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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018].

leave a comment »

Post title:  The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018]. It has a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8ZF” and, for a change, is short.

Well (after another day’s work…), not including its own “footnotes.”  Total as published now is actually 8,515 words.  It’ll be short again if I split it in half later.  Main extensions — commentary on two billion-dollar trusts outside the USA, one in London, the other in Kuwait, with annotated images from them.  The Wellcome Trust (London) and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait).  The “Wellcome Trust” for decades (1955 – 1993) had as part of its pharmaceutical enterprise, Burroughs Wellcome Fund (at Research Triangle Park, NC) and obviously intricately connected to US biomedical and other research, and NIH sponsorship to go with it, as well as with board members on some of the largest tax-exempt entities (which I search in this blog, sorting by “Total Assets”) IN the USA as well.  So, I think those last-day additions are worthwhile…

https://wellcome.ac.uk (“We want to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas thrive.”)  ArabFund.org is a regional financial institution and “embodiment of joint Arab action” (agreement established 1968).

…Achieving Arab integration and consolidating cooperation among the Member countries is the main objective of the Arab Fund. Priority is therefore given to financing joint Arab projects of particular importance and specifically to those projects that increase the interdependence of Arab countries. Hence the emphasis on contributing to projects involving the interconnection of electrical power, transportation and communications. The Arab Fund also pays close attention to social development and reducing poverty by financing projects covering health care, education, drinking water, rural development, and social welfare.

The Arab Fund, being an Arab institution, is focused on Arab issues and concerns. In this regard it pays special attention to the least developed Arab countries such as providing support to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories through financing a program of projects in different sectors. It provides grants to support educational institutions, universities and professional and social associations. The Arab Fund has also supported a number of Arab countries in countering the effects of natural disasters and wars…

Click to enlarge or visit website. For example, “History of Wellcome” with key terms relating to drug development in the USA, and various suffixes (Ltd, Foundation, Trust, plc) associated with it over time. Also visit their Board of Governors

Click to enlarge, or visit website. See also nearby quote (FamilyCourtMatters, published June 6, 2018)

This post goes with a certain Page which matches the top post on this blog dealing with the topic of historic censorship of major issues affecting family courts — censorship specifically by organizations, professionals, and self-described initiatives or movements to fix or reform them.

Next image just shows where on the originating page it came from. As you can see I switched the parts of the title (placing “Footnotes to…” after “The Availability and Reliability of…”).

[This image is simply to locate where on originating Page my “The Availability of.. | Footnotes” post fits in..]

I feel I should further qualify the use of “censorship” in the underlying Page’s title.  There’s a difference between leaders and followers… but followers in the current scenario can’t afford to be passive on their own learning curve and should “look before they leap,” including before going public with their stories in association with specific groups with a specific agenda they may not know about.  … In other words, followers, rebloggers, re-tweeters, free-sociomedia activists who are also litigants with shocking or devastating custody cases, don’t be exploited for the drama by others. Know where you stand in the mix, and that your testimony, your experiences should not be publicized as part of a package deal which may or may not be the best “deal” (reform agenda) available.

IT SEEMS (“FYI”) Most (self-appointed) family court reform leaders, whether individual professionals, or leaders of organizations featuring individual professionals active within the family courts, are not, in fact, members of the classes they advocate for.  Because that’s obvious, this leadership needs to maintain a “stable” of mothers, fathers, and/or aged-out kids to tell moving personal narratives, around which each organization’s particular agenda and sound-bytes for system change can be promoted.

The emotionally moving, tragic or disturbing anecdotal, individual-case stories (true or not) are the “hook.” Those telling on them already have been hooked and in effect function as bait — worms wriggling to catch larger fish (systems change for faster-flowing funding streams).

The “protective-parent” “arguing against parental alienation” tactics (a subset of the larger whole) family-court-reform leaders (especially as associated with nonprofits, conferences, or some, even law school clinics) tend to be publicists, practicing (expert witness or other) psychologists, or lawyers, or even ex-judges sometimes involved professionally in the field.   Individual mothers, especially, with custody-fiasco stories should resist being exploited by anyone for press coverage status and hoping that enough of it will produce effective improvements.

The family courts and family law (and/or “fixing” or reforming it) IS a field which MUST be better understood than it has been portrayed in “the press.”  (Whether on-line or print media).  There are economic considerations.  There are court-connected-corporation considerations too, which the average court-reform leadership on a nonprofit board is generally not too eager to encourage investigation into…  Such investigations (even simple “drill-downs” like I’ve been doing year after year) tend to uncover sponsors, backers, and alliances which sometimes reveal conflicts of interest and shed an entirely different light on the agenda (ultimate purposes).  Investigations also may reveal how very small (size of nonprofit) some of the most vocal promoters are, that is, assuming the tax returns are telling the truth.

Individual parents involved in the courts who remain unaware of these issue because no one raised them, and their on-line or other searches haven’t caused a “stumbling across them” yet, cannot be said to have engaged in censorship.  Then again, individuals’ “take-it-on-faith” and “accept-our-interpretation” without considering alternatives (the religious mindset, in a sense) is just unwise.  Following leaders without basic background-checks of AT LEAST (where a nonprofit is involved) the leaders’ nonprofit’s  self-descriptions as given to the IRS and any required Secretary of State (etc.) filings is minimum responsible behavior, even if one is oppressed and distressed by the present ongoing crises or emergencies a typical family law case may involve.

It’s also appropriate to look (I do this!) at friends-of-friends nonprofits speaking the same language.

The originating Page for this Post is:

My purpose here is just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them.

When you see the above page title and sentence again, that’s where this post started.  Before then, I talk about the relevance of this topic, with some examples.

From common on-line discussions among concerned parents and in conversing with people concerned about justice and the family courts, or domestic violence, child abuse involving themselves and their children, over the years I’ve sensed, with just a few exceptions, little consciousness or awareness of the nonprofit sector AS a sector, or its mutual collaborations and governmental collaborations to direct our lives.  Names of individual entities will show up discussed along with their “causes” but few bring up objective discussions about the tax-exempt sector by definition affecting government.

