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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).


The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.

(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).

(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???

re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).


(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)

Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):


Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

*[VFFI is an initiative, not nonprofit (it seems), started 2008 as a project of the City of Richmond Health District , Thus it’s government-entity supported– explore the site.  No direct link to Mincy Bio evident there from the home page; I found it through internet search on ‘Fragile Families Initiative). ]

family1Research has revealed the social and financial link between father absence and family fragmentation as a core issue facing the City of Richmond. The break down of the family is a major contributor to poverty, poor health outcomes, academic underachievement, crime abuse and a growing financial commitment from taxpayers. Increased father involvement is one solution in the overall strategy to strengthen families.

In 2008, the Richmond City Health District launched the Richmond Family & Fatherhood Initiative, originally called Man Up. The Richmond Family & Fatherhood Initiative is a city wide collaborative effort of several agencies, organizations and individuals dedicated to the mission of “creating a community culture connecting fathers to their families…”

That RWJF 2014 Program Results Study, relatively short, again shows intent to connect families, not separate them, and the Ford Foundation as largest funder – outside the U.S. Federal Government — for this 1998-2011 project.

My point being, the awareness of HHS involvement in “violence prevention” as involving, if not just about equated with, reconnecting fathers to children (despite expressed concerns for keeping Mothers/Children as an intact unit when there’d been DV or Child Abuse, as Edleson & Schechter’s 1994 brief said (incidentally, around this time I was busy dealing with battering myself, with young children present, and knew nothing about these matters!  Neither, apparently, did most of the people I was asking for help from, either…).

Some quick excerpts also show intent to re-connect fathers with their children as core to stopping the social problems and a KEY program component. The first is a free-standing image (Subtitle: “Funding”), the other four are in gallery format with some of my annotations [click one to start, and cursor or click again to move to the next], and the link to the whole document is here and, with its title, in preceding paragraph.

My point being — the ABA and its subdivisions concerned with families and children know about the existence of NCJFCJ, the Wingspread Conferences, the Greenbook Initiatives, basically, the so-called “domestic violence constituency” and what’s meant by that — AND they know also about the AFCC.

That Jeffrey Edleson, in a School of Social Work at the major research institution, THE University of Minnesota (now, FYI, he’s at the University of California-Berkeley School of Social Welfare, an original basis early on (see “Meyer Elkin” personal history — some links on my sidebar of a 1994? interview with him) came specifically from UC Berkeley).

The late Susan Schechter, above, was as I recall associated with the University of Iowa, similar school (of Social Work) within it.  To presume that NEITHER Edleson nor Schechter knew — back in 1994 and/or soon after — of the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship, the Robert Wood Johnson’s sponsorship, and the US Federal Government’s NICHD sponsorship of, specifically, the Fragile Families Initiative, or that “Strengthening” them (as in “Strengthening Fragile Families”) meant increasing paternal involvement — with potential ramifications for mothers, whether or not formerly battered, with protecting their children FROM those male batterers — admittedly, not ALL batterers are male, or biological fathers of their children — is simply ridiculous.

Anyone aware of the Fragile Families Initiative is reasonably also aware, as this simple 2014 report above (10 years after that 1994 Wingspread Conference — almost (the former was in June, the other in late January) was being run by the Garfinkel (Columbia) / McLanahan (Princeton) husband-wife dynamic duo, with involvement from others at Columbia (Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, School of Education, Ronald D. Mincy, School of Social Work), as this shows, about HHS’ fatherhood funding and its connection to 1996 Welfare Reform (restructuring of stated purpose and provision of “Block Grants to States” (TANF) and more.

For these reasons — the major universities know about each other and colleagues in far more ways than the average citizen does — with access to common journals, competition at times for grants from the same sources, and publications on similar topics year after year — and AS TO THESE TOPICS, Jeffrey Edleson, in publishing so extensively on and evaluating “Batterers Intervention Programming” to somehow protect women, while admitting back in 1994, the studies hadn’t proved that it did, ALSO reasonably knew about the developing fathers’ rights movement.  If nothing else, through his many-year involvements at UMN with Oliver Williams, Ph.D. (commonly associated with the IDVAAC there.  A recent website – I posted on it in 2017 (as I recall; searchable) said the IDVAAC started in 1993.

This non-entity (which IDVAAC is) within — you guessed it — the School of Social Work at UMN — also through personnel had ongoing and consistent involvement with other fathers’ rights groups and funding over the years, specifically as to the involvement of Johnny Rice II, whose LinkedIn summary is so complete at this point, it doesn’t even need to reference IDVAAC.  But he was involved while it was active, and while also active in some of the positions mentioned here, including at least one which involved grants oversight of “responsible fatherhood funding” for Maryland — i.e., public civil service.

Johnny Rice II Linkedin, Annotated (pardon the fine print — not much space there!) Second yellow comment: “CFUF (Baltimore) =a major player (and an HHS grantee as I recall) in this field. ~~>>“Responsible Fatherhd” + a DV interventn program” (likely Batterers Intervention or Sup. Visitation-related) combo = STRATEGIC “coup.” As in the for-profit corporate world, getting on the boards and/or key positions can also be — and in the “DV Constituency” field, it has been — part of a takeover strategy. It’s incremental over time, and disbursed, but fathers’ rights activists have over time increasingly positioned themselves on DV boards; and feminist (so-called) leadership has said, “come-on in.” Here, however, CFUF was specifically focused on men, but involved in DV programming also, which as a “thought leader” (top of LinkedIn” trainer and educator, the individual seems proud of.

You can see within both the organizations named and the work done on just this linked in, at least one example (there are plenty around) where fathers’ special-interest organizations (including those that may/do get HHS designated fatherhood (“HMRF”) grants, whether directly or through state pass-throughs) to also stay active within the domestic violence community, including doing trainings on it.

In doing this “supervised visitation” remains a given, a constant, and a focus, as does batterers’ intervention, re-entry, and similar programming.

It’s no secret to many that “supervised visitation” originally intended for dangerous parents with records of abuse or threats to kidnap or kill (etc.) has now — through the family court facilitation — been successfully (sic) turned against mothers, and used to extort THEM in their attempts to function AS MOTHERS and protect their own children…

I understand a lot of the activities dealing with justice and prison reform, and as such, facilitating paternal involvement when “the state” (so to speak, or in reality) has prevented it through a culture of disproportionate representation of minority (black, Latino) males in prison, is in large part addressing racism.  However, as a woman and mother I have to note, I do not believe that one form of discrimination should be replaced by another, i.e., sexism.  We are fighting our our lives, too!   To have fathers’ rights organizations any more than faith-based insisting on their place at roundtables and as T&TA (Training & Technical Assistance) providers, displacing others who belong on there and are not academically indebted or otherwise obligated to keep a “professional courtesy silence” on the role of the marriage/fatherhood obsession (and funding), and as such would be more independent voices and members of the “clientele” these roundtables exist, so it’s said, to help protect — is, well, a strategy, all right.  But counterintuitive to the claimed purposes.


Mr. Rice was appointed to the IDVAAC Steering Committee, says a Winter 2010 Newsletter “Assembling the Pieces,” put out by it (under UMN) (see about p.6).  Currently Steering Committee website, with names, affiliations, and thumbnail photos also lists him, affiliation, the Vera Institute of Justice in D.C.  He is one of only three men on the committee in this list, with Oliver Williams PhD (MN) and “Dr. Robert L. Hampton” (Professor in Dept. of Sociology, Tennessee State U.).  Some women are listed affiliation “IDVAAC,” but as I point out at the bottom of this annotated image, IDVAAC-Newsltr-Vol 11#1, Winter 2010, Assembling-the-Pieces-Winter-2010 (scribd #64020099) p6 (JRiceII page) only“IDVAAC” isn’t an entity (unless it’s somehow a fictitious business name of some other entity, such as the University) and so cannot have employees, consultants, or a bank account in its own name.

To keep this post still short, I’m leaving the links and not posting more images from them.  Please read while those links are still valid for more understanding, particularly the informative “Assembling the Pieces.”

We are progressively learning and I am continuing to document and post (social media and here)  who will NOT talk about these things in association with “custody of children going to batterers” as if a problem of junk science in the field of psychology, and correctable of flawed practices through more training — while making sure to NOT to reference historic premier privately-controlled nonprofit organization trainers such as the AFCC and the NCJFCJ (or track where they stand on the grantee track from HHS or DOJ)  — and not caused in any way by the weight of funding aimed at eliminating single motherhood absent involved fathers (etc.).

We should also know by now (I certainly do) that part of the JOB of the domestic violence statewide coalitions is to dominate the field and NOT talk about the marriage/fatherhood funding, especially not while helping clients file protective orders they’re about to lose — along with, too often, contact with their own children — the moment, or for some, more moments (like a few years of prolonged litigation for preserving that protection) — they hit the family courts.  For that, see my other earlier posts on the “CADV” or the “CFDA’s” involved on those statewide coalitions.

Talking not only about the funding, but also the accountability for where it went after distributed (i.e., leakage in the grants pipelines) facilitating, well, RICO, money-laundering, and other not-so-good practices (I wouldn’t call them “flawed” but just corrupt)… is beyond a no-fly zone in the on-line discussions and socially.  BUT — Why not look at what it would take to close those doors FIRST — THEN, if it makes you happy (and on your own dime & time) talk about theories of why custody evaluators and judges believe what they do?  Huh??

It’s obvious that a dumbed-down population willing to accept irrational explanations for “the way things are” is easier to manage (control) than people aware of the above material, By reading one really can see that certain tight-knit academic communities would rather keep their studies and career paths going than acknowledge there might be something wrong with the same ethically let alone logically for the problems being studied.

Who forces them to listen to “to the contrary” opinions, not NICHD-multi-million-dollar grant funded in exchange for using certain terminologies on a multi-city study? Right now, it seems, no one.

Please make time for your self to crack a few tax returns (USA — Form 990s) and just read the categories of revenue and expenses, compare this to assets (let alone income-producing assets).   Basic number sense (distinguishing billions from millions….) and labeling (reading category titles) helps; if you don’t have it yet, keep reading and acquire it… gets easier with practice… though I feel no less annoying dealing with the fuzzy image quality provided by the various places you can look them up.


Having just learned about the (apparently recent) “Centre for Public Impact” I went looking for its legal domicile and, if in the USA, you may guess what else I’d like to see.  Not found yet, but see the date on the URL announcing recent experiments in Pittsburgh.  Following the lead of the Ford Foundation conditioning its help for the poor on a willingness to run random experiments on them (see “RCTs” now popular).  Also, “Impact Investing” and similar terms….  or so it seems.


Here’s an August, 2017 article in “GovInsider” which names its Executive Director but (strategically) avoids listing in which country the CPI is domiciled.  And to be a foundation, one has to be domiciled (registered) SOMEwhere to exist.  It discusses how AI is going to change governments and many fascinating things — except that one key piece of data on the Boston Consulting Groups’ wonderful “non-profit” (meaning in SOME local it’s not being taxed on any profits) foundation:  https://govinsider.asia/inclusive-gov/adrian-brown-centre-for-public-impact/  

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina business).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

CPI was sued by Public Impact (2016, Massachusetts) See Footer disclaimer on its website! https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160314957

CPI sued by Public Impact (2016, Massachusetts) https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160314957 (another search still declines to ID its geographic registration)

CPI sued by Public Impact (2016, Massachusetts) https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160314957

CPI sued by Public Impact (2016, Massachusetts) so its home country is revealed (Switzerland) https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20160314957

//LGH Dec. 5, 2018.  Just curious….

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

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

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

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: