the HMRF funding and Access/Visitation grants– Rep. Ryan’s recent regurgitation of the old “welfare encourages dependency” argument makes me want to regurgitate.
I decided to annotate the newsprint images above (to also illustrate why I included it), so now there are two versions in the post. B/W, and “color” (annotated).//LGH Dec. 9. The second one shows positioning of the news article right next to an AFC (American Fathers’ Coalition) article.
Here’s also the page before “Sole custody disastrous” (p.105, a letter exchange in a 1994 Washington Post; one writer is Sen. Paul Wellstone, and the other Stuart Miller of AFC (American Fathers’ Coalition) and the cover page. My recall of where this came from is not absolute, but I do remember going through welfare task force files under the Clinton (Presidential) Library, and they were of this character (containing many documents, some articles, some letters to the WH, some handwritten routing slips about the attachments, etc.), size (large, many pages) and approximate timeframe.
Page 105 (Letters to the Editor exchange) takes up the topics of abuse court-ordered visitation, and supervised visitation, as well as the “child safety centers” Wellstone was pushing for. We already know he was also recommending funding for supervised visitation, and had presented with his wife Sheila at a FY2000 AFCC conference at which Ronald Mincy, Ph.D. (Harvard, MIT and now known for a Center on Children Fathers, and their Families at Columbia University) also presented. That information can be found on an AFCC newsletter on my right sidebar, under “Vital Links Alpha/Chrono.”
More on their interrelationships can be found on my Aug. 19, 2017 post (towards the bottom — look for a section on Newt Gingrich and the 1994 takeover of the house by Republicans, and below that, a section referencing the Columbia-Princeton, Garfinkel-Sawhill connections, and a brief description, with logo, of the (that title is so long I find it hard to remember each time) the “Center for Research on Father……) (I still don’t have it — see logo!): : Cont’d from my Aug. 5 post…An Alternate Viewpt. on the Anti-Smoking Campaign and its Syndicated Backers …1998 Tobacco Litigation MSA followed by the 2007 (Opinion) USDOJ RICO [started 8/7/2017] with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7pV”
Again, the Foreword simply identifies the GIFFORDS PAC organization I was researching as making current headline news (in addition to that mentioned in the title about Mr. Mostyn). I only found the Giffords (formerly “ARS”) organization (See previous “NRA (not) on the record” post) while looking up who (a DC-based 501©4 called the Center to Stop Gun Violence) was characterizing a certain conservative (Hon. J. Kenneth Blackwell) involved in a government-involved association called the Center for State and Local Government Excellence (or “CSLGE”).
CSLGE “Affiliations” fails to identify ICMA and ICMA-RC. This center is less than a decade old, and its first tax returns clearly identify both those orgs. as Sched R “related entities.” Interesting that it was started right after the “Great Recession” and when the IRS Form 990 reporting requiremts. changed significantly, asking more detail about the organization itself on page 1, adding certain Schedules, etc.
CSLGE –Center for State & Local Gov’t Excellence, Vice-Chair Rob’t. P. Schultze bio blurb also describes his previous employer, and the one before that.
I include four “CSLGE” images along the right side here, in miniature (click to enlarge any; two from the organization website, and further below, two from CSLGE tax returns, the list of Directors, Trustees, Officers, including Blackwell and one other labeled “The Hon.” as well as two with ICMARC connections (Joan McCallen & Rob’t. J. O’Neill, but that’s as I recall only, and it’s been about a month since that information was fresh in my memory). I’d been looking at where governments are stowing their major investments, as managed by “ICMARC” a related entity to the International City/County Managers’ Association.
CSLGE EIN#26-2661207 INITIAL 990 FY2008(YEJun30) (showing ICMA+ICMARC as Related+NoPaid officers | DC Org is ICMA-Officer-Drenched + 2 ~the Hons~
CSLGE EIN#26-2661207 2nd Yr=FY2009
Consider this a Preface to the Foreword to the Post, because I want to say it here.
“Preface”
Just my opinion: If charities (501©3s), PACs (501©4) and the (as I understand it) newly-legal specialty PAC/Super-PAC leaders with truthfully the public’s best interests at heart want to talk about and complain about major lobbying influences (whether organized as PACs or not), based on actual influence and collectively controlled investments they should look at such types of nonprofits. Economic abuse backed by government force is a BIG deal.
However, we are constantly conditioned (through media, what else?) to believe by designated issues, who are the greatest threat to society, law-and order, and our personal safety, without references to the background (really) organizations with Boards of Directors and restricted membership culled, by category of employment or authority over public monies, from government itself, and pick “One from Column A” (and become “Column B’s” sworn enemy), as the Gifford’s organization favorites demonstrate in going after the NRA, conservatives, gun-owners, and, specifically, Republicans, as also happens “to-the-contrary” when Republicans go against anything remotely progressive, diverse, remotely feminist, and in support of minorities, immigrants, or with ties to the Clintons, former President Obama, or George Soros.
If, inside or outside Congress, Column A and Column B actually get along, this is considered a major victory (except, some hardliners (thus earning that name) consider it a major “concession”). To me, it seems either side seems willing to hold the public — and, case in point, this week’s news — the federal budget appropriations hostage, whether over healthcare, tax reform, and of course welfare appropriations is often on the list. Rep. Paul Ryan was quoted not too long ago as repeating the mantra that the government is encouraging dependency by helping the poor.
Dec. 6, 2017, CNN, Washington “Paul Ryan says GOP will tackle Medicare, Medicaid and welfare in 2018”
…(in interview with talk show radio Ross Kaminsky)..[[TalkShow Radio 630 KHOW out of Denver with Kaminsky bio commenting that he lives in “the People’s Republic of Boulder.”]]
Ryan specifically mentioned Medicare as being the “biggest entitlement that’s got to have reform.”“Really, what it is is we need to convert our health care system to a patient-centered system, so that people have more choices, we have more competition,” Ryan later said.Ryan also noted that, in addition to health care, the GOP plans to work on reforming the US welfare system.“We think it’s important to get people from welfare to work,” Ryan said. “We have a welfare system that’s basically trapping people in poverty and effectively paying people not to work, and we’ve got to work on that.”***
***(That’s a message from twenty years ago, itself (1996) as I’ve shown, also based on a message from 1965 (The Moynihan Report) stating the case for Federal involvement in Family Design to reduce “the Pathology of Matriarchy.” HOW? By setting up systems to tap directly into TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) block grants (as demonstrated, for example, by the Oklahoma Marriage Initiative around the turn of this century), to take contingency funding and divert it to what I call, sometimes, the “marriage-mongers.” (2013, the Urban Institute released a “Moynihan Report, Revisited” which was reviewed, and, eventually, got around to mentioning (quoting) Ron Haskins of Brookings): Was the Moynihan Report right? Sobering findings after 1965 study is revisited (by Marjorie Valbrun, June 13, 2013, in the Washington Post (and noticeably near Fathers’ Day):
…The new (in 2013…) report, “The Moynihan Report Revisited,” outlines some of the very same challenges to the well-being of black families chronicled back then, including acute and concentrated poverty in low-income black neighborhoods populated by underemployed and unemployed residents; crime; inequality in housing, employment, education, health care, and the criminal justice system; high rates of nonmarital births and children raised in households headed by single women; and social welfare policies that undermine the role of black men. (The report also offers more context about the larger political, social, legal and economic forces that have contributed to the problems.)
“Today, the share of white children born outside marriage is about the same as the share of black children born outside marriage in Moynihan’s day,” the Urban Institute report said. “The percentage of black children born to unmarried mothers, in comparison, tripled between the early 1960s and 2009, remaining far higher than the percentage of white children born to unmarried mothers.”
About 20 percent of black children were born to unmarried mothers in the early 1960s, compared with 2 to 3 percent of white children. “By 2009, nearly three-quarters of black births and three-tenths of white births occurred outside marriage. Hispanics fell between whites and blacks and followed the same rising trend.”
Notice an obsession here? With marriage, children born outside it, and race? Shared by this guy:
Ron Haskins, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institute and a director of its Center on Children and Families, wrote a chapter titled “Moynihan Was Right: Now What?” in a 2009 book about the original study.
He said in an interview with The Washington Post that the findings in the new report indicate that even as African Americans clearly enjoy more opportunity today and that the black middle class has grown, the challenges that undermine sustained and widespread economic prosperity remain stubborn. Chief among those challenges, Haskins said, is the disproportionate share of black children living in single-parent homes…. (cont’d below advertisement)
We have scores of studies that show that kids that grow up in single-women-headed families don’t fare as well, are more likely to do poorly in school and to drop out of school, to be arrested, to become single parents themselves,” he said. “These factors reinforce the economic disadvantages that these kids face and impact the larger black community.”
He said the problems will remain and possibly worsen until the numbers of children in black, Hispanic and white families living in two-parent homes increase….“We are not going to have an effective solution to the growing inequality and poverty in the U.S. unless we can do something about family structure,” Haskins said.
This article (and the policies) exclude SO MANY variables from the discussion, particularly (in 2009, in 2013) how wonderful it’s been for the researchers, professors, and fellows’ careers obsessing over marriage. Anyone feel a mention about domestic violence as a problem affecting the well-being of children, or poverty in single-women-headed families? (Based on the failure to protest removal of children from single mothers and placing them into the care of single, documented (i.e. prior legal or arrest history, jail time, etc.) abusive fathers and cutting off contact, there is not an issue with single-FATHER-headed families, just, let me spell it out: with women.
I’m not the only critic of this report: http://inthesetimes.com/article/18132/moynihan-report-black-poverty (See footer also for “About” the publication, acknowledged as progressive, started in 1976). The author, Daniel Geary, is a Professor of U.S. History at Dublin (i.e., not from inside the USA). The article addresses class and race, but omits gender as an issue when talking about inequality, and also considers the liberals vs. conservatives interpretation and use of the report.
Click image to access article, this time.
I just do not see people writing up the resultant HHS funding sufficiently to understand that and how it’s undermining single-mother household’s stability and income at the family court and court-ordered services level, while derailing attempts to set clean and clear boundaries after identified abuse, whether child abuse or spousal abuse. And that its incentivizing people to set up nonprofits, and put THEM on welfare (grants-supported) instead, who continue getting paid whether or not the produce the desired results, i.e., behavioral change in marriage and divorce.
{{Continuing to look for other critiques or praises, in hindsight, of Moynihan Report, I found a later Daniel Geary article (2015) in a different place (“Jacobin”) handling the feminist critique of it in the 1960s, and in fact, it seems that the rejection of handling sexism, not just racism, led to the 1966 founding of NOW. The article is well-written and also links to NOW account of its own founding, mentioning one of the African-American women Pauli Murray (<==read!!) whose letter protesting the report was rejected by Newsweek at the time.
NPR article on Pauli Murray, linked to by 7/1/2015 Jacobin Magazine article “Moynihan’s Anti-Feminism” by Daniel Geary (Dublin Univ Prof. of US History), from his recent book published by Univ. of Pennsylvania.
Murray graduated top of her class (Howard) and the only female in 1944; “The usual reward for graduating in this position is a prestigious fellowship at Harvard University. She applies for admission to Harvard Law School’s graduate program but is rejected because of her gender despite having President Roosevelt (an alumni of Harvard) write a letter to the president of the University on her behalf.” When Harvard rejected her she went by way of Boalt Hall (UCBerkeley) eventually on to her (1965) doctorate in law from Yale (” the first African-American to receive this degree. Her dissertation was entitled, “Roots of the Racial Crisis: Prologue to Policy.”). In 1971, Ruth Bader Ginsberg quoted her in a Supreme Court Brief applying the Equal Protection Act for the first time to gender (an Idaho law prohibited women from being administrators of estates!, and much more, including becoming the first African-American Woman ordained as an Episcopal priest). (Pauli Murray Project timeline) That timeline link is from Duke University’s Franklin Human Rights Institute’s Pauli Murray Center (per the logo):
1938 – She attempts to gain admission as a graduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She is rejected due to her race. The NAACP supported Pauli Murray in challenging this policy however the NAACP decides not to pursue the case because of Pauli Murray’s New York resident status.
Which I quoted to note, Ron Haskins’, “Mr. Welfare Reform’s,” background and academics are from University of North Carolina….Chapel Hill….
Also quoted or referenced: Martha Griffiths (“Democratic representative from Michigan and key proponent of the feminist Equal Rights Amendment,”) Mary Dublin Keyserling (see 1997 obituary – she was 87, it speaks for itself; she later opposed the ERA), Merillee A. Dolan, Francis Beal (mis-spelled “Beale” and with this link to a 2005 (Smith.edu) Oral History of Feminism interview) and others.
Moynihan’s Anti-Feminism (by Daniel Geary, 7/1/2015)
…Merrillee A. Dolan’s 1971 position paper (commissioned by NOW) castigated Moynihan’s myopic focus on the male-breadwinner family: “His entire report is a strong statement on the desirability of patriarchy. It is a plea for the government’s poverty policies to strengthen the patriarchal system and leave women to the mercy of a man’s economic support.” That no one yet had publicly criticized the report as a “pure slander of women” proved “just how patriarchal our society is.”
Dolan’s judgment of the Moynihan Report was unequivocal: “nearly everything imaginable is wrong with it.” Her paper reflected the influence of African-American feminists (including Murray, whom she cited) and was particularly inspired by the welfare rights movement, which called attention to the economic exploitation of poor women, especially women of color.
Dolan reiterated the movement’s focus on poverty’s structural causes: “People are poor for one reason — the economic system in the United States is not structured to eliminate poverty, and it is not intended to be. It depends upon a cheap reserve of labor — extracted primarily from women and minorities and especially minority women.”
Since the 2nd Geary article provides links for some, not all, of the women quoted, I looked up others. Merillee Dolan on “VFA” (Veteran Feminists of America) makes it clear she experienced and witnessed violence between her parents growing up, and while in the care of others as her mother (then single) had to work, was molested by a teenaged boy. And references her rebuttal to the Moynihan report.
Merillee A. Dolan quoted in D. Geary article in Jacobin Magazine, this is from Veteran Feminists of America (and her story).
I felt that “In These Times” magazine looked somewhat socialist (banner content, call-outs, headlines, etc.), however it’s self-described “progressive.” Jacobin Magazine (quoting the second Geary article, this time acknowledging feminist responses) in bright colors calls itself socialist. So, if I’m in agreement with feminists that Moynihan’s Report (and continued policies based on its entrenched patriarchal, and all-women-denigrating (not to mention racist) model is “full of it” does that make me a socialist? No, any more than my being so impressed with Pauli Murray makes me a lesbian. But where are the other voices outside progressives and socialists protesting these policies, and talking back sense to them?
In case you can’t guess, I’m of the same opinion regarding Moynihan’s report, although I only discovered it, and its impact, decades later, and in the course of investigating why my own right to work couldn’t be protected by virtue of my not having a resident controlling male/husband in the home…. when the last one’s physical assault&battery (plural) backing up ongoing economic coercion had been beyond “garden-variety” domestic violence (not that I believe this can ever be “domesticated”…)
Link to July 2015 (?) article in “Jacobin Magazine”. Recommended reading, although two years earlier same (?) author omitted the topic of sexism in reviewing responses to the same report. Adapted from a book published by U of Pennsylvania (which I’m going to order).
Meanwhile professional, nonprofit, and academic connections continue between (around this patriarchal theme) among Columbia, Princeton, Brookings Institute (where Haskins is) and — not mentioned, but he’s on the board — groups like MDRC (Manpower Development Research Corporation formerly) whose board members also read like a roster of: Princeton, Columbia, Stanford, UCBerkeley (etc.).
Welfare reform (PRWORA) was itself sold in part as a compromise with the Republican “Contract with America” which would have gone even further.
(I’ve posted this before: 1995 Disconnected Dads (Strategies for Promoting Responsible Fatherhood) with Panelists including Gordon Berlin (salary now ca. ½ million $$) of MDRC. Notice affiliations of other Panelists (David Pate also long-term at CFFPP.org)”.
It effectively further breached federal/state borders by seeking to influence — but not take legal responsibility for influencing, or admit openly how the influence was orchestrated and operated (i.e., family court-connected corporations set up and systematized) — legal subject matter jurisdiction on matters which were NOT under federal jurisdiction, and still aren’t.
It’s a matter of record, not speculation, from TAGGS.HHS.Gov, that among these multi-million-dollar grants, apart from the collateral damages they do to independent single-mothers (such as my self) who, despite years of abuse, managed to establish stable households and work life once separated from it, DIRECTLY DONATE to help further the reach of multi-national (in fact, one was helped GO international through acquisitions) such as, ICF International, or (Oklahoma’s) Public Strategies, Inc., without this help, that is without IT going on welfare, but not even registered as a nonprofit, otherwise a simple PR firm without major clients and revenue.
Does Rep. Ryan, in the same context, mention the extent of diversionary funding for “healthy marriage/fatherhood” programming, diversionary funding for child support enforcement “R&D” and “undistributable child support collections” in the millions, historically, year after year since 1996? Not exactly!!!
==============Footnotes:
FOOTNOTE: Albert J. Weatherhead III and Foundations
(Context: designation of IQSS Director Gary King – “Albert J. Weatherhead III Professor.”):
Albert J. Weatherhead III (obituary, age 86, Sept. 20, 2011) shows he was 1950 Harvard (Harvard Business School), then after serving in both World War II and the Korean War went to work for ten years 1956-66 at his father’s company, then in 1971 acquired another one which produced plastic caps and closures for the food, spice, pharmaceutical and “nutriceutical” products (Weatherchem):
Al worked at his father’s company, The Weatherhead Company in Cleveland from 1956 to 1966. In 1971 he purchased a small caps and closures manufacturing company in Twinsburg, Ohio and renamed it Weatherchem Corporation where he held the title of Chairman and CEO. Weatherchem Corporation has just celebrated it’s 40th anniversary and is one of the largest private manufacturers of plastic closures for food, spice, pharmaceutical, and nutraceutical products …
He is also the recipient of various US and Canadian patents pertaining to metal working processes and plastic products. In 1986 he became the President of Weatherhead Industries, Inc. as well as maintaining his title of Vice-President of the Weatherhead Foundation until 1988 when he became the Foundation’s President. He is best known for his philanthropic work through The Weatherhead Foundation, which concentrates on innovative gifts to institutions of higher education. ..
Interesting that there are (at least) two foundations named “Weatherhead,” one larger than the other, and one distributing far more (2015 – 72%; 2005, I took a quick looks – 56%) while taking similarly large contributions from the family, or a (2015) a family estate. The one named The Weatherhead Foundation,” says “Foundation Center,” was formed in 1975 which makes complete sense, as he’d acquired the company producing those closures in 1971, and a foundation through its tax-exempt status and qualifying distributions, has reduced tax on non-charitable use assets (which is not much when it’s being used as a pass-through vehicle). The Albert J. Weatherhead Foundation, now showing a larger balance, was giving away smaller percentages (like, 6%), but still from smaller contributions directly associated with the family line. For example, in 2005, $285K in Anheuser Busch stocks was donated, and $222K granted to an Institute named “Weatherhead” at UTexas Houston.
He is also the founder of the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs at Harvard University; the founder of the Weatherhead P.E.T. Center for Preventing and Reversing Heart Atherosclerosis at the University of Texas-Houston; the founder of the Weatherhead School of Management at Case Western Reserve University; the founder of the Weatherhead East Asian Institute at Columbia University; and a founding member of the John L. Caughey, Jr. Society of Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine. As an ardent supporter of his wife Celia, and also Scott Cowen (previously Dean of the Weatherhead School of Management at CWRU and then President of Tulane University), he has endowed the Weatherhead Visiting Professor of Philosophy, the Weatherhead Distinguished Professor of Environmental Studies and Director of the Center for Bioenvironmental Research and The Margaret and Eamon Kelly Distinguished Chair in International Development at Tulane University. While Celia has served on Tulane’s Board of Administrators, they have recently given two major gifts – one for $50 million for appointments of “Weatherhead University Professors” to be given to outstanding leaders in their field who have made and will continue to make significant contributions; and, the second $50 million for The Weatherhead Scholars Programwhich will bring in the world’s most academically qualified students and who are also dedicated to building a better world through public service
A 2008 Cleveland Plain Dealer blog “extra” reveals that he’s 3rd-generation wealth and after inheriting his father’s (also a Harvard grad) company in 1966, sold it, thus acquiring the company in 1971, with its technical breakthrough in the early 1980s (the pour/shake cap). That “Celia” was his third wife and that among other problems he had was (and she also had been divorced, and that it would seem the universities he’s been donating to are focused in part on finding cures to what he was plagued with himself..Title link is the same as the one in this paragraph:
Cleveland Portraits: Unknown philanthropist Al Weatherhead has made and given away millions n August 17, 2008 by James Sweeney.
The Weatherhead name has been a fixture in Cleveland manufacturing for three generations.
His namesake grandfather, Albert J. Weatherhead, founded Cleveland Faucet Co., a firm that revolutionized indoor plumbing. He was known as “The Governor” for his commanding presence.
Weatherhead’s father, Albert Jr., was even more imposing. A Harvard graduate and highly decorated World War I flying ace, he returned from the war a Silver Star hero and earned his own fortune by starting the Cleveland-based Weatherhead Co. That firm began in 1919 as a parts maker in the fledgling auto industry and grew into a major producer of military armaments during World War II.
Taking his place among many businesses which also made their fortunes during the massive industrial and manufacturing requirements of a major world war, I or II, including some of the currently largest companies on the planet — pharmaceuticals. The predecessors were, obviously, chemical companies, and the wars, both of them, involved chemical warfare. Johnson & Johnson Company’s fortunes came in part from their work (even earlier) with adhesive bandages which, as one can easily understand, would be in high demand during wartime. Kaiser, ship-building, but now associated with medical and healthcare (including the Affordable Care Act) endeavors. All of these seem to have their associated major foundations, and are prone to throwing their weight around politically while managing to retain control of their own major and typically self-sustaining through investments (despite the millions or hundreds of millions, collectively and in some cases individually, they distribute as grants from that tax-exempt entity).
Early dream blocked by demanding father
From 2008 Cleveland Plain Dealer article on Albert J. Weatherhead’s business, life, (most recent only of 3) marriages, and philanthropy.
The youngest Weatherhead assumed at an early age that he would inherit the success of his father and grandfather….{more narrative on how he had to work his way up} …
Weatherhead has suffered two failed marriages, the death of an infant son, depression, alcoholism, arthritis and heart disease.
He’s recovering from surgery to repair several crushed vertebrae, which has made it hard for him to work. He loves being chairman and chief executive of Weatherhead Industries, an umbrella firm for his privately held plastics manufacturing firm and collection of philanthropic activities.
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
daveyone1
December 15, 2017 at 4:56 pm