This lack of sunlight facilitates private, unregulated and unmonitored development of alliances throughout the system or the presentation of “warring factions” when in fact the major divide seems to be less political persuasion, than functional niche on the public/private partnerships food chain.

I.e., in a quest for justice, if substantial cash flow is simply uncategorized and unseen, you can “forget it!” Justice, that is. That’s why I include more reminders here that as a whole, the “tax-exempt” sector is a historic and significantly powerful business sector, not just a few organizations with their respective causes.

I ran a printout of FY2015 Forms 990 and sorted them by assets (most billions to about 8.5 billion “Total Assets”).  Top results (Image #1 of 4 taken) included:  Harvard ($73B, billion dollars), Stanford and Yale and Princeton (in that order) and two “Bill and Melinda Gates” entities which, if combined, would’ve been the top of the list.  However, Harvard Management Private Equity Corp. (or so labeled) at $14B also shows up…  Second image:  MIT, Columbia, and so forth (Two thumbnail images shown here; larger ones and the other two, below, with captions).

Notice which types of entities are the largest shown (of those search results displayed). They fall into certain categories which tend to either include institutional endowments of universities, health corporations (benefit, i.e., pension, administrators), insurance companies (people pay up front), credit unions, and probably one donor-advised foundation (I think).  I was surprised that at $12 billion assets, even Ford Foundation wasn’t the largest. This tells us by TYPE of 990 or 990PF, 990-O filer, and generally speaking, where some of the largest (nonprofit only that is) assets are held — excluding of course ALL government entities, which by definition are not even on this database. Government entities are “on” there in the background — supporting scholarships to the universities, distributions for healthcare, federal grants to medical research institutions (etc.) as a sponsor (source of revenue TO nonprofits) and (did you know this?) also as ongoing direct recipients from nonprofits also. But because it’s a directory of charitable trusts (private-sector) naturally no names of government entities will show up as themselves. If you want to see one place they’re both shown together, look for “Bentley 500” (top assets infrastructure owners of the world.  But, that’s only “hard assets.”  I’ve posted it on this blog several times..)

The Forms 990 show this — direct grants to various government agencies to promote, pilot, or evaluate chosen projects. “How the heck” would these ever be consistently tracked?

Other billion-dollar assets entity types include wealth made in massive “goods and services” whether auto industry (Ford, obviously), or the more recent technology, internet, telecommunications field (i.e., Bill and Melinda Gates, William and Flora Hewlett Foundations).  “RWJF” wealth stems originally as I understand it from Johnson & Johnson Company, with significant revenues from providing services needed during war time (i.e., adhesive bandages) and thereafter, “Rx” (pharmaceutical).  It’s associated with the healthcare field and as such, major government involvement in general for consumers of its products.

Two results are not even listed in the USA: “Wellcome Trust” ($35B, filing a 990PF, EIN#986038021) and “Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development.” ($10.8B, filing a 990O, EIN#980211642).  Wellcome Trust latest shown Form 990PF (FYE 2016) /  Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development FYE 2016 (Year-end=December) latest shown 990O (Note:My images search was for 2015).  This section doesn’t profile the smaller “Arab Fund…” but references it as one of only two NOT based in USA which show up in the Form990-finder top billion-dollar-assts nonprofit organizations without a USA listed domicile.  It is based in Kuwait, founded in 1968, and its main (program service revenues) seems to be from program loans.  Definitely an organization to look at… even a quick look is revealing, but I’ll just post a few images from the return for now:

Arab Fund for Econ.& Social Devpt (Kuwait) More images of 990O/FY2016 at end of this post.

Arab Fund for Economic & Social Developmt (p.1 top, FY2016) in Kuwait

The Wellcome Trust is of special interest because (keep reading) of its background and longstanding (until it became independent in 1993 and was promptly sold to Glaxo, producing as I understand it, the famous “GlaxoSmithKline” in 1995) “Burroughs Wellcome Fund” out of North Carolina, i.e., in the USA.  And because the basis was pharmaceuticals, originating in two U.S. entrepreneurs expanding operations to the UK, long ago…

Wellcome Trust 2016 990PF (Chairman, Deputy Chairman + 1 other Director (only) are titled women; the other 9 directors are men (including one “Sir”). Notice pay for half-time or less still over $100K.

Wellcome Trust 2016 990PF, phenomenal salaries (4 of 5 shown) “Highest paid employees” (all men: range $1M – $4.3M PLUS benefits)

Wellcome Trust 2016 990PF, highest paid contractors = for investmt mgmt (4 of 5), 3 in USA, total $24.8M, Morgan Stanley tops the list at $7M+.

(Wellcome Trust: See those links, page 1 amounts and categories of revenues + expenses, incl. administrative overhead).  Its 12 Directors and Officers (all “London, England”) paid a total of $1.1M (most, for 7 hours a week except Chairman (21h) and Deputy Chairman (14h) — are all men except three titled women (Chairman (sic) — a Baronness; Deputy Chairman (sic) and another Director, Dame and Professor-Dames).  There is a Tobias Bonhoeffer on the list.  The “Five Highest Paid Employees” totalling $11.6M (+ $2.5M benefits) are all men— (the image only shows four; the fifth was paid $1.0M) and earned from $1 – $4M+ straight salaries. And the five highest paid contractors?  (Four, investment management, one Comgest in Dublin Ireland) totaled $24.8M — three of these in the US (Morgan Stanley, New York;  Sand Hill Capital, Virginia, & T.Rowe Price in (Baltimore) Maryland).  This among the costs of “philanthropy.”

A VERY quick lookup of Wellcome Trust shows American British Sir Henry Wellcome and Burroughs Wellcome & Company — pharmaceutical… It established a USA outpost in 1955 (becoming independent) and  a $400M grant to Burroughs Wellcome Fund become independent from the British pharmaceutical enterprise in 1993…  became a major medical research foundation based in — Research Triangle, North Carolina.  In 1995, Glaxo acquired it, becoming then “GlaxoSmithKline” (but, Wiki has flagged the “BWF” link shown here):

In 1955, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF) was established as the U.S. branch of the Wellcome pharmaceutical enterprise; in 1993, a $400 million gift from the Wellcome Trust enabled BWF to become fully independent from the company, and it became a private, independent biomedical research foundation based in Research Triangle ParkNorth Carolina.[11][12]

Newly started programmes by the Wellcome Trust include the creation of research training programmes for physicians wishing to pursue careers in academic medicine, which the trust started in October 2010. Also currently, the foundation supports clinicians’ research to develop treatments for obesity using natural appetite suppression.[10]

Burroughs Wellcome Fund History (from “BWFund.org”)

https://www.bwfund.org/history Burroughs and Wellcome were both Americans, but U.S. reps of pharmaceutical interests in England.   Wellcome became a British citizen in 1910 and was later nighted.

Browsing  BWF’s (highly pedigreed!) current Board, I see several institutions among the top billion-dollar-assets universities or institutes on my list AND frequent references to “NIH” funding.  That is, federal grants funding helps pump up the resources.  Rapid and major expansion of NIH itself was a factor of extensive lobbying by other wealth (search “Mary Lasker Papers” on NIH and this blog), actually advertising wealth, poured into biomedical research institutions and the anti-smoking campaign, instrumental in obtaining the “MSA” (Master Settlement Agreement”) billions also from state attorneys-general class action lawsuits. Fascinating…

Burroughs Wellcome Fund History (from “BWFund.org”) (Image 2).

“RTI” (Research Triangle International) surfaces repeatedly in writing this blog, not to mention the state of North Carolina’s seemingly undue influence (just an opinion — see Ron Haskins (academic origins — Chapel Hill, NC), Brookings, Princeton-Brookings “The Future of Children” (publication) and Welfare Reform) on this country in general.  Could this be in part why, through this sector?

I looked at Wikipedia for Henry Wellcome and his also famous wife  and interior decorator “Gwendolyn Maude Syrie Barnardo (maiden name)”  (in part through her affairs with W. Somerset Maugham and a child by him, “Syrie Maugham” in Wikipedia). Please read “The Wellcome Trust” image (in 3-image gallery below) carefully– changes in UK tax law apparently prompted the sale to GSK, which was then invested, and helped make this trust the largest UK charity.  I.e., UK tax law drove cash-flow and movement of assets, again, into tax-exempt foundations, including overseas into the USA... Tax law always drives investments to the “safest” havens for preservation of the whole enterprises.

Burroughs Wellcome Fund (from “BWFund.org/board-directors” bottom, showing footer street address Research Triangle Park, NC

This website doesn’t exactly advertise its “audited financial statements” but I did find 2001 – 2014’s and a press release on 2017’s with message from the president) through searching for them. Initial searches for 990s didn’t show them; I searched “finance department” and got BWF’s  “FOCUS – Our Kids Wont* Wait” page (*not “Wont”)  on its support of an NC Public Forum of NC (public/private “think tank”) and BWF’s commitment to invest in a “uniform approach” to teaching science, math and reading in the state’s public schools.  BWF approves and is going to directly fund NC public schools to import techniques used in Singapore:

FOCUSOur Kids Wont* Wait

North Carolina has more than 9.5 million citizens and is one of the fastest growing states in the U.S. Our economy has undergone a transition from reliance on tobacco and furniture to a more diversified economy with an emphasis on engineering, biotechnology, and finance. There are nearly 1.5 million children in our public and charter schools depending on adults to make the right decisions about their access to quality education and prepare them for a global workforce.  We have had education law suits that favor our children’s rights and have seen parents fleeing public schools in search of the globally competitive education our children need and deserve to secure opportunities in the world market.

.. Our Kids Won’t Wait outlines ways we can grow our own principals, improve pay for educators, harness technology to make learning a 24/7 process for students and educators, revamp university and college teacher preparation programs, and much more. As a foundation that invests in advancing science and mathematics education in North Carolina, the Burroughs Wellcome Fund is pleased with a number of the recommendations, particularly one to establish a uniform approach and framework for teaching science, mathematics, and reading. Our foundation is investing $5.4 million with the UNC system to produce quality K-12 teachers with degrees in science and mathematics, and we are offering six years of funding to elementary schools to advance mathematics by using world class strategies being taught in Singapore.

But who will teach our kids to demand that pharmaceutical and other highly gov’t dependent (leadership with career backing by NIH, grant-making to others backed by it, etc.) organizations make clearly available (under “About” at top, or “Finances” at bottom) on their websites (1) Their own audited financial statements — not just a few years worth, and (2) If based in the US, tax returns, i.e., filings with the IRS?  ??  An economy reliant on “biotechnology” is also reliant on government grants.

“Burroughs Wellcome Fund” (USA) didn’t show up on my “billion-dollar-baby” list because its assets at least currently are under one billion:

BWFUND.org doesn’t seem to provide the EIN# (It’s 237225395) or Forms 990, so I did here (screen shot taken June 6 2018)

Tax exemption in general seems to enhance and magnify existing capitalism and perpetuate intergenerational wealth transfer for those in on it earlier, and defeat it (except “at-will” by those now in power) for those excluded from it.  

By switching from decade to decade, which demographics [race? gender? Residence — urban or rural, etc.] to elevate (“equalize” or re-balance the equation), thus compromising those not in current public/private power bloc favor, the coordinated “top-down,” “historically in power” organizations pay to maintain overall control while constantly pushing the positive PR (ongoing, in part through so many organization or project names with the word “justice” in them) the pretense of increasing justice or equal opportunity by empowering nonprofits — and multiplying their numbers, increasing their revenues — continues.

To resume the earlier sentence, “My purpose here is just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them….”

Most of those issues involve and /or are being publicized by “court-connected corporations” (often nonprofit) and networked advocacy organizations in different and representing seemingly warring fieldsmen’s [fathers’] rights [especially under 1996, 2005, 2010 etc. variously named* versions of “Welfare Reform,”, women’s rights [especially under the V.A.W.A., Violence Against Women’s Act with its associated USDOJ-administered grants], mothers’ rights, children’s rights (a term claimed by both genders and government and fields of specialty law, university centers, and so overused as to become almost meaningless as a concept), domestic/family violence and child abuse prevention.   And more…

*PRWORA (1996), Deficit Reduction Act (2005), American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“ARRA”), Claims Resolution Act (2010), ALL of which have maintained the “Temporary Assistance to Needy Families” (TANF) purposes of promoting marriage (and with it, “fatherhood”) and two-parent families for chidren.

Among the censored issues are the nature, extent, specific names, and agenda of these various organizations, particularly when some are positioned close to the courts through membership (i.e., judges or court administrators on board) and established cash flow “circuitry” developed  to, through, and from the courts over the years.

Another family court issue is the proliferation of mental health, social sciences, psychology, behavioral interventions (promoted, trained or technically-assisted, often also trademarked(™)  by private non-profits, typically) including even for “poverty reduction.” Too many to even list a sample, not all have the word “poverty” in their names, but I recently looked at:

(Povertyactionlab.org (J-PAL at MIT is technically, a center, not a nonprofit.  Then again, MIT itself operates as a private $21B assets, $401M gov’t grants, over 24,000 employees, and bank accounts, it seems, globally, nonprofit institution…(IRS Form 990 FY2015); Povertyaction.org, (Washington State, organized originally to respond to Welfare Reform/PRWORA!..website found only by looking for the one with a hyphen, next..) or (Yale economist Dean Karlan, founder) Poverty-Action.org), which (latest audited financial statements) overspent itself by about $4M, primary assets “Grants receivable” and primary liabilities “Deferred Revenues.” (May show images at the bottom of this post).

Behavioral interventions for almost anything, nationalized or globalized, is standard policy and VERY big business.  Then, evaluation and write-up of the behavioral interventions to assess where they worked, or didn’t, and what to try (upon population segments) next…

and almost any other critical issue likely to affect men, women, and children who may be processed through the family court systems by way of divorce, custody and visitation — and almost everyone else because the public supports those institutions.

So many professionals operate or are sponsored by nonprofits! Therefore (all of the above), access to reliability of databases for research (targeted organizations, organizations with certain fields, or in general, the size and scope of the entire sector) is at all points a public issue — even though nonprofits are themselves PRIVATELY operated.**

**Even if sponsored or instituted originally by the U.S. Congress (Legal Services Corporation,  or “CNCS” the Corporation for National and Community Services and others); even if restricted to boards of directors who are public servants (which several are), the “nonprofit sector” represents private sector; government entities, the public sector and with it, financial accountability TO the public.  Technically speaking, government entities are also “nonprofit” in that their profits (revenues, increases) are not taxed.  WE are taxed to contribute to their profits (revenues). If you think this through further, the whole economy is structured and organized around relationship to government and subjection to or exemption from taxation, and along with this, public/government entity’s duty to report — or no, or only minimal public duty to report.  (That, and of course central banking and control of currency).

Read this blog — I systematically go through one nonprofit after another (and specific ones, repeatedly) organized, so they say, to address some of the family court issues. These nonprofits tend to operate and collaborate in subject-matter clusters, some other kinds (“education, place-based philanthropy”) as well.

Then there’s the reality that “big-fish” (billion-dollar or close to it, total gross assets) nonprofits (major tax-exempt foundations, which is how the wealthy, individual families and businesses that they or their heirs tend to run, maintain more control of their income-producing assets/corporate empires: it only takes giving away about 5% of the whole to earn reduced in taxation on the rest. and, for 990PF (private foundation) filers, I understand that even administrative costs count towards that 5%.   Tax-exemption over time (years, or decades) for the most wealthy is also, through ability to hire and pay VERY well professionals in a variety of fields (especially social science, accounting, lawyers, psychology, political consultants, public relations, fund-raisers, etc.), a way to influence government when operated in a coordinated fashion (regionally, nationally, or internationally) with their own “kind” (i.e., of foundations).

CAPACITY:  Below the surface | over time: These “big-fish nonprofits” (major tax-exempt foundations) and plenty of the smaller ones simply by being organized “non-profit” and having sufficient revenues or assets which can be sold or transferred, can: reproduce themselves (fund spin-off corporations); transform themselves (rename/brand and even move ALL assets into a new legal entity container, same or different, with a new EIN#); stay in place but spread their roots (form “related” organizations, both for-profit and not-for profit (see “Schedule R” of any 2008ff IRS Form 990, for those organizations that have related organizations)); gestate/incubate projects for years without “giving birth” to them, i.e., without kicking them out from under the sponsoring organization’s name. Or they can “give birth” (spin off) a project into a separate business entity.  They can also “foster-parent “existing registered entities (although WHY, doesn’t make sense to me still) as “fiscal agents.” Some exist also and advertise themselves primarily to operate  “Donor-Advised Funds.”

And they can “sire” projects under other organizations by funding; (somewhat like having a surrogate parent).  Then there are the bought, sold or held assets: as it applies and if it’s part of the business/empire-building plan, they can also buy and sell investments, or being many separate organizations, and (this being less evident unless one studies their financials), load their assets in a synchronized fashion onto favored investments (making obviously the investment managers happy, and well-fed).

With all this going on consistently behind the scenes I wonder if anything can really be called “grassroots” movements any more.  Many things which seem grassroots, aren’t really — they are the opposite!  Calling it “grassroots” and “community-led” just has better curb appeal; it’s more politically correct.

Knowing and telling the difference between genuine “grassroots” and the manufactured appearance of it is all part of “responsible citizenhood.” So is recognizing “to-down” and “outside-in” influence-mongering.  AND, to do that, so long as the philanthropic, nonprofit sector continues, individual people, “the public” (at-large) needs — but does not have — consistently reliable, functional, and as comprehensive as possible databases (NOT just summary reports designed by others) to research — for free. We should also have some reliable concept, as hardly any database could be 100% complete, of about what % complete it is.

That, we just do not have.  It seems to be “the nature of things…” that we don’t.

Colorlines (a Race Forward project & website) May 30 2018, “Watch This Artist Celebrate Oakland Through Dance”

I found this recently, while looking at the progressive “Race Forward: The Center for Racial Justice Innovation” and (not identified as related on the tax returns, but so described on the website) “CSI” or “Center for Social Inclusion,” both New York corporations with a California address, although (as I recall) the California Secretary of State calls one “domestic” and the other “foreign,” but California Office of Attorney General labels both “New York.”  Perhaps the OAG listing doesn’t reflect legal domicile while the SOS one does?

“CSI” was started back in 2002 as a project under the Tides Center (San Francisco) a major tax-exempt foundation and with several major foundation backers, but finally split off under its own business filing and name only 10 years later, 2012 – NY legal domicile.

These two interesting entities came to my attention recently because of a “ColorLines” posts (on a young man celebrating Oakland through dance) on Twitter. It’s an innate reaction to look for the financials and (when it comes to on-line publications) the supporting business entity.  Website has professional looking, nice graphics and design (image quality on this blog will not reflect) — but doesn’t post its Ein#, Financial Statements, or Form 990s.  Several websites and projects are shown.

Below, the first pdf (link – click a 2nd time on page graphic to open it)is a charitable registration for one, the second, a 2016 tax return for the other.  Neither are huge in size (judging by revenues and assets) but the CSI in particular is well-positioned and networked.  The Form 990  explanation for Pt. IX, Line 11g “Professional Fees / Other expenses” for “Race Forward” has a $30,000 item for merger consultant, so although I don’t see the merger yet, it looks to be happening soon.

CSI EIN#900686577, Ctr4Social Inclusion (150 Bdway3303 NYC @2012) Calif OAG FoundingDox-68pp @2018May30 & RaceForward Cntr for RacialJusticeInnovatn (1981ff, LegDomicile NY but CPA Crosby+Kaneda in Oakland (for2016), EIN#942759879, 990FY2016 (YE Dec) 57pp (two p1s) 246169 from CalifOAG 2018M

CSI (Center 4 Social Inclusion EIN#900686577, NY) Form1023 (Charity Registratn-Calif) Details: Attchmt to Sched G/ Sucessor to CSI under Tides

CSI (Center 4 Social Inclusion EIN#900686577, NY) Form1023 (Charity Registratn-Calif) Details: Backing Foundations/ Sucessor to CSI under Tides

Four excerpts from the Charitable Registration (link to complete pdf, above) of “CSI” shows prior significant backing and interests in re-aligning/structuring society for less structural & institutional racism.  Despite the relatively small size, the connectivity (and again, relative fiscal (not filing separate tax returns) privacy until 2012 doing this through Tides Project no doubt helped reduce opposition or interference:

CSI (Center 4 Social Inclusion EIN#900686577, NY) Form1023 (Charity Registratn-Calif) Details: Allison Bannerman $25K leadership fellowship

CSI (Center 4 Social Inclusion EIN#900686577, NY) Form1023 (Charity Registratn-Calif) Details: Major projects/connections (E-GAP, (see footnotes) Transportatn 4 America etc.)

“Gestating for Years” as someone else’s project seems common practice as is using another nonprofit for a “fiscal agent.”  One family court related group, and one with central positioning since 1980, which has done this is “Domestic Abuse Intervention Programs” in Duluth, MN.  Its main project, going by that name on websites and in conferences AS IF it was a separate entity, was “Battered Women’s Justice Project” (BWJP).  Finally, in September 2013, BWJP got its own bona-fide name.

The advantage of not “coming out” as an entity while receiving backing, funding, staff allocations, and public relations (press, nonprofit) coverage as though it was an entity, for the promoters, is privacy.  Finances are contained within another organization’s tax returns or financial statements.  Exact backers are clouded. It helps bypass public analysis while often obtaining a public presence.

That Page is:

My purpose here was just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them.

First, this country does not, really seem to have reliable and consistent databases of private, nonprofit organizations on the state, or national, level.  Those it has are ℅ private organizations (themselves often nonprofit) and do not seem really designed to help the public track public funding in functional format.

These databases are certainly useful and at times amazing and illuminating, in scope and detail, but when and where they show up error-ridden, dysfunctional (or hacked!), it points to this significant question: how could we, the tax- and fees-paying public, ever hold private organizations accountable — demand accuracy, functionality, or even complete records — for the quality of database libraries when they exist in the private sector to start with?

We have some claim on government under “consent of the governed” and as taxed to contribut to its support.  To be able as residents and citizens to hold government (federal, state, or other) accountable, we MUST be able to discuss and demand it show its finances — but when these finances go into this large a private sector, it becomes, generally, a “take it on faith — ALL of it!” situation.

Second, a review of one database sorted by size in the “Total Assets” column highlights both

(1) By organization or institution type, where the largest nonprofit assets are (assuming this database is reasonably complete) and

(2) An amazing number of “wrong-names” among some of the largest ones (billion-dollar, hundred-million-dollar assets).  For example, several universities are characterized under truly odd names.  Examples below (look for color-annotated graphics of “990finder” tables).

These private, nonprofit organizations nationwide (and wider) are frequent and significant recipients of federal grants (and contracts). Some of the larger ones also contribute directly to favored projects AND to government entities nationwide, sometimes federally as their tax returns may show. Who, if anyone, has a grasp of the scope of economic cash-flow activity upon and for government entities (at all levels) within the country, or individual states in the USA? How could that ever be documented, graphed, and portrayed, objectively? Is any one even trying?

I am aware of three or four organizations (in addition to government-sponsored, state-based charitable registrations such as CharitiesNYS.com, shown below) which maintain databases where we might validate certain types of nonprofits which must file, providing potentially a chance to read those entities’ tax returns. All privately controlled (in addition to all governmentally controlled) databases, as software-supported and data-input+processing systems, of course are subject to restructuring over time, data quality control issues (data entry, records scanning and labeling, etc.), organization (chosen or omitted fields over time), size limits (how far back they go) and how flexible and functional they might be in light of this for their intended users (no doubt, ideally, subscribers/customers, not just ‘freeloaders,’ that is non-paying visitors) or the public.

One of them http://nccs.urban.org, a major, national clearinghouse project of The Urban Institute I just checked up on reports it is now in transition and refers readers to others, including some new to me, which led to a whole other exploration.  At the bottom of the page, it says:

For further information related to the nonprofit sector, please see:

I’ve used NCCS earlier in writing this blog, and Guidestar. I recently looked up the tax returns (background, originators, former name) of Guidestar, and I’ve been reporting all along on some of the “foibles” and user interface changes over time of “The Foundation Center.”  Giving USA is yet another whole database which I looked at, but which doesn’t fit in the scope of this post.  It should be its own post.  Charity Navigator, at the moment, I do not recall.

Please notice who the NCCS database mentions and does NOT mention as its potential consumers.  It does NOT mention as a type of interested person, basic citizens or taxpayers, although we ought to be highly interested in this field and its “scope of activities.”

Regarding governmentally controlled databases and reports generation, other issues arise when they are contracted out to private providers, often (due to the general field) corporations with a background in the massive supply/tracking and communications required for the military sector.

Total results: 3Search Again. The Urban Institute (and its “Employee benefit trust) as listed at FoundationCenter.org..

Urban Institute DC 2016 990 69 $173,485,875.00 52-0880375
Urban Institute DC 2015 990 55 $165,064,431.00 52-0880375
Urban Institute DC 2014 990 53 $163,329,359.00 52-0880375

(The Employee Benefit Trust only started in 1993, takes in contributions, pays an administrator $184K, last yr shown, no name shown, and distributes nearly the same amount of benefits…)

URBAN INSTITUTE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST DC 2016 990O 34 $1,300,757.00 52-6674346
URBAN INSTITUTE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST DC 2015 990O 28 $1,012,340.00 52-6674346
URBAN INSTITUTE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT TRUST DC 2014 990O 26 $962,262.00 52-6674346

It seems to me that some databases for private, non-profit entities are intended less for generic quality-control research efforts by the general public than to connect tax-exempt donors or funders and hopeful grantees.  When it comes to accountability for the use of government funds, where does this setup leave the rest of us, those not working in either sector government or non-profit sectors to which money naturally flows (by design) through tax-avoidance?

The well-established philanthropic and nonprofit sector exists by way of most people NOT being “nonprofit” but wage-earners whose paychecks are garnished or are decreased in advance (except as any may manage to work around it and pay later) for taxes before receipt.  This sector had a very early start with the rich and powerful promptly, it seems, after a system was set in place, by Amendment #16 to the U.S. Constitution ratified 1913, to tax everyone else (Generally speaking, there were some predecessors to pay off Civil War debt…)

In the US we can thank (?)  Beardsley Ruml (1894-1960) for this. I posted long ago, but see Wikipedia, HiWaay.net (“an information and network services provider in Alabama since 1995…“) (his famous 1946 address to the ABA on how government no longer needs taxation for revenues and the evils of the corporate income tax)  or from the Rockefeller Foundation Digital History.  Reposting now to remind us of the money poured early into pushing social science research in the USA and in which decades.

Early “philanthropy” right after the passage of the income tax through a Constitutional amendment, 1913..

…The LSRM (Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial), created in 1918 by John D. Rockefeller, Sr. in memory of his late wife, lacked a clear philanthropic vision. Ruml assumed the director’s role in 1922, and successfully transformed the Memorial. At his urging, the LSRM moved away from more traditional social welfare and emergency relief causes and instead channeled funds into the social sciences. Ruml pushed the Memorial to take a more scientific, research-oriented approach, with a focus on grantmaking that would strengthen social science research at universities while also encouraging practical applications of that research toward the improvement of social problems. He also played a key role in establishing the Social Science Research Council (SSRC) in 1923, which worked to foster interdisciplinary collaboration among the social scientific disciplines. Ruml remained director of the LSRM until 1929, when the Memorial was incorporated into the Rockefeller Foundation. The social science work of the LSRM was taken over by the RF’s new Division of Social Sciences, and LSRM research associate Sydnor Walker became the Division’s Assistant Director. The groundwork laid by Ruml and his staff continued to influence the Foundation’s social sciences program long after the LSRM itself ceased to exist.

Ruml’s reputation as an “idea man” earned him several prominent academic, business, and advisory roles. Shortly after leaving the LSRM, Ruml became Dean of Social Sciences and Professor of Education at the University of Chicago. In 1934 he left Chicago to become Treasurer of R.H. Macy and Company; he held that position from 1934 to 1945, and served as Chairman of the Board from 1945 to 1951. Ruml was also appointed to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s planning board in 1935, and became a director of the Federal Reserve of New York in 1937. He served as Chairman of the Federal Reserve board from 1941 to 1946. Today, Ruml is best known for coming up with the idea for the American pay-as-you-go income tax scheme; Congress passed a version of the plan in 1943.

In looking for “pay-as-you-go-income-tax” and “Beardsley Ruml,” I found a WW2 Cartoon site and was surprised to see my own (and the only one still shown, almost 5 yrs later..) “pingback”  — Nov. 14, 2013, called “More ‘Fun with Funds’ from the California State Manual)…

LGH (my) Twitter May 30 2018 comment ~ BITLY 2BZT1N re Court Transcript Fees – ‘Look up the FUND#’

That post isn’t “pretty” (formatting) but it should illustrate the proliferation of statewide funds, their names, #s, and authorizations, and for some, when they were abolished at that time (incl. TANF, Family Law Trust Fund, Healthy Families, Domestic Violence, Child Abuse, etc.). There’s even a “Transcript Reimbursement Fund” 0410  And 0771, “Court Reporters’ Fund“(The topic of transcript fees, in California, arose in recent Twitter thread around protests of court practices — but I saw no references to any existing fund within those tweets and suggested concerned people look it up. How could this awareness not even come up in a casual mention? People irritated about the charges should first get information about how much has been accumulated!


Do we not realize that fees for services by governments must go into appropriate funds, those funds have names and typically numbers.  Government accounting is FUND accounting….

Generally, website then was “DOF.CA.Gov/accounting/ manual_of_state_funds” where “DOF” is “Dept. of Finance” obviously..  The index leads to one-page forms organizing descriptions of the funds.  I’m sure from there, anyone might inquire what are the balances of those funds over time and more related information.  IF the purpose is protesting against the charges, why not reference these terms for general information and public benefit, better engaged citizens, etc.? (Images at the bottom of this post).

Here are two cartoons from that WW2 Cartoons page:

WW2Cartoons.org, March 1943, posted by “carmelbob” (Click image to enlarge, or here to access that page

WW2Cartoons.org, March 1943, posted by “carmelbob” (Click image to enlarge, or here to access that page

Among the websites providing access to data are: CitizenAudit.org, Guidestar.org, FoundationCenter.org (one I use most regularly throughout this blog, despite its known organization name “flubs”), or (used more, formerly) the National Center for Charitable Statistics provided through The Urban Institute. (“NCCS.Urban.org“) .. Remember a website name isn’t a 1:1 or necessarily even any correspondence to the supporting organization. Sometimes they match, sometimes they do not, but WHO provides it is always relevant.

(Next image simply shows where on the originating PAGE this post sprang from — right under several images on HMRF issues;  portions of the images shown in the next screen-print, just for a visual point of reference on the “Censorship by Omission” page and a verbal one for the reference to “On-line tools” which is continued in this (blue borders, light blue-green background) section:

[This image is simply to locate where on originating Page my “The Availability of… Footnotes” post fits in..]

(**By “on-line tools,” I do not mean primarily social media repetitions and for-profit journalistic*** storytelling focused on the experiential, quoting a few experts, and keeping readers coming (readerships up, which affects — if it applies — advertisers).By “on-line tools,” I am talking terms, vocabulary, words which would give a clue that other worlds of information relevant to the current situation exist, and should these clues be leaked into the average storytelling on domestic violence, child abuse, child SUPPORT, marriage, divorce and/or family court issues be explored to evaluate whatever promotion or cause is in one’s face at the moment).  WORDS LIKE: grants, funding streams, nonprofits, businesses, “court-ordered classes,” tax returns, investments, financial statements, and in general, a functional awareness that our world and our public institutions can be viewed from functional categories — public or private, for-profit, not-for profit, etc.  ***(Not-for-profit sponsored journalism — and there’s plenty of it — a different matter. But for that, the writing must reflect sponsors’ intents — it can’t generally, be called fully independent, however, interesting and well-presented it may be.)

The concept of “grants” naturally links to legislation authorizing them, which SHOULD link (in our thinking) to at least a general, basic awareness of how various federal (and state, ideally) departments are organized, and how they function,  how they categorize themselves  — as recipients of public (and private) revenues directly (through a variety of ways, especially including “taxation!”), AND as grantmakers and contractors.

Where there are grants from federal, state or other governments — typically run through various departments and THEIR subdivisions, offices, etc.  —  there should be by now (consider about when the Internet and computers got going — at the government, military, university and law firm levels basically before the rest of the public as individuals) databases showing these and for accountability, connectivity to some other form of objective reporting (data, databases) on the grantees’ business (or government) identities and compliance with state or (if tax-exempt, also IRS) requirements.

Much of my blog comes from actively using the databases I could find and noticing how they did (or did not connect) where provided by government or private entities.

Here’s one example (unfiltered, sorted by size, in several images) which reveals at least generally speaking in which categories or types of tax-exempt (an IRS designation!) corporations the largest ones around are. 

Separate from the next sort, this one was FY2015 only, 990s only. The data provider is itself a nonprofit called simply “Foundation Center,” $40M Total Assets, Founded 1956 in NY, EIN# 131837418. (<==FY2016 990) Notice it cannot or does not display all the results, just a quantified fraction of them (disclaimer circled in purple).

Total results: 3Search Again.

Foundation Center NY 2016 990 59 $40,997,926.00 13-1837418
Foundation Center NY 2015 990 49 $45,160,090.00 13-1837418
Foundation Center NY 2014 990 70 $41,125,518.00 13-1837418


Foundation Center EIN# 131837418, Form990 Results (40M, 45M, 41M) 2014-2016 (YE Dec) searched 2018June5

The same information in form of a screenshot (above table provided because it’s interactive — you can read attached tax returns by clicking on organization name). Screenshot freezes it in time. Obviously, the FY2017 return (Search results done Early June 2018) aren’t posted on this database yet. They may be on the entity’s own website, along with (its summary says) audited financial statements..

I think a separate post on the Foundation Center is in order and so am not including more screen prints here in anticipating of providing it. It has been around since 1956. No question its intent is to expand and support the philanthropic sector; one-third of its contributions are from persons providing more than 2% of total support (per a Schedule A) but (Part VIII Line 2, vs. Line 1) from “program service revenues” at least in the last five years, are higher than contributions.  I’ve posted just three images from its FY2016 returns, Page 1 (top) and two details from Schedule O.

A reminder  (re: the Wealthy Pledge) for all wealthy subject to taxation, giving away anything is a tax benefit supported by the public who doesn’t operate in this manner, i.e., often the working poor or middle class whose (USA at a minimum) wages are garnished to support their own governments. The wealthy often got and stay that way through arranging and distributing their holdings (affairs) over more than one corporation or enterprise, and in general to avoid paying any more taxes than necessary.

Charitable donations in exchange for reduced taxation AND (especially when operating coordinated with others “for the public good”) expected and intended ability to influence public policy in privately organized and determined directions (which are supposed to be “on the same page” as the needs and interests of those who exert less direct influence on their own governments)  — isn’t really “charity.”  It’s payment for an exchange of privileges, primarily with government.  Government benefits also by lowered accountability for where its funds go.

The following data could use more drill-downs (write down that #EIN, search the database, and look at the resulting returns — and if shown, related entity websites) (Feel free to do your own! I may later.), but I trust showing it in this state may wake up some readers to the size, scope and nature of (per this database by Foundation Center which, I just showed above, calls it the largest in the USA) of “how large.”  I picked FY2015 not 2016 or 2017 because experience has told me, those IRS records aren’t all uploaded that fast.  It probably includes more than a more recent year would’ve.

It’s astounding for the size, and I still need to write Foundation Center and ask why, how so many mislabeled entities show up for some of the largest ones around.  HOW does one get a label of “Angeltree Prison Fellowship” for what is in fact, Princeton University? Is this a factor of software?  Would the same mislabeling apply in their various regional centers, community foundations, and educational institutions too?

Not all people can afford the “product” or subscriptions which has been (along with significant donations from interested persons) the mainstay of the Foundation Center over the years — according to its FY2016 return (link provided above, twice…).

Image #1 of 4 ($27.6-$80B*): Year=2015, no other search filter, results sorted Large to Small by Total Assets. *The $250B one at top is a strange case I looked at (mid-April when I did the sort) (but am not describing here).


Image #2 of 4 ($14.4 -$22.8B): Year=2015, no other search filter, results sorted Large to Small by Total Assets..


Image #3 of 4 ($10.6 -$14.2B): Year=2015, no other search filter, results sorted Large to Small by Total Assets.. I should have also marked “Washington University” (MO, $11.2B, EIN# 430635611). I’m also curious about “Network for College Success” in IL  just under it) but for limited purpose of this post, didn’t look at it. It may have been previously referenced on this blog, when I was looking closer at public education transformation 501©3 networks.


Image #4 of 4 ($8.4 -$10.3B): Year=2015, no other search filter, results sorted Large to Small by Total Assets. *filter, results sorted Large to Small by Total Assets.. (Check EIN# above; I marked universities in the top Total Assets results, so JohnsHopkins $9B, EIN# 941655673 in (Baltimore)MD should’ve also been marked.


While there are several private providers of uploaded IRS tax returns (apart from individual companies which may opt to disclose them on their own websites, and apart from those found by name search or other type of search on state-wide charitable registry databases such as CharitiesNYS.com or (for California)  “rct.doj.ca.gov” (Verification page.  Url there abbreviated), the one I use most, provided by Foundation Center and reachable  as “990finder.foundation center.org” here (its home url page recently changed again; that link redirects to the new one). It seems to be well-repsected in philanthropic circles, yet (at least at the free vs. subscription level — I’m not a subscriber) is unbelievably error-ridden in the primary, typical search category most people without access to other identifiers (like the entity’s EIN#) will use) — “organization name”!

The image below with the table shows three different WRONG names provided by the Foundation Center, somehow (want to write them and ask how, why?) for a $14B, then $16B, then $17B (billion) total gross assets NON-profit more commonly known as the University of Pennsylvania (or more formally, “Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania”).  Notice all three have the same EIN# therefore represent the same organization (as attached tax returns would show if clicked on from search results page).

Taken from an older post on another billion-dollar-baby foundation (or one of several) controlled by the Annenbergs, known (at least in my blogging) to have also poured funds into the “AISR” (Annenberg Institute for School Reform) at the elite Brown University in Rhode Island. “AISR” had a corporate record I could find, but I never found any related tax return — why not, the question hasn’t been answered yet.  Yet this family line and foundation has been pouring millions into restructuring and reforming the nation’s public school systems! One might ask why is this necessary to do without filing tax returns….

So databases matter, and can reveal or conceal.  I question why the Foundation Center can’t get its search results page Organization Names to match the tax returns uploaded without false organization names.  The logical question here is –is this human error or somehow electronic “OCR” (Optical Character Recognition,” scanning, or some other electronic (automated) system error. It would seem to be less than “accidental” when the underlying returns have no obvious features matching the false names…If so, that of course leads to other questions such as why might any humans be directed to or on their own initiative (whether employed by or contracting for) such a nonprofit screw up so bad and so often (speaking from my personal experience, it comes up often).

Awareness of governments as grantmakers should naturally lead to awareness of historic legislation over time appropriating the money, which sooner or later should force awareness of the evolving nature of government offices and divisions (and where it’s been trending) Examples:  THE largest US grant-making department Health and Human Services, (“HHS”) gained that name under President Reagan in 1980. Underneath it, 1991, came “Administration of Children and Families” (HHS/ACF), spun out (so to speak) from the former “HEW” (Health Education and Welfare).

Another example:  Underneath the US Department of Justice, the Office on Violence Against Women  (DOJ/OVW) was formed only in 1994 and to implement the 1994-authorized Violence Against Women Act.

…More 990-O images from Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait).

I’m not pretending to understand all of this, just making images of the latest (990finder) tax return available.  See organization website “ArabFund.org” for more info.  Its program service revenues primarily come from, looks like, interest? on loans extended, or possibly repayments of those loans.  It sold $22M in securities (at no cost) FY2016, and the membership is of actual countries, that is member “states.”  Among its “Other liabilities” is $116M “Due to Palestine.”  Interesting balance sheet etc.  I’m posting, FYI, not interpreting (nor qualified to in this case). I read tax returns (primarily US-based organizations) every day; this one reads differently and being so large, and having been around since 1968, located in the Middle East, I felt it important to reference.  Pg 1 image re-posted here to get it started….

And More from the same tax return, but presented in an “image gallery” (not individually).  Click on any image, and (you can) navigate to the others.  I annotated but provided no captions.

Last section:

From “Fun with Funds” Post Nov. 14, 2013 which lists them:

Transcript Reimbursement Fund” 0410 (The topic arose in recent Twitter threads around protests of court practices — but I saw no reference to the existing fund within those tweets, and suggested someone look it up…).And 0771, “Court Reporters’ Fund

(A chance encounter writing current post brought up this 2013 one again, which I’d been looking for in another context…)

Fund 0410, Top

Fund 0410, bottom half

(Above & below: Fund 0410 blue borders, Fund 0771 red bordes. One full page is displayed in two images (top half, bottom half) to preserve visibility. Results in short overlap of content):

cf my Nov 14, 2013 post ‘More ‘Fun w Funds’ –‘ Calif Court Reporters Fund (2015ff) #0771 [BOTTOM HALF] Upon Abolishmt, excess goes to General Fund

cf my Nov 14, 2013 post ‘More ‘Fun w Funds’ –‘ Calif Court Reporters Fund (2015ff) #0771 [TOP HALF] Upon Abolishmt, excess goes to General Fund

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: