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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Mix ‘n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019)

leave a comment »

The moral of this story?   What’s my point in this post? 

Mix’ n Match Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations Use Them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund Them…(June 16, 2019) (Short-link ending “-9ZS.”  About 15,000 words; about a third of them subject to “sudden post-publication re-allocation”),

(By definition, almost, any post this length needs about one-third, one-half or even two-thirds moved elsewhere!  We’ll see!  Tags to be added within 48 hours, I want to make sure tags naming nonprofits include any related EIN#s).

This post has been a long time in draft– in fact it stretched I see from Memorial Day in late May right up to Fathers’ Day mid-June, today.  Finding a stopping point on endlessly connected issues, some of them disturbing, new-to-me examples of the same theme, was a challenge.

I’m writing these first paragraphs just before publishing. They are my personal expression and reactions, not the main substance, the arguments and supporting exhibits/illustrations below.  I recommend just reading straight through them.  It was written in one sitting, copyedited and developed some, developed sections off-ramped for further detailing.

My  arguments begin with a Q&A “Think About It!” section in this color and after that, it’s showtime.

When you have read even further down and see these two images (together, my last ten posts from the sidebar), you are near to the starting point of this post…they will be on the right side.

Some of the showtime introduces in detail (texts, links, images) certain off-ramped material which has gripped my attention.  I am increasingly shocked by the blatant omission, misdirections, indications of new age terminology spun off more ancient forms of spirituality behind backers of “early childhood development,” some aspects of which definitely raise a few red-flag alerts on the touchy/feely healing-from-trauma involving children aspects.  (Somatic Meditation, Integrative Manual Therapy Meditating with the Body®

In the Tibetan Buddhist tradition, the body is considered the gateway to enlightenment—to discover the body is to discover awareness—to uncover the most direct and effective path to profound spiritual transformation.

Commentary:  That’s fine, but spiritual transformation should not be the goal of public policymaking aimed at institutions which will be and are sponsored by U.S. federal agencies.  We have no official religion on this country — not “new age” not Buddhism or Hinduism, nor the Judaeo-Christian-Islamic-kind.  Whether from the one aspect, sex and the body is “bad” except as religiously certified (and women are second-class citizens), or sex and the body are not only good, but a pathway to the divine, a debate that’s older than the Bible, I think the aspects of personal boundaries is a live issue, especially where children are involved with teachers and in association with university-based child care clinics or centers.

Neither viewpoint should be imposed upon or snuck in the back door of public-funded programs under the label of science — which, face it, public schools and Head Start / Early Head Start programs (along with many others) certainly are; in part because very religious people continue to flock towards situations where they can impact, influence, and mentor others:  the fields of psychology, psychoanalysis and interfacing with traumatized adults and children attract people of such mindsets.  The coaching/mentoring field is full of organizations and associations run by gurus and evangelists for their own world views.  NOT my main concern in this situation, though.  Lack of accountability and adequate terminology to track the accounts, is.

This topic came up (this time) along with FrameWorks Institute and Harvard University’s new Center on the Developing Child only because the Hemera Foundation, among its top investors (ranked by cumulative amounts of donations) was an unknown to me.  Understandably — no website up, only formed in 2005, and registered outside the United States run by someone who’d spent much of her young and adult life also outside the U.S.

(Blog Admin/Writer) (I) decided on reviewing this years later to miniaturize the font for this section.  It may affect photo layouts.//LGH))

Even without that fascinating, and due to Caroline E. Pfohl‘s (Wellesley, Wharton, London School of Economics) Hong-Kong connection, historically interesting aspect (relating to the Hemera Foundation incorporated 2007? in Bermuda (listed alpha, it’s Reg. # 40623, but you cannot view without log-in), but run byHemera Regnant, LLC’ in Boulder Colorado.

Ms. Pfohl at one point (? per Philanthropy Impact) was the daughter in law in a very wealthy and well-known Hong Kong family (and philanthropists) line and involved with the Robert H.N. Ho family foundation and was chairman of it until 2010 (See image nearby). Ms. Pfohl now seems married to “Dr. Reggie Ray”  Dharma Ocean Institute director also in Boulder. ||  What about donations to fake entities (also discovered), ongoing involvements with public/private alliances (some even called that in their business names), all creating major spin?

Robert H.N. Ho Family Foundation 2010 Press release (Appointing successor to Chairman Caroline Pfohl-Ho, gives a bit of foundation context. See also Hemera Fndtn (Bermuda-based, U.S. Registered agent via an LLC in Boulder, Colorado is Ms. Pfohl who seems now re-married. Hemera Foundation (previously unknown to me) listed as a top funder at Harvard University’s Center for the Developing Child, established in early 2000s.

**See pp. 27-28 of “Investing in  Bermuda, A Piece of Paradise | Opportunity for Foreign Investors” which specifically names Hemera Foundation along with Atlantic Philanthropies and others as among those helping start the Bermuda Community Foundation formed during the 2008 financial crisis, and the inset on the next page about how, conveniently, how some charities need not register in Bermuda. Or,  (2015) (“Zero to Three in Bermuda” (Hemera working through that Bermuda Community Foundation, with a BSMART1 Foundation: brain science, early neurodevelopment, etc.)) Hemera Foundation also contributing to Harvard University’s Center mentioned below.

“Hemera” is the name of a Greek goddess of the day, with her brother “Aether” god of the light, both of them sons of night and darkness. (Source: GreekLegendsandMyths.com) They are said to pre-date the gods of the Pantheon (Mt. Olympus, etc.).  Interesting choice for a foundation name.


Here’s a quote** from that “showtime” on off-ramped material section, below the first Q&A “Think About It!” blue section on this post and borrowing (bright-yellow highlit) a question from it.  Definitely one to keep an eye on, which is hard because of all the non-entities citing their famous donors, and at least one of their famous donors, primarily a grantmaking (front) based in Kansas with strong Buffet family flavoring (plus, as typical in the field, Annie E. Casey Foundation and others).

**When I say “here” I mean, after some text and images setting that up in effect adding about 1,500 words, after I just took out a similar amount earlier today.  After two days of that routine, I’m publishing it WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get):  I have other things to do!  These last additions/introductions I’ve marked with a different background color and a bit smaller font:

Previewing that quote (previewing other material), you can see how crowded the field of early childhood development is getting, and how trademarking, streamlining, and multi-media marketing is being used to keep it flush with (often untraceable) cash and expert advice.  And media experts to “translate” the expert advice faster into justification for structural change of policy making.  Good grief…

The FrameWorks Institute, Inc. is bred into the Harvard (non-entity) Center and has been enthusiastically embraced by another multi-holding enterprise/name-changing foundation based (mostly) in Canada, as shown at “Alberta Wellness Initiative.”  THIS scenario effectually shows who is running public policy, and how they do it — once you start looking closer, it’s evident this takes place in some of the most brazenly unaccountable and (my opinion) arrogant manners, which practices seem to be just a normal part of the operators’ career curves. Some key names keep recurring, but they are not all familiar names. However, they tend to be in familiar industries…

If you can, somewhat, remember Coril Holdings Ltd., Ron Mannix (3rd generation in this private family business from Canada, Nancy Mannix, Norlien Foundation (old name, until 2015), Palix Foundation (new name, and as recognized on the Harvard Center), Harvard University, Frameworks Institute (naturally) and what country, province, or state they’re registered in (and since when), that’s at least a start…  Palix  was Norlien then, funded by the Mannix(es), who run Coril, and Alberta is of course a Canadian Province.

Frameworks Institute’s founder Susan Nall Bales previously worked at the Benton Foundation (See William Benton, 1900-1973, briefly a U.S. Senator who stood up to Sen. Joe McCarthy (<~History.com, see also HUAC, House Un-American Activities Committee) (or the one-paragraph Senate.gov../ArtandHistory version); Benton & Bowles, publisher of Encyclopedia Britannica, i.e., media-related wealth), Voice of America and definite visionary for the role of communications, foundations, and education reform at the university level.  His son Charles Benton (d. 2015) established that foundation in 1981 and daughter Adrianne B. Furniss carries it on.  Or, as under FAQs,:

The Foundation was officially incorporated as a 501(c)(3) private foundation in 1948 under the name William Benton Foundation. In 1981, it was restructured and renamed as the Benton Foundation. back to top

(Image display, but not content, altered Feb. 14, 2022 to correct right-margin over-run, and to enlarge).

(Don’t confuse “InnovationsInternational.org with “InternationalInnovation.org” please…)

I just found an “International Innovation.org” website reference to three of the above names (see three-image gallery above, which excerpts include an insert on how governments can buy outcomes (referring to the development of their human resource stock, i.e., kids and future workers).  However, says the main website, “II” the website and publication closed in 2016; now, see “ResearchMedia.com.”

In other words, media consultancies sure help spread the good news.  Namechanges (etc.) hinder the average person not in on it from keeping up with anything BUT the PR (positive press).

Last-minute find here, from the Clinton Whitehouse Archives:  Speaker bio from  May 2, 2000 White House Conference on Teenagers shows Susan Nall Bales as a speaker, and Frameworks Institute as the project of another Institute, as well as some of her other connections, including National Funding Collaborative for Violence Prevention (nearby image).

Other conference speakers (link to this list accessible from the link I provided above) included Geoffrey Canada of Rheedlen Family Centers (later? Harlem Children’s Zone); Ken Casey of National Center on Fathering, and some other names I recognize.

The nearby image shows who (which foundations) were funding “Frameworks Institute” before it incorporated, which seems to have progressed naturally out of another organization’s “project.”

The “Caroline and Sigmund Schott Foundation” has come up on this blog some years ago in connection with my studies on public school transformation networks.  The Alliance for Excellent Education, one of them, was funded by CMP Media, Inc. executives Gerard and Lilo Leeds (The Schotts were Mrs. Leeds’ parents, also Nazi refugees). Their children are carrying on the cause.

TheNational Funding Collaborative for Violence Prevention (<~Oct. 2000 commissioned (by NFCVP) Survey of Technical Assistance Providers to (?) Community Organizations for Violence Prevention is now called Institute for Community Peace, )<~history) and was brought together in the early 1990s (i.e., before VAWA passed) to try to start a “violence prevention” movement in the U.S.

See pg. 10 and the last page (Appendix B) for the list of TA providers surveyed, which includes some names familiar on this blog. (or see Linda Bowen bio blurb, which cites this in her background at ‘Attendance Works,’ a different organization**)

No question the political framework is progressive, as is made clear in Linda Bowen’s Dec. 9, 2015 article posted there, “Framing Inequality” which (see last two paragraphs) talks about how to counter the persuasive and well-funded conservatives.  The website seems inactive (at least the blog) since that date.

[THIS SECTION is Post-Publication Details Added/Follow-up on “Attendance Works”, June 17, 2019]
**AttendanceWorks, says its website, was initiated by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.

The words “born” and “incubated” occur in its short History page, however, at the end of the day (as of today) it’s a project of “Community Initiatives” which serves as its fiscal agent, so presumably is not an “Inc.” one can locate any tax return for. Not one iota of help identifying WHICH “Community Initiatives” (a vastly over-used name for both projects and, parts of business names for nonprofits, nationally).  Another instance of failing to properly even identify who’s providing an umbrella for the lovely graphics (lots of primary colors) on yet another website.

Attendance Works is a fiscally-sponsored project of Community Initiatives, a 501(c)3 non-profit organization. Our funding comes primarily from foundations and from contracts from school districts and communities seeking technical assistance.//

The report cited and linked to which inspired creating Attendance Works was itself a project under cover of a fiscal agent was described as initiated by an written by a single consultant approached by Ralph Smith of the Annie E. Casey Foundation (“AECF”).

LET’s REVIEW THAT AGAIN: (added Feb 14, 2022):  Attendance Works is a “fiscally sponsored” project under another another fiscal-agent relationship.

Yes, the AECF sponsored, but a closer look even at the 2008 report  Present, Engaged and Accounted For: The Critical Importance of Addressing Chronic Absence in the Early Grades, shows two co-authors, and publication under not AECF but the NCCP — not just one person as referenced in the AttendanceWorks.org “History” page summary,. The other co-author was at the NCCP (National Center for Children in Poverty at Mailman School of Public Health, Columbia University).  So it was already a public/private report from the start, but as AttendanceWorks oversimplifies its own story, it left out HALF the characters!

The link also (under “Acknowledgements”) mentions a THIRD entity (no geographic home mentioned) which served as fiscal agent for THAT project resulting in the 2008 report.  THAT nonprofit is in Des Moines, Iowa — “Child and Family Policy Center, Inc..

The Sep. 2008 published report Acknowledgements also admits encompassing efforts from yet four other entites (including the Urban Institute), and a symposium held in only February 2008.  All this is in the fine print.  Are we NEVER expected to read the fine print and recognize that the website summarizing projects are including less than half the actors, mis-leading descriptions of how organized, and the nature of the collaborations?

Attendance Works operates as a virtual organization, with no headquarters office. Many of us work as consultants. While Attendance Works is headquartered in San Francisco, the members of our diverse team live and work in locations throughout the United States.  (“Our Team” page)       [One image above also shows that page]

There are 10 “Senior Fellows,” only one, based on names and pronouns used in biographies, is a man.  Here he is, looks like a middle-aged white guy, Rick Mockler (notice involvements and background).  Of course being Senior Fellow at possibly a non-organization operating under cover of another not exactly clearly identified 501©3, regardless of one’s skin color, means … exactly what???



Back to the ICP (Institute for Community Peace fka [formerly known as] National Funding Collaborative on Violence Prevention)

One page also references and contains a youtube on Frameworks Institute. I found the Institute for Community Peace’s (“ICP”) EIN#521943852 and see that the organization is barely still holding on ($407 in contributions only for 2016, only two employees, basically Linda Bowen, and a disclaimer that she is related to two of the board members. It is being artificially propped up after dwindling support since 2012).

Likewise, now Linda Bowen is among Framework Institute’s listed Fellows (<Links to Staff and Fellows) now, and the bio blurb mentions that before working for ICP, she was ACYF (special assistant to the commissioner) at HHS during the Clinton Admin, which is to say, probably during Welfare Reform years and assistant dean at University of Chicago’s SSA.  I’d call that prestigious, yet it does seem the ICP has just faded out, almost….

Prior to joining ICP, she served as special assistant to the commissioner of the Administration on Children, Youth, and Families, at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services during the Clinton Administration; assistant dean at the School of Social Service Administration at the University of Chicago; and program director at the Center for Successful Child Development in Chicago

Written earlier, the quote I mentioned above, which occurs in normal font further below.

Of the next images from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child “Investment Partners,” I ‘d already looked up the background of (Canadian) Palix Foundation after seeing it mentioned by FrameWorks Institute, whose founder (Susan Nall Bales) is also involved in the Harvard Center, as a Senior Fellow, along with one other (Frameworks) Senior Fellow there.  Please notice on that website that THE LANGUAGE OF SALES & PROMOTIONS IS PRIORITIZED OVER BASIC SELF-IDENTIFICATION.  Readers are given no links or even labels to quickly locate any financial reports coming FROM listed at least foundation or government investors’ financials TO a specific Harvard EIN# (entity).  That’s typical of centers within universities, but even so, the page thanking investors doesn’t link any ways to view those foundation grants; it does not help connecting any dots, nor does it indicate where on the Harvard website this might be found.

In order to find and read any AUDITED financial statements, first you need to find them, which means by definition you need to know the name of the entity. ** Wouldn’t it also be great to know whether or not you’re actually reading about or hearing from a project name or program, not an entity (public or private)?  Projects don’t have to produce financial statements for public viewing — they may be a line-item expense on someone else’s, though. It’s their entity owners we should be most concerned with.  Until you start looking, how common practice it is to derail readers finding the filing entity, and the alleged supporters, and connecting the dots (on separate filings) from one, to the other. ** (Where it’s registered ought to be posted up front, but too often isn’t).

We want justice and fair play, right?  Better justice and fairer play is better, so we can go about our own lives with purpose (“in pursuit of happiness,” not just bare survival, barely) without excess regulations, burdens, debt; without being constantly messed with as we plan and undertake — adjusting and responding as needed —  to handle activities required for the basic life purposes.

No one needs and no one should voluntarily endorse any form of government featuring (prioritizing the development and funding of) womb-to-tomb planners intent on standardization and (because mass-production of human capital in large classrooms is actually so inefficient) starting earlier and earlier in in each person’s life and extending that level of physical, social, economic, and even mental/spiritual control if possible, through multiple avenues, from his or her first through the his or her last breath!

~~~Further development of and content relating to this theme was written here, then removed to:


Split Persona, Hidden Identities, Fake Nametags, Million-Dollar Grants to IRS-Status revoked EIN#s, i.e., NON-entities, all with major foundation backing and involving websites ending ‘Harvard.edu’ and street addresses associated with the same.

[As usual on a blog, any link to a post in draft only effective when it’s published.  The section as first written takes the reader through the reasoning process on the intended utopian, planned, womb-to-tomb world and its state/corporate-sponsored experts,  but in a brief illustration included an example which led to a need for further drill-down show-and-tell.  The example related to “Alliance for Early Success, Inc.”, the National Governor’s Association (to whose nonprofit actually named the National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices it donated funds) and Harvard’s non-entity but at least one real and one apparent fake corporation with similar (but not identical) names has so far been discovered regarding it).  All three

The section as first written concluded with the next paragraph] 

Even an attempt to move ANY form of government in this direction shows an unconscionable lack of respect for human life and common humanity.  The more such planning is desired, the more laboratory animals (humans) are required, which tends towards the assumption that ALL places in this worldview (but especially public schools, after-school programming, pre-schools/Head Start, home visitation before pre-school, prisons … parent education and counseling surrounding divorce courts … supervised visitation or batterers intervention should it come up …workplaces of course… as an opportunity for research and development, and discouragement of the exceptional escapees who may just not want to play along, or by those rules.

…so we can go about our own lives without having our or our kids’, friends’, neighbors’, immediate relatives’ (prior generation, this generation, next generation), and associates’ and without even seeing so many strangers’ lives chronically filled with: ongoing violence or imminent/standing threats of it, homelessness or close to it, being forced to beg AT ALL, let alone for food, clothing and a place to sleep at night and wake up in the morning, and without collectively witnessing tragedies and waste, or repeated and implicit personal threats to life exercised arbitrarily, and for those who protest, or intervene for others’ sakes, any or all of the same exercised deliberately  — right?

I know I want  that. Well, what will it take?

As things are now, the public/private enterprise system actually punishes good behavior and rewards bad, and means to rewarding bad behavior and punishing/discouraging good is already streamlined, centrally controlled (though not obviously so), and set for rapid replication and distribution:  technical assistance and training… grooming … conditioning  all as to their respective places on the supply chain.

The INFRASTRUCTURE has been in place for decades.  NOMENCLATURE may give a sense of real change, but like any factory which takes a while to install and put in place, this infrastructure isn’t that new.  Names for it may be.

Planning anything requires having, or making, personal judgments, assessments and with that, choices. Making plans also shows initiative as does following through with them, or changing where it’s called for.

The quality, quantity (opportunities for choosing) and scope (categories of choice) with intent towards all generations are being increasingly artificially, from out-side in, encircled, enclosed and restricted, and I’m speaking especially of in my highly developed (sic) country, the United States of America. What we may call life and think of as just life, others without necessarily direct interface with us, are more interested in the ideal conditions for “human development,” including of our own offspring while they are still young, with or without our input.  It seems, too much independence for most is not a desirable quality.

I’ve been experiencing and fighting battles around many of these issues for decades now (individually and on behalf of people close to me, starting with my own children, elderly mother, and immediate work associates/colleagues/clients).  Not that I like it, but I’m used to it.

To investigate, research the systems involved which so negatively impacted us (far beyond garden-variety, routine failure to protect by local authorities) for me has been to see both the design and the designers. It’s far more disturbing. I know because through this blog I’m looking right at it that what I went and am going through personally** is nothing compared to what lies ahead, unless it is exposed, confronted, and changed.  

Systems-change away from what I just described above as “what we want” in terms of justice and fair play is beyond the planning stage and well into accelerated implementation in what I have to describe as the existing halls (literally) of power.  I will keep reporting… and you CAN understand this.

**What I went and am going through personally:  This isn’t worth footnoting to the bottom of the post, nor do I want it there so close to the “tags’ and comments sections, so I’m including here to qualify the statement.. CLICK TWICE (2nd time on the page icon) TO READ IT~~>. LGH|FCM personal FN (miniaturizing & to insert as pdf)within intro to ‘Mix-n-Match, Misleading’ post ( ‘-9ZS’)   ALSO CLICK this second pdf to read A SLIGHT RE-WRITE & SLIGHLY EXPANDED VERSION OF LAST PARA. OF THE FIRST~~> LGH|FCM personal FN (miniaturizing & to insert as pdf-#2) within intro to ‘Mix-n-Match, Misleading’ post ( ‘-9ZS’) ~SShot 2019-06-15

Life “by permission” without justice is no proper life.  It may be existence, temporarily, but ….

While there’s life there’s always some choice — but how much choice should be pre-planned for us and for a nation’s children, starting at or before age ZERO, based on the opinions of state-and private-sponsored experts of what’s best and, correspondingly, what individuals shouldn’t be able to choose without prior permission from the assembled experts?

This isn’t just nicely handed to us.  Words to describe situations and demand they change must actually pertain to those situations. It just may help to know who the decision-makers are (and are not) and to whom they are already committed and indebted, i.e., doing business with, and why they should bother to deal with members of the public they are not directly doing business with or committed to.

How many intermediaries, really, are there and if “business-as-usual” is changed, what resistance throughout the network must be handled, overcome, or simply have its obstructive access cut off?

Through writing this blog, and all the ongoing investigation (reading and processing/comparing/interpreting so much information) it requires, I’ve watched the stage being set over the years to facilitate worse and worse deception of the public through (dis)connection between the provision of government services and the labels under which it is justified describing to whom and for whom it’s supposed to be delivered.

This disconnected language also permeates groups seeking change or improvement, when they build demands or rationales upon fictional or poorly-described (which includes only experientially-described) scenarios.

I can understand at some levels why — all media platforms involve business interests;many are run as nonprofits with backers, and they are often being bought, sold, undergo mergers and acquisitions and after that, sell-offs: streamlining.  I am here, talking critically of the private tax-exempt sector because it complicates and dissolves accountability for the public (also tax-exempt) sector.  Even when people can and do pay all their taxes responsibly and without complaint, the situation exacerbates the mutual-interest power differentials.

Still, have they (groups seeking change or improvement within government) and have we, still no clear idea YET what kinds of changes or improvements government has already been sponsored and promoted, by whom, in what sectors, and in which directions?

By overall DNA (by design) governments are already synchronized by temperament, goals, access to means, and purposes with the corporate sector in its need to raise capable but still compliant and not TOO independent-thinking employees, and retain control over income-producing assets and where they are invested.

Several years ago, I wrote and sent (privately, to just a few people) a long, exhibit- and footnote-filled document with detailed table of contents, based on my understanding at the time called:  “Still clueless after all these years?” in regards specific networked groups within the domestic violence field. No field has remained stagnant since then, nor has the spin lessened.

Since then, I’ve continued to closely watch where confusion is systemic, no doubt intentional, and what this means for people hoping for change, or aware of how streamlined the mechanisms for changing government in the other direction have become since, and where common language, practice, and financial investments (backers) fits in.  That shared language among stakeholders functions like a code, designed to allay misgivings and mislead those NOT considered stakeholders, whose passive participation as a controlled, ever-breeding, ongoing taxable and continually consuming goods & services human resource (population), is necessary because of (our) massive numbers.

There is a game plan in play, and we need to recognize — and better referee it, with a view towards getting off the sidelines.

My next section in blue is a general statement of the problem and why it’s a problem. I promise more pictures and graphics below all those words. There is show, not just tell, in this show-and-tell, but both are needed.

After reading this post, you will be able to and I ask that from now on you do:

Acknowledge these terms ~ exist ~are used throughout the public sectors ~as used are often needlessly mis-leading.

Blurring of boundaries between public and private increase when private entities contracting with or receiving finances from the public (governments) utilize similar terms around the same cause.  This blurring often indicates coordinated, shared purposes on specific causes, for greater buy-in among partners, impact on the public, and intended greater consent / buy-in for the tax- and fees-paying public on which government depends for its ongoing revenues.


Another point of possible confusion in onlookers is where a project or service is spoken of as though it was a person — had a life of its own.

…As if it had a personal (corporate or government) identity.  This confusion could be easily dispelled by including the suffixes used with a full legal business name (in the U.S., this may be Inc., Corp., LLC, or however allowed), in each usage, or a few descriptive words on the first usage.   This could be the difference between operating legally or illegally, and it IS the difference between accountability to the public, or lack of it.

A PRODUCT IS NOT A PERSON* EVEN IF BOTH** HAVE THE SAME FIRST NAMES. Habitually switching actor/s (the subject) for the acted upon (a direct object) deflects responsibility for the verb in between.  (*THE WORD “ENTITY” AND ITS DESCRIPTOR: GOV’T OR BUSINESS DEFINES RELATIONSHIPS).   **(WITHOUT THE LEGALLY REQUIRED SUFFIX FOR THE BUSINESS ENTITY)

~~>For commonly understood situations, especially involving transitive verbs, no problem:I rode my bike down the street”:  while my bike and I may function with such fluid grace as to seem like one while in motion, and from afar, at the end of the day, it’s an “it” and will be stored somewhere; I’m a person and (ideally) will go to sleep somewhere else.  In describing what just happened there, you easily understand it’s past tense action by one person exerting muscle power on a created machine which was bought, borrowed, bartered or donated for my use at least that time.

~~>For expensive and ongoing broader-scope situations which already require more abstract conceptual than concrete/experiential thinking — the kind we need to understand the world we live in:

(a) business entities vs. government entities | how they came and come into being | their respective ‘rules of the road’ dealing with each other and dealing with US, the people and only after that basic is understood, can it really be understood

(b) who or which business or government entity, in each instance or overall, I am dealing with, looking at, hearing about, and within any single country (or other jurisdiction) directly or indirectly, supporting, where one’s rights (or contracts, if any) stand when dealing with it, …

. . . not so good!

Ask at least yourself why clearer terminology is not standard practice and what that might look like: would it really have been that hard for individual organizations, or public/private cooperating entities and their boards of directors or agents and especially their websites to use clearer terminology when referring to themselves or each other, marketing programs in common?








Think about it!

~~>Do people involved in setting up (or running) such QICs, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions really just not know the difference between a government entity, or part of one, and a private one and that government accountability (financial statements) take one form, and public different ones, including but not limited to (where required by law based on the type of entity, by definition NON-public because gov’t entities do not pay income taxes or corporate for themselves), production of tax returns for public viewing? Or is that information just to be kept in the background, behind the large cartoons and advertising for each program’s benefit and solicitation donations (if private)?

~~>Are such people setting up (or running) such QICs, etc., which as decision-makers also entails deciding what information goes on their websites, just not aware that for the public to view both government financial statements and (where filing entity must by law produce them) a private organization’s tax returns, as it has [we, “the public” have] every right to, it has to (we must) knowboth where — in which sector, public or private (=on which databases) — to look and what to look for, i.e. the actual name of the filing entity — or, if the [QIC, etc.]  IS no such entity, the viewers should not have to waste their time looking for one.

  • There also have to be functional and reliable databases to look them up on, but that’s another (though related) issue, and with significant problems I’ve also reported over the years on this blog, in both sectors.

~~>What level of awareness exists by those working for such programs that many of the often low-income, vulnerable, or otherwise needy populations or victims (or their parents) they exist to transform systems for, got poor in part paying taxes to fund government services and, based on the labeling and advertising, seeking but not finding help from them?

…Or that tax-exemption is a privilege and in partial exchange for the privilege of operating tax-exempt (like government entities) and that in part because so many tax-exempts are known to take government grants (and contracts), they these organizations ought to cough up some decent, timely, and accurate identifying details — whether government CAFRs or private tax returns — and (if private) keep their tax returns honest, complete, and timely as part of keeping government also accountable?

~~>Should people seeking services and/or accountability from such [QICs, Collaboratives, Coordinating Councils, etc.] to be treated as such ‘children’ mentally as if they do not deserve to or could not read tables with numbers and words relating specifically to + and – cash flow, and + and – holdings as found in financial statements.  ~~>Do not most people deserve access to information which correctly identifies with WHOM they are dealing with as help-seekers or even just tax-payers (income, sales, corporate, other forms)?

~~>What kind of attitude or intent is behind as a practice and collectively with others using similar terms failing to simply provide — publish —  that basic information without forcing viewers/readers/taxpayers/helpseekers dig or hunt (sometimes fruitlessly when a non-entity is portrayed as an entity) for such it? Attempting to keep it “out of sight, out of mind” for most….

Admit at least to yourself that refusal to self-identify and, where required by law, cough up one’s financials is a significant form of obstruction because it conceals source and use of finances, discourages potential questioning of <> credibility and <> influence, i.e., inherently obstructs innocent (and proper) attempts to rule out possible conflicts of interest, especially when the field involves delivery public services or policymaking, or any public-interest cause.

It very well could conceal illegal and criminal activity. Honest activity in the public interest with public funds should be conducted in honest manners, including language used to describe what’s done and who’s doing it in language other than that used most commonly in advertising, marketing, and sales.

I ask, after you read this post, that you do, when these or similar terms come up** in the future:

**for example, whether you encounter advocates, promoters, or agents of any of  project, program, or organization (or governmental entity) with one of these terms in its: name, websites, downloadable brochures, on-line, soliciting donations,

Or (ideally, before) seeking help from any project, program, or organization (or governmental entity) on behalf of yourself AND before referring (or recruiting!) others,

Resolve to find out what that term means this time, and having done it, start building and maintaining an awareness!

Identify the usage (exactly, by category, classification and place on the ‘supply chain’) for the occurrence at hand.

Get to the point you, at least, are NOT misled.  Refuse to be a silent carrier of the contagion of confusion and redirection when discussing problems and solutions categorized by issue on-line and citing to any group or person referencing these.

Also be aware that these terms and unclear usages exist throughout and around governments (case in point, U.S.), especially at state and more local levels, even when specific cause-based nonprofits may not mention them.

These terms exist whether or not people acknowledge their existence.  The terms are used as if interchangeable when they are not, confusing the difference between a public and a private operation, not to mention between an entity and a non-entity.

Another great example came across my path recently, actually admitting (in writing) to this as a strategy, not that I needed to see it in writing to notice it as a strategy overall.

You’ll have to wait on that post. . .
ReFraming, ReNaming, MisLabeling and Omitting Key Info…. as (part of a $200B International Global Aid and Development) Industry Practice (moved here June 13, 2019)  (shortlink ends “-a7j”)

It’s going to be a good one… on current, recent, transnational, ‘translational’ (translating science  (sic) into lay terms, the better to market policies with), some centered at Harvard University, and all illustrating the national obsession with early childhood development, down to the neuronal level, as an excuse the rationale for programming entire neighborhoods from the outside in and human beings from birth (including parents) forward. “Outside in” is also where the funding comes from: OUTSIDE informed public awareness before the vested interests (ranked by amounts — but do you see any financial statements nearby? or links to them?) have so invested that protest would seem inevitable.

Of the next images from the Harvard Center on the Developing Child “Investment Partners,” I ‘d already looked up the background of (Canadian) Palix Foundation after seeing it mentioned by FrameWorks Institute, whose founder (Susan Nall Bales) is also involved in the Harvard Center, as a Senior Fellow, along with one other (Frameworks) Senior Fellow there.  Please notice on that website that THE LANGUAGE OF SALES & PROMOTIONS IS PRIORITIZED OVER BASIC SELF-IDENTIFICATION.  Readers are given no links or even labels to quickly locate any financial reports coming FROM listed at least foundation or government investors’ financials TO a specific Harvard EIN# (entity).  That’s typical of centers within universities, but even so, the page thanking investors doesn’t link any ways to view those foundation grants; it does not help connecting any dots, nor does it indicate where on the Harvard website this might be found.

It’s all promotion!  Website readers are to stand back in awe and/or gratitude, and appreciate the names of specific career professionals involved and the projects, especially (here) linking an acknowledged science (neuroscience) with the pseudo-science of “early childhood development” (i.e., primarily psychology) and let the latter derive more respectability from the former, and from association with Harvard itself.

I noticed that one of the Harvard Center on the Developing Child donors (see third image, above) Nathaniel Foote, J.D., M.B.A., is also working there — after 19 years with an international global consulting company, one of the largest (and one I’ve pointed out in this blog, which copied the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan basic consulting model only took it bigger and further) (McKinsey is huge). Foote also connects as an author (along with Radner and Patton) to an “Alberta Wellness Initiative” itself connected with the Palix Foundation.  That part is complicated enough, I’m relegating it to the separate post..

(Among the top donors (first image above) you’ll see “The Alliance for Early Success.”  (EarlySuccess.org).  It took very few minutes on its website to see it’s not posting ANY financials although, like Harvard’s center above, it does list many partners (with active links, some list overlap with those above) and several submenus on its purposes (influencing statewide policy towards young children).  Just no tax returns, and no financials.  So I looked for them, and see a moderate-sized (assets at least) organization among these giants, in Kansas.

Total results: 3Search Again. (formed in 2008, is primarily a grantmaker).

Alliance for Early Success KS 2017 990 71 $5,795,021.00 26-2797011
Alliance for Early Success KS 2016 990 51 $5,301,285.00 26-2797011
Alliance for Early Success KS 2015 990 48 $2,694,317.00 26-2797011

From any year’s “Schedule A” of support (Schedules come after Parts I – XII of the main Form 990), you can see this is no “grassroots” public support organization — less than 30% comes from the public; most comes from big donors.  It thus has to justify its tax-exempt status each year as to qualifying under “Facts and Circumstances” text why it’s really a public-interest organization…  It’s not acquiring or investing in assets really (see balance sheet).  It’s JUST collecting millions and distributing millions every single year, with the intent to affect state policy towards early education.  It has only 4 people on the board.   Sure

This one gets interesting once you start looking at the grants and realizing that the grants claimed to be going to an entity called “Center on the Developing Child” with an address of 50 Church Street, 4th Floor, Cambridge, Massachusetts — from this Alliance, which would seem to signify donations to the Harvard Center by the same name (although a “Center” within a university isn’t necessarily its own nonprofit entity and probably isn’t).  But IRS Form 990-filing organizations like this, must report not just the name, but also the EIN# of their grantees, as well as what type of entity they are (i.e., whether government, 501©3, or other).  That’s built into the form.

There’s just one problem.  There doesn’t seem to be any entity by that name incorporated in Massachusetts (I looked at the Secretary of State level), and the EIN# Alliance’s tax returns claim to be donating significant amounts to, along with many other grantees, not only doesn’t belong to THAT (non-entity) or any other one in Massachusetts, it’s going to an EIN# of a an IRS-status-revoked for non-filing entity based in Miami, Florida!

I counted and show you below, one million dollars worth claimed as donated by this Alliance:  from FY2013 (a short year Oct. 1, 2013 – June 30, 2014),  $400K claimed; FY2014, $400K claimed, FY2015, $100K claimed and FY2016, again $100K claimed. Do the math, that’s one million U.S. dollars in just four years.  The EIN# cited was, all years shown, 542176407.

Again, just one minor problem.  That belongs to a Form 990 (501©4) in Florida with different purpose, which stopped filing returns apparently in FY2012, and (appropriately) was IRS Status-revoked in 2016.  Yet all those years (2013, 14, 15, and 16) grants were allegedly provided by the Alliance (in Kansas, with legal domicile Nebraska).

From Alliance for Early Success (3 years of tax returns available in the table above), in image gallery, here are those screen prints from Schedule I (Grants to Organizations or Gov’ts in the United States) Images from different years, contradictory image (same EIN#) from the IRS.  That’s  just the beginning of questions regarding this whole enterprise and those involved in it:

The well-paid Executive Director in charge during this time (Lisa Klein of Overland Park, Kansas, latest salary shown, $264K for a 50-hour week, other board members shown are not paid), I learned separately (from information at Harvard) had formerly worked at one of the other grantee organizations.

The slick, and impressive promotions on the Harvard University website do not lead to substantiating details, and substantiating details, which I went looking for, just do not match — although it’s obvious who’s working alongside whom in some of the projects!

Immediately below: 9 images in a “slideshow” gallery.  Images 1 & 2 (annotated) are from the most recent posted (FY2016) tax return for Alliance for Early Success (EIN# as shown above).  Image 3 and 4 are not from there, but showing the IRS “status-revoked” of the Florida entity (Make a note of its nine-digit EIN#, which will be shown in Images 5,6,7 and 8 (if I have it right) and the 9th image shows grants also to major players, organizations “NCSL” and “NGA” which have come up on this blog before.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

This whole situation, including another foundation I looked up (not being aware who it was), which Hemera Foundation happened to be registered in Bermuda, run by an LLC out of Boulder Colorado registered to a Caroline E. Pfohl-Ho (where “Ho” is the name associated with a major Hong Kong family foundation, three generations worth dating back to colonial times)  — and some serious new-age spirituality (Somatic Mediation practices out of Dharma Ocean Foundation, having it seems re-married her guru there, who likewise divorced his then-wife) — well, it’s definitely a fascinating situation, and took some time to piece together.  For sure the information at Harvard didn’t help much with that….

ReFraming, ReNaming, MisLabeling and Omitting Key Info…. as (part of a $200B International Global Aid and Development) Industry Practice
(moved here June 13, 2019)  (shortlink ends “-a7j”) (or related post if it won’t blend in with what’s already there…)

Essentially the mis-leading and key-ingredients missing language also covers any possible conflicts-of-interest or connections with the extremely wealthy in designing programming to be administered THROUGH governments for the extremely poor.

The rest of my post, except where you see the above color scheme once again below for “exhortation” is not an appeal. It’s show-and-tell, declarative, third person, declaration except where the pronoun “I” or any other qualifier shows up.

Mix-n-Match, Misleading Terms: QIC, Coordinating Councils, Collaboratives and Commissions | Which Organizations use them | Which Parts of Government Control and/or Fund them…(June 15, 2019) (shortlink ends “-9ZS.” Started May 24, 2019, title adjusted, cont’d., June 10)

I have been researching and writing; several posts in draft, with a gap in publishing them.

That’s normal when an ideal blog post isn’t more than 5,000 t0 10,000 words, while the material isn’t that simple:  the basics deals with so much interconnectivity (minus accountability) which with commentary and exhibits that the evolving landscape, and in which directions it’s evolving under which driving forces, cannot be shown in just one or two posts; only over a series of posts, with periodic re-visits to former drill-down sites and further explorations of changes since.

If I were writing for the professionals or self-/mutually-anointed thought-leaders in the fields involved (instead of so often about them), or for basic self-help field, by now this could or would be a book.

But I am writing instead for what I hope is a motivated but “lay” audience as far as these topics.

I decided to post this one next as it’s mentioned in last one published, and because understanding some of these terms and how they can be used to mis-lead the public (and distract from getting to the actual financial statements) seems foundational to what I want to continue saying. Current work relates especially to certain Commissions and Collaboratives.  Comprehending this puts a real spotlight on policymaking, transferable to other areas of interest.

In the course of writing this, an example of another national clearinghouse (sic) arose from the state of Wisconsin.  That particular one was not its own entity (yet) but a project of an existing nonprofit on the federal dole, mostly. …  Like most DV organizations, not reporting much on the FR organizations.

The last post published, May 26, while referencing H.Con.Res.72 and Arkansas, had a section on Wisconsin too, as does this post, including a major footnote.  Moral of that story:  Pay better attention (wherever you live) to any community foundation named after a major city, especially the ones with the word “Greater” added to their name.  Learn how they operate and report (or, don’t)..

In this post:

QIC — “Quality Improvement Center.” | “Coordinating Council” | “Collaborative” | “Commission” — common usage, various meanings:  see “Council.”  | “Council.” 

Remember spelling:  council (noun) =/= counsel (noun, or verb, depending on context)!

Also, the first section in this post:


***The two terms “RESOURCE CENTER” and “CLEARINGHOUSE” aren’t the among the ones that inspired this post, but the examples I give here to illustrate how just these two terms are so commonly used, in fact now over-used that, unless YOU (the reader) first identify or already know the context  and status — entity or non-entity, if entity, gov’t or private, if private, for-profit or not-for-profit — of each and every usage (application), and something about their operating environments, those are essentially meaningless to YOU, no matter how important and credible because the terms may sound, and even if you’ve met some of the staff or known (for example) an executive director.  (Non-entities can’t have employees; entities do..).

These terms are used ALL OVER government, all three branches, and in reference to improving it, which implies benefit and is going to, generally, entail revenues, expenses, and assets and liabilities, to those who support governments through their work lives (i.e., income taxes and more) and consumption of services.  Sometimes deceptively similar names are not at all the same type of entity, or even an entity.

The importance and credibility of any “National _____ Resource Center” and “National ____ Clearinghouse” comes from association with or being reminiscent of something which DOES have much more specific, and respectable, meaning.  This is especially true for the word “clearinghouse” used as a single word (originally a “clearing house” would be two words). What, exactly, was/is being cleared, and by whom?  What kind of resources are being made available by whom and for whom? Exactly how do those resources help.

The same goes for the other terms listed in the post title.  As an investigative blogger for ten years now (and person at times seeking help or information from some organizations with those words in their business name, or government entities, likewise), I know how common they are, and that sometimes the weighty main noun (Center, Institute, Council… Commission, Collaborative) adorned with a few extra adjectives (referring to the subject matter, or perhaps the government function, or — if replication is part of the strategy — similar label but with local (or state) county label appended…).

So let’s resolve to be honest with ourselves and when communicating about problems  or solutions in the public sector, and insist that at least the public sector engage in honesty in labeling, too.

This post should help.  I felt it necessary in addressing ongoing developments backed by the settlement of some massive tobacco litigation (1998 and thereafter) in combination with massive restructuring of social services (welfare reform 1996) and a recent new partnership among key players in the federally-funded domestic violence “resource center” field (older, more established player mentors a weaker, smaller new one; two fields are combined under one new label, etc.).


Either (pro-actively) make the effort to find out, or (passively/apathetically) assent to continue mis-understanding and being misled.

Finding out exactly what an individual [FILL in the TERM] represents is never optional when dealing or approaching such named (centers, councils, institutes, collaboratives) or even reading about them and their [QICs] hoping to understand what they are doing, and how progress  or status of any named subject matter field is doing.  The habit of finding out, something I developed long ago, takes time but always enlightens one’s comprehension of the larger landscape in which y/our civil, legal, human, privacy, and any other kind of rights exist.

Finding out exactly what (any instance) represents is a lesson in economics, government, and, basically, advertising.

It’s better to understand than to assume.  How important is representative government, anyhow? Can it even exist without INFORMED consent of the people?  Do we have it now, or just an imitation of it with the decision-making taking place out of reach?

The people’s part in the equation is determination to acquire AND evaluate their own sources of information.  And what’s being done with their tax receipts and contributions/support to (our) own governments other than hearing them advertise about the programming.  There’s a private system of accountability (not all accessible to uninvolved parties) AND there’s a public system (which should be more accessible).

One reason this hits home to me:   Similarities between personal abuse (domestic/family violence) tactics and observed government practice abound.  Both exhibit arrogance, deceit, interference with normal life activities and planning, and intent to control long-term.  I have been made to fight, year after year (not always winning each round), for information which should never have been withheld from me, and to counter spin (defamation, slander) used to justify further take-over.  I’ve also seen it switch venues, even court systems over time (domestic violence to family courts [+ child support]  to probate/trust) and I’ve seen an ongoing parade of professionals added (draining resources further) each time a staged conflict occurs — usually right after I’ve stated some boundary, shown initiative (i.e., moving), or demanded adherence to some BASIC right.

If our own government systems (criminal or civil / state or federal) are so compromised they cannot or will not protect normal people from the criminal element in their own family lines and family associates — why do we have such governments in the first place?  What happened and what can be done about it?  MY goal is no different than mentioned in the Declaration of Independence of the United States of America from the state of being colonized.  There should be a way to NOT be colonized and exploited without (as was the state at that time) and enslaving, disenfranchising, stealing lands and livelihoods from others. I know it takes cooperation; it’s not a solo trip.  I’m looking for people who can talk common sense.

And I know it doesn’t exist with continued use of such terms as listed in the post title above, which I have seen laced throughout both government and private sectors, and advertised ALL THE WHILE as beneficial — but go look for their financials and see whether you can even locate them.  Current ones.  Then find out, should they be tax returns, whether they’re filled out reasonably (or even complete) and whether what the organizations / entities / non-entities (i.e., organizations or government entities speaking through a mask with a website name) SAY to the public corresponds at all with what the same are telling government.

This is also about getting to know one’s own government systems (how organized, and how presented on-line especially) are in fact, set up.

However, those using such terms among each other and naming government entities (or parts thereof), business entities (or projects thereof) DO, most likely, understand the meaning in the context of the specific fields (again, for each named subject matter).  As birds of similar species, or even specific mating pairs, can distinguish calls from their own kind/mate or young from those of other species, for mating and propagation (protection of young) purposes, these labels have a certain “ring” to them in the larger clamor of surrounding sounds.

I picked those two terms because classic well-known examples exist as used in fields (subject matter, policymaking regarding the subject matter) of this blog.  In looking them up, I found another so-called clearinghouse had been established as a named project (not separate business entity) of one of the existing networks.  I’ll explain when it comes up.

I also picked them because they’re possibly a bit easier to illustrate than the others listed in the post title, and as such may be good points of reference (understanding one scenario to better understand another similar, but not identical one).  These two terms as used in specific fields related to the subject matter of this blog may have been around or publicized a little longer and possibly more familiar for people in tune with broader movements in the domestic violence, marriage/fatherhood promotion, child abuse prevention cause-based movements and landscape.

Of those two terms, ‘resource center’ is broader and more generalized than “clearinghouse” (such as when used for an Automated [electronic] Clearing House (ACH) of financial resources, i.e., the place where they are accepted or rejected as legitimate,  but both sound like they’re doing something VERY important for society or to address whatever descriptive label precedes a specific use.

One term implies a single place or THE place through which to funnel —  well funds in certain contexts, and/or information.  The other implies a place to come to for help, although on closer look, it’s usually of the technical and consulting kind, not direct services, and as such is for the representatives or “stakeholders” in a field existing somewhere between people in need and government services.

Information is accumulated, often on-line and distributed from clearinghouses (and resource centers) — but by agreement with whom becomes a question and raises conflict of interest issues, when the usage relates to federal policy issues dealing with matters mostly under state jurisdiction: like domestic violence, family law, marriage and divorce, etc.

Automated Clearing House 

An automated clearing house (ACH) is an electronic system used for the transfer of funds between entities, often referred to as an electronic funds transfer (EFT). The ACH performs the role of intermediary, processing the sending/receiving of validated funds between institutions.

It is often used for the direct deposit of employee salaries, and can be used to transfer funds between an individual and a business in exchange for goods and services. Traditionally, the sending and receiving bank account information need to be provided, including the account and routing numbers, to facilitate the transaction. This process may also be seen as an electronic check, as it provides the same information as a written check.   [From “Investopedia.com on “Clearing,” REVIEWED BY  Updated Apr 9, 2019. See also Investopedia link in paragraph right below this quote to “Clearinghouse”: ]

Used in daily life for many people (people with bank accounts and debit cards at least, and who make purchases / payments with them).

The key concept is of a middleman to assure smooth transition between a buyer and seller until the exchange (for example, of goods & services with fees/money paid for them) is completed.  To ensure the smooth transition may involve holding sufficient resources to cover the trade meanwhile. Yes, this can include public-traded stocks.

I looked at several on-line definitions of the word.  Investopedia on Clearinghouse as usual, gives good definitions and examples. They also have a short video with diagrams on that link.  Stock exchanges (NYSE, NASDAQ) have their clearing firms.  It facilitates exchanges.

The word “clearinghouse” is also often, but secondarily, used regarding information.  The second use probably derives from the first one.  (When did it come into more common use? See further below, one dynamic/embedded graph and two frozen-snapshot images of line graphs (with X/Y axes, the X-axis shows years by the decades) charting the popularity of the term “clearinghouse.”(Google Books search; unofficial but still interesting)

Immediately below ~~> Five images from top three search “Definition of clearinghouse’ “results make this point and some others (as annotated)….The last three, from the Investopedia link just above).

As I said above, “[These two terms’] importance and credibility comes from association with or being reminiscent of something which DOES have much more specific, and respectable, meaning.  This is especially true for the word “clearinghouse” used as one word.”

That sounding important and credible IS the intent, apparently, of using the label “clearinghouse” in other contexts regarding intended policymaking on specific federally and privately** funded fields (examples coming up below).  The frequently small size of such named clearinghouses, the very few people who control them, and especially the inadequate tracking (unlike, say, activity on regulated public trading on stock exchanges on the watch of the SEC (<~SEC.gov, “What we do” or see here) or other authorities) is at odds with their tall claims to being THE resource on any given topic.

Happening to be the first one that came up with the concept and got others to echo the label on-line (i.e., in public) as part of promotions and seeking continued contributions or contracts and/or agreeing to be used by larger entities with a united cause by taking donations or fees-for-services (contracts) from them shouldn’t be equated with high levels of accountability to the wider public, or the right to commandeer distribution and classification of information that public is going to need, often to protect itself within their individual (state/residential) jurisdictions.

If and when** these self-proclaimed “clearinghouses” strategically omit, reframe, or even obstruct transmission of relevant information to the public (while claiming “clearinghouse” status and receiving training privileges of civil servants), that has the obvious potential to harm the public — or serve private interests more than public ones.  In those situations, they provide a drag, a drain, not a benefit, to their tax-exempt purpose proclaimed beneficiary populations and (by association) the wider public.  (**As some have….).  They may be doing this, technically, in a legal manner (which shows tactical awareness) but not ethically or morally in the context of representative government.

Thinking further about this tendency to use (those two terms, especially “clearinghouse”), it seem s to me that the partners exchanging are those federal and private funders (with the designated nonprofits, each for its own field) functioning as the middlemen according to terms agreed upon by the major ‘traders.’ (or actors).  **[i.e., especially by tax-exempt foundations representing (a) corporate and/or (b) family (often from corporate) and/or © larger community foundations, which tend to be locally among the largest, but also sometimes act as nonprofit middlemen of THE largest privately-controlled tax-exempts working in deliberate coordination with each other, and/or public sectors, as I’ve described before on this blog, and comes up with one example here from Milwaukee.]

When it comes to ‘domestic violence’ or ‘fatherhood’ or ‘healthy marriage’ etc. “clearinghouses” — the victims and intended recipients of services, let us make special note — are not actors in that exchange.  Nor, really, are taxpayers as a whole.  Rather, those victims and intended recipients of services, as well as taxpayers as a whole, are more witnesses of privately made deals made between others.

Using the term so indiscriminately and inconsistently detracts from understanding more definable and important concepts, like legitimacy or illegitimacy of the funding trail to or through such “clearinghouses” and how we, “the commoners,” so to speak, might either successfully follow that trail or get lost and shaken off trying to, in the name of conceptual understanding of what’s taking place, and in the name of public accountability for public policy-making and grants-getting organizations.

A word-search/term usage over the decades can be found (and re-run with diff’t specs) through this website: “Google N-Gram” with a button “Search lots of Books” (apparently Google books) and choices of case-sensitive or not.  Below are two images (I chose 1913-forward, end year seems to be 2008 only); one has “case-sensitive” off and so only shows one line.  For what it’s worth…

These few examples of usage of “Clearinghouse” and “Resource” or ‘Resource Center” are either ones I’m already aware of or (one example) one I became aware of after it showed up in search results, and decided to (quickly) look further at — and post here.  

“NCALL,” The one in Wisconsin, I just became aware of in this process resulted in extended footnotes when (A) its website and tax returns looked, well, ridiculous, and (B) the sudden increase of funding (not the largest organization) and exaggerated claims associated with the word “clearinghouse” also cite backing by two large (one, as of 2017 pushing stated $750M (almost ¾ billion) in gross assets, and another well-known one though I doubt most people look at its financials, either, AARP. …

Combined with AFCC (entity address Madison, Wisconsin) and the Institute for Research on Poverty (“IRP”) at  UWisconsin-Madison, pushing fatherhood as poverty-solving, and the entire state of Wisconsin being a known original testing-ground for PRWORA before PRWORA passed in 1996 (i.e., Welfare-to-Work) under Governor Tommy Thompson, and other situations explored (via this blog and separately) over the years, I’m beginning to think Wisconsin, also, is a problem state, too, where social services and domestic violence (protection) is involved...  

Although Wisconsin doesn’t hold one of the “key players” resource centers like Nevada, Pennsylvania, nearby Minnesota, Texas, California (of course) which keep coming up under FVPSA 1984. (See my Feb. 2018 page on the right sidebar, near top, “Consolidated Control of DV Advocacy by Feminists…”).  Perhaps in “NCALL” the individuals in the violence prevention field (or at least associated with this violence-prevention organization) hope to start playing in the big(ger) leagues, now that Ellen Pence is gone.. 

[“Resource Center” or “Clearinghouse” when it comes to social services are going to refer mostly to websites, regardless of the name of the websites on which they appear (public or private).  “National Responsible Fatherhood Clearinghouse” (fatherhood.GOV) “National Resource Center on Domestic Violence” (DVRN.org) “

Here’s one where the word “clearinghouse” does in fact connect to a (nonprofit, private) entity name — but that doesn’t MAKE it a “clearinghouse” in the formal sense.  What it, definably is: a nonprofit business entity within Pennsylvania simply called one by whoever started it. Incorporating and registering any business requires giving it a name; whoever started this one (apparently) decided its name would include that word, for extra measure, the word “National” followed by clearinghouse for ___________ (for what purpose).

Such is the power of association!  Here it is:

National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women” (NCDBW.org — this is an example, unlike the others, with the word “Clearinghouse” actually part of a legal business (nonprofit) name).  It’s in Pennsylvania, and not that large, as you can see by the following images:

I just found another one, “National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life” (NCALL.org) which, it turns out is another nonprofit’s project — one of the statewide “CADV” organizations (501©3s).  But the word “clearinghouse” just shows up on the website as a description of the project (i.e., “Program Service Accomplishments” as indicated on any group’s Form 990, Page 2. It’s just a name!

NCALL, a national project oEnd Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence, is committed to creating a world that respects the dignity of older adults and enhances the safety and quality of life of older victims and survivors of abuse. || Based in Madison, Wisconsin, NCALL also has staff in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, northwestern Wisconsin, Colorado, Pennsylvania, and Virginia. (“||” here = a paragraph break)

What’s more the top of the website only shows the acronym — then some (HUGE) photos of older men and women (starting with a white woman) in a variety of skin pigmentations, below which — in HUGE letters with a bunch of white space, SOME information, a link or two at a time only. (Footnoted below).  I see also, meanwhile that the WCADV has now got another tradename or name change de-emphasizing the word “VIOLENCE” and leading instead with the milder, “Abuse.”

 “National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life, a project of End Domestic Abuse Wisconsin: The Wisconsin Coalition Against Domestic Violence”

(Very fine print at the bottom of the website.  Meanwhile, the “About” page labeled instead just “History” once you click on it (main content imaged on the bottom of this post) shows just the most basics of start time (1992) and other involved organizations (The Milwaukee Foundation and AARP) sponsoring the project along with the other (more usual) sponsors, the USDOJ, and DHHS.  In light gray font with no subsidiary links.  If the titles are so huge for hard-of-sight elders, why make the descriptive text so close to invisible?  So the same elders won’t read it, really?

I’m an elder.  I’d appreciate a little more “connectivity” on who’s backing it, and the respective financial resources and priorities of the project, although this does at least explain why a Wisconsin entity might feel entitled enough to call its project THE National Clearinghouse on Abuse in Later Life” (as opposed to “abuse OF Elders BY anyone specific).

The nonprofit, when talking to the IRS, is a little more verbally expressive about itself. (From page two of its (on Foundationcenter.org) tax return = only FY2016 (when the fiscal year = the calendar year.  Where it is to briefly describe its Primary Exempt Purpose and Mission:


The FY2017 return adds this sentence to its Page 1 self-description (otherwise seems to be the same) — reflecting about $1.5 more Contributions and about $1.2 more total expenses:


??This group knows there are at least 49 other statewide coalitions seeking to “end domestic abuse” (formerly acknowledged as “violence”) — but now claims to be the only one led by “social policy advocates, attorneys and experts” or the only ones working for social change? (Do they still even DO battered women’s shelters?).

See link:  Jacquelyn Boggess (better known for involvement with /as Executive Director (alongside David Pate) of fatherhood organization (also funky-filing) “Center for Family Policy and Practice” (CFFPP).  Ms. Boggess has a J.D. and is a graduate of U-Wisconsin-Madison School of Law (NOTE:  AFCCs current entity address is Madison, Wisconsin) and at CFFPP, her bio blurb says:

Additionally, Ms. Boggess has concentrated on the question of the impact of government initiated “family formation” and father involvement policy on the safety and well-being of women and children. Ms. Boggess has a particular interest in the impact of non-resident father involvement on mothers and children. Her work in this regard has resulted in connections and collaborations with domestic violence organizations and progressive advocacy groups working on poverty reduction, violence prevention, and economic justice for parents and children …

In other words, it didn’t start with violence prevention: the dominating paradigm was “father involvement policy” as can be seen by who else is on CFFPP staff and what the organization primarily has focused on.

Whatever’s else is being said of the Wisconsin group, its recent Form 990 says (<~ same link as above) told the IRS, and the public who decides to go look it up — not offered voluntarily on the website — primary funding is “government grants” and its primary expenditures are Salaries and “Other expenses.”  See my footnote below!

One probably underpaid director, a number of 1.0/hour and 0.50hour/week volunteers and not one independent contractor (i.e., who might be traceable) paid over $100K, although (Part IX, Statement of Expenses, Line 11g — $462K, which is over 10% of total functional expenses

[et cetera]

Keeping the need to look up exactly WHAT is signified with each usage of the terms, now let’s consider


QIC — “Quality Improvement Center.” It’s likely to be in effect a website, and will often mention both a public and a private entity (or combination of) as well as some sort of “Center” which is not its own entity and cannot be fiscally separated from whichever large organization, university, or government entity it’s named after or “housed at.”   Website below provides the following example (see nearby image, previously published on post, link and title also provided below).

As with the word “CENTER” in ANY context, including “QIC Center” or “Resource Center” the key questions are: entity or non-entity (and if the latter, what and where is it: at a university?  a project of nonprofit? a public/private project).  But the use of “QIC” implies there’s already an existing product (goods and/or services), which might be worth looking further into — for example, how and when did “fatherhood” became a product or a practice (as in, ‘Fatherhood practitioner.’)?

You can probably read, but if not, Click here to see flyer advertising fatherhoodqic.org

“Coordinating Council”   The key word here isn’t, as you might think “coordinating” except to express intent. The key word is “Council” which (although EVERY instance has to be looked at to distinguish what it is, or is not, starting with public or privately organized and registered — or not at all.

COUNCILS tend to be appointed in conjunction some existing authority.  They also tend to be appointed BY someone already in authority.  They can be part of government or private, and when one echoes the name of the other, track it closely as I found and reblogged (after first identifying this in 2013) again, at “Women Judges Still Form (funky-filing) nonprofits…| Men Judges Still Form County DVCCs and Obfuscate the Funding (Santa Clara County, Six Years Later) . Same goes for the next term, and both “councils” and “collaboratives” came up in that post.

“Collaborative” (used as a noun) — it’s like a call-sign.  To those already aware of what specific “collaboratives” may involved, it signals friendly cooperation in or within a network, while being so UNrelated to any identifiable term regulating the formation of either public or private entities (like:  corporation, municipality, county, (school or other) “district”) it’s also unclear — to the same public — who’s paying and who’s responsible.

“Commission” — common usage, various meanings.  See “council.”  While there are various “commissioners” appointed (such as Child Support, or Family Court), it’s neither a legislature nor courts nor top level of any executive branch of any (USA) State or Federal entity.

Classic corresponding vocabulary exists in California between (1) certain County-based Commissions (actually parts of county government) coordinated statewide by a State-based Commission (actually part of state government, executive branch), these having been formed legislatively to handle a specific new source of revenues resulting from (famously California style to adopt these) “Prop 10” (Proposition 10), raising taxes on cigarettes with the funds to go towards the commissions and be administered by them and (2) similarly named, but in the private sector, networked nonprofits, also coordinated statewide by county and with one such entity named after the statewide Commission.  

The proceeds are targeted to help children aged 5 and under, so the term “First 5” is used in both legislation, government commissions (county and state levels) AND the similarly resonating nonprofits.  Logos look similar.  Talk is similar.  Websites may vary by just a single word’s difference:

County Commissions (I’ll pick one county, the geographic name is part of the domain name).  Note:  the ending “*.org” is not a typical government entity ending, is it!

  • http://first5alameda.org and its “About Us” link — under the photos of course, and leading with what it DOES (versus what it IS):  first sentence is in third person single, referring to “First 5 Alameda County helps“– then quickly switches in the second sentence to first person plural and how well and for how long they’ve been doing it:   “We have nearly two decades….” … After those two sentences expressed in two different quantities (singular subject, plural subject), then paragraph two flips back into where it should’ve started:  What it is and what started it:  First 5 Alameda County is an innovative public entity created by….

First 5 Alameda County helps young children grow up healthy and ready to learn during the most important time in their development. We have nearly two decades of experience funding innovative programs and advocating for policies that produce better futures for our children.

First 5 Alameda County is an innovative public entity created by passage of Proposition 10 in 1998 which added fifty cents per pack of cigarettes to help fund early care and education for children 0-5.

Looking all over that site (not for the first time), it’s STILL not clear whether this is actually the private organization’s “First 5” or the county one’s.  It shows “Annual Reports” but not one “audited financial report” (which would quickly classify that website as representing EITHER gov’t OR private entity), let alone an EIN#.  So I went looking at the county website.

It took me a VERY long time (just now, June 10, 2019, having previously drafted most of this post and getting ready to publish it) to find any website referring to the “First 5 Commission” or (as also can be called) the “Alameda County California Children and Families Commission” (or CCFC of Alameda County) with the ending “*.gov” on it within this same county, starting at the county website AC.gov.

Without taking (you) through all the steps, it is listed under “Boards and Commissions” only after one scrolls down to the very bottom of the main page (where Board of Supervisors are shown and named) and off to the side of the listing of Agencies and Departments.  It is to be a legal entity separate from the county (but with board members appointed by the board of supervisors), and established pursuant to Proposition 10 adding $0.50 a pack to cigarette taxes, and as passed in 1999.  (See nearby image which I highlit yellow in the middle in part to break up a long, technical paragraph, including under what sections of the constitution it is now codified into law). https://www.acgov.org/bnc/#/board/a0U61000006zw7PEAQ (apparently “bnc” in that url may stand for “Boards’n’Commissions”?)  They have one vacant seat.   NOT MUCH is said about it on this link or sublinks, nor does it lead directly to any website telling people more about it, which seems to me a little evasive. (I put a slideshow of 4 images, but showed the final (annotated) one first here).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Sometimes I think I just about have a post done, then some new information just pushes me over from indignant to actively angry, which in my case typically takes the form of publicizing.

However, there’s always an underlying economic issue.

I believe that criminal elements have simply taken up positions within the United States government (in particular), and not noticeably (or they’d get better noticed) on either side of the better-known political divides.  Or “gender” divides.

My current post is taking a long time to get out for the usual reasons.  I’m putting those reasons on a separate post (5/24/2019, also right before “Memorial Day Weekend” in the USA.

(1) establishing definition of terms and common phrases not usually categorized as to whether (A) private or (B) public.  That’s always an issue where justice is concerned, and just takes time.  Specific phrases and the concepts they symbolize I felt important to show, not just mention, here include “coordinating council” and “collaborative,”  and, case in point, which organization of the at least three centering around a single judge (in Santa Clara County) has been most active in pushing for the formation of, specifically, domestic violence coordinating councils, and, given the role of that particular organizations in ensuring perpetrators retain access to their targeted victims under the banner of “family.”

(2) While looking (re-searching on-line) for show and tell — to prove for readers by a combination of links and images (annotated or otherwise) almost every single statement, no matter how often previously proved on this blog and linked to/imaged — even more of the prior dirty business (misdeeds) and further expansion under new labels of the same types of programs, continue to surface. This is  personally alarming, given the organizations and professionals involved.  There’s a degree of shock involved in seeing the scope.

It’s also frustrating deciding how (and how much) to seek to communicate here, in combination with how little on-line discussion I can find of awareness of situations set up even a decade or two earlier, let alone within the last five to ten years.

(3) Less so as a source of delay, but it does come up and did this time — I do not have the most current (computer) equipment and software.  Sometimes that equipment goes on strike for a half day or a day at a time: just will not process keystrokes.  (Techno problem-solving / “maintenance”).

Two or three examples in this post as it stands about four days in composition are:

  • Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative, Inc.  + the “First 5″ connection

(public mention of it in key positions while private fact-check on the entity shows it went FTB Suspended sometime around 2017 at the California State level, and it NEVER (six years after incorporation) registered as a charity, again, at the California State level.  It shows no corresponding EIN#. …. and the other nonprofit in this post already (which doesn’t file Forms 990 anyone can read, although its EIN# IS visible) has a website with board of directors (more than one) referencing that Fatherhood Collaborative.  That Fatherhood collaborative in this particular county, like other ones in nearby California Counties seems to have been jumpstarted by a statewide “First 5” Commission (referring to the first 5 years of children’s lives) which funding, I believe, came from settlement agreements relating to tobacco litigation in the late 1990s.

  • Futures without Violence “Quality Improvement Center””QIC-DVCW” (DVChildWelfare.org)

Remember “QIC-NRF“? = HHS/Children’s Bureau in 2006 funding:  American Humane Association, the ABA Center for Children and the Law (such as that is identifiable in any fiscal way) and — naturally — the National Fatherhood Initiative) on such a project as:

Engaging Dads: The National QIC on Non-Resident Fathers and the Child Welfare System

I posted on it (I see through Google Search Results — “QIC-NRF” isn’t exactly a common search term; my post came up) in March 2017 with the comments indicating it took some weeks to complete also.  It talks also about “Progressive Language Creep,” FatherhoodQIC.org and more..

Don’t know Who or What ~QIC-NRF ~ is?  Looks like neither do the AHA, the NFI, the ABA Center on Children and the Law, and HHS/Children’s Bureau (at least as uploaded at UCBerkeley’s School of Social Welfare CalSWEC) who collaborated on IT, then reported IT as a WHO (2010).  File under Fatherhood Engagement Absurdities — or at least, lots of anomalies —  2010. (case-sensitive shortlink ends in -5U6)

Now, also funded under HHS/Children’s Bureau, we have a QIC on DV focusing on blending it (even more) with “Child Welfare.”  Who better to pull this off than HHS-funded (i.e., controlled) Futures? Having already (taking both HHS and DOJ funding over many years and being part of the dominant advocacy network); having already blended (mainstreamed) fathers’ rights and father-engagement, outreach and trainings in the name of “family violence prevention,” Futures I see — its name up in context with the background of the “woman judge” mentioned in this post’s title — is now  (with specific HHS funds for this) blending in the “child welfare” theme (which has already, separately, become saturated with father-involvements, by design, over time) with DV prevention, alongside five other “partner” agencies.

Besides all the various partner websites featuring this there’s a named website (without much information on it, at all).  One of the names out of Doraville, Georgia (Caminar Latino) was new to me, so I looked it up — looked through those Form 990s (“you betcha!”) and like Santa Clara County Fatherhood Collaborative (which hasn’t been around so long), the numbers and the manner of filing just doesn’t add up — but the government connections and honors just seem to keep coming.

Footnote “NCALL in Wisconsin with help from AARP and the Greater Milwaukee Foundation,

with NCALL allegedly begun in 1992. (and I later checked, the Greater Milwaukee Foundation claiming 1989 founding date) 

The nonprofit here claims and probably was founded in 1978.  Wonder how many name changes since then…


Two images (one is a name-search, the other an EIN# (391380437) search, which coughed up the missing year “2016”.  This oversight is from the database provider, not the filing organization; the database provider (now called “Candid®”) has the face page displaying search results.

End Abuse in Wisconsin (WCADV) Name Search


End Abuse in Wisconsin (WCADV) EIN# 391380437 Search produces the missing year FYE2016. Notice three different versions of entity name displayed by FoundationCenter.org (the database searched here). 

***Comparing the FY2016 and FY2017 returns, we can see that the extra money was quickly spent — most of it, and another paid director added.  The extra money was also showing up under Government funds (Part VIII, FY2017 return vs. FY2016).

FY2017 paid officers directors, trustees, key and highest-paid employees was $174K (+ benefits).    See “Teresa Weinland-Schmidt, {<~~LinkedIn} CFO $73.8K” The prior year it was $97K (+ benefits) only  (see “Patricia Seger, Exec. Director).  (compare images):

EndAbuseWI.org (govt-funded 501©3 in Madison Wisconsin) FY2017 return, Part VIIA Bottom shows two paid officers (3rd column “x” denotes “Officer”).

The year before, it showed only one:

EndAbuseWI.org FY2016 Form 990 (FY=calendar year) tax return Part VIIA (shows only one paid officer — Patricia Seger. “ANOMALIES” — The CFO/Administrator paid (the next year under increased federal grants) $73K actually signed the FY2016 return (electronic signature, and DATE (when signed) is blocked out, not knowable from this version). The CFO isn’t even listed as an administrator on FY2016, although on her watch, apparently, the organization overspent by over $52K (of $2.5M rec’d).

Comparing FY2016 which cites “we got $5 Million” on a page 2 detail (the total rec’d that year is under $3M) but then doesn’t check “Yes” under “Anything changed?” at the top of page 2, at least ON that page lists its activities, rather than just “see additional data.”

FY2017 (when the contributions almost doubled, after mentioning (on page 1) “sub-grantee award programs” shows no awards whatsoever — simply double the amount on (Expenses) Part IX Line 11g “other”.  Prior year:  $462K of $2.5M (approx).   2017:  $901K of $4.1M (approx).  In other words, the percentage of unidentifiable “fees for services” while Part VIIA (BOTH years) “Independent contractors paid over $100K) went from about 1/5th of the total to between 1/4th and 1/5th of a larger total.  Here’s what the “explanation” of “over 10% of “Other Expenses — Non-Employees” looks like Year 1, Year 2, as expressed on Schedule O (alongside “financials and governing documents available “on request”).


Form 990, FY2016 (EndAbuseWI.org, EIN# 391380437, the former WCADV — Wisconsin CADV) one year before dramatically increased funding). $462K Part IX, Line 11g “Other”

Form 990 Sched O, FY2017 (EndAbuseWI.org, EIN# 391380437, the former WCADV — Wisconsin CADV) one year after dramatically increased funding). $911K Part IX, Line 11g “Other”

Hoping to be a little more thorough, especially having (though properly) criticized the tax returns above, I went to the websites, and see from the current condition of EndAbuseWI.org, in addition to having its hand out (and not mentioning how substantial is its current and apparently historic dependency on “government grants”), neither officer is mentioned on the “Board of Directors” (nor is there a “Staff” page.  The “Board of Directors” menu link is under “Our Work and not “About Us.”  The quality of the entire website (I just looked at all main pages, and down one link under each main menu option, as well as which drop-down menus displayed from them) — says, essentially “low-quality, slapped-together, no real standard” and what’s more ” disorganized.”

It looks cheap and slapped-together-quickly  No financials — of course –are linked anywhere.  The mugshots for Board of Directors (where available, not all are, which in this line of work, I can understand) are inconsistent in size and unprofessionals (except just one or two).

This is in “Slideshow” format to conserve vertical space.  Click on an image, cursor left or right to see the others, in total, 5.  One image is quite small (just the top menu bar).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

(Unpaid, 1 hour/week) Board Chair “Brian Gaumont” pictured above was featured in 2018 (with no reference to this organization) in a Greater Madison “In Business” publication (iBMadison.com, page 5 of 12, three people on that page’s link) featuring “40 under 40” professionals, as working for “WiPFLI.com” (Accounting and Consulting Solutions) (not listed under “leadership” there):

Teresa Weinland-Schmidt LinkedIn references a Bachelor’s in “General Agriculture” from Ohio State University in 1980, a Masters in Science in Accounting from UWisconsin-Whitewater (took six years to obtain? 1991-1997) and a dozen and a half years (as of mid-2019) at this organization (!), and a Wisconsin CPA.

A page listed “RESOURCES” has three links under it; it takes a while to list that the big block title “Homicide Reports” on the top (and no other sections visible under it) is just one third.  Yegads !!!

Footnote (?): GREATER MILWAUKEE FOUNDATION, Inc. (and Consolidated Statements)

Since my first connection (reminder) about this entity was how the Greater Milwaukee Foundation commissioned it to do a whitepaper regarding elder abuse (see website NCALL.org “About” for exact quote, imaged above also), I decided to quickly look at that foundation. Being named after a metro regional area I figured (correctly) that it’d be fairly “flush” and was not at all surprised to see apparently related organization “Greater Milwaukee Foundation Holdings, Inc.” which shows (last 3 years) a strangely “0” pattern of assets. Here’s the image (for actual returns, see FoundationCenter.org/find-funding/990-finder and type in a name or (better), EIN#, sort by the Years column, and click on the organization name to see the related tax return):

Greater Milwaukee Foundation (EIN# 396036407), FYrs ending 2014-2016, top 3 rows, though not in year order) show assets over ½ billion, not too unusual for a community foundation.

Greater Milwaukee Foundation HOLDINGS, Inc. was formed (says a FY2008 return, where the revised IRS form has a header asking “when formed?”) but this is marked (top left) ‘Initial Return” in 2007. You can see the $470K noncash donation. Other parts of the return show this as real estate; then FY2008 sold at a loss and proceeds given to the foundation, with some operating expenses (creating a deficit) and so on…

The “Holdings” entity has very, VERY few transactions on its books from startup “2003” first return only 2007, shown above (I couldn’t find any earlier).  It’s not apparent until you look at one, then the prior, or next one.  However it appears to have begun just ONE year before the 2008 recession (just in time for it, remembering this was real-estate value-related).  $470,000 noncash (shown above) was donated, then the next year, sold at a loss, and the net proceeds donated to the foundation itself.  A few years later, another real estate donation presumably (noncash, worth $387K it says) was sold at a loss, and then again another over $200K value, sold at a loss (putting several years, a “negative” assets value for the Holding company).  There are no employees, the few board members are paid (well) by “related” organization (the only one shown being the main foundation).  Et cetera.  A little odd.

GreaterMilwaukeeFoundation.org” (Establ. 1989) (Form 990FY2016 obtained from “FoundationCenter.org” above) has many things I could — and someone besides me should — comment on.  For example, on page 1 where it shows “gross receipts” $191M but Page 1 “Program Purpose Revenues” only $72M (contributions and other sources), this shows the main activity isn’t the grant-making (of $56M is recorded just below) but the buying and selling (at significant loss) securities or investments.  It’s about the investment platform.  EIGHT related tax-exempt organizations (including ‘Holdings,’ above, also receiving and selling real estate at a loss on behalf of the greater good of “Greater Milwaukee”) are listed, some family, others appear to be perhaps smaller geographical area foundations.  That’s not unusual — pooled assets under common management for greater efficiency, etc. …

However, even the $56M GRANTS — which should be recorded starting on Schedule I or if some organizations (too many do!) wish to attach a statement separately, listed there in some sort of functional/visible without-a-magnifying-glass way. The only problem here — there IS no “Statement 1” uploaded.  So whose responsibility is that?  Possibly — and equally possibly not — the filing entity’s (Greater Milwaukee Foundation) omission. Only further checks would tell.

But for an organization whose primary purpose to exist is encouraging philanthropy, including grant-making, and has claimed $56M of it in a single year — that’s a LOT of missing data!

Questions: What happened (how did it lose $59M) in FY2015 after having just received an extra-large (about $100M larger than the usual $30M or so) “Gross receipts” (page 1, Schedules A, etc.)? in 2014?

(Note: current website financials — which are posted — only go back to FY2015 (FY=Calendar Year).  Where on the website are grants listed (with their EIN#s as ought to be in any Form 990, along with address and amounts, in legible-sized fonts?).

In 2017 (a year whose tax return doesn’t yet show on “FoundationCenter.org” database) a few million — relatively small amount overall — was moved to The Cayman Islands (foreign partnership “Bain Capital  ______ and others in Cayman Islands), Jersey (UK region), and one in London (UK).  Relatively small amounts, but the first seen in recent years.

What the website refers to as “Greater Milwaukee Foundation” (mostly) claiming over 100 years, according to the financial statements posted on-site is in fact a community trust by that name — and an incorporated entity (the Form 990-filer), whose accounts are consolidated; that incorporated entity includes (also explained on website — minimum $1M investment is required)  8 Supporting Organizations (now down to only 6).   Presumably that’s why it can (legally?) claim to be “100 years old” when in fact the tax returns say “founded in 1989,” i.e., now just 30 years old…).

FY2014 was the last year (for anything filed at Foundation Center) even showing a “Statement 1” list of grants — and it looks like (page after page of) this…. (<~~~see link provided. A tax return has XII parts, then Schedules A …R.. generally.  Schedule O holds supplemental information.

“Statements” as in “See Statement #__” where the form says, fill in the data, can be provided and sometimes are, almost anywhere — and are not always on Schedule O’s when the IRS form says this is where to provide them… So you’ll have to page down — a lot — to find the smallest fonts in the entire return — nd that’s the list of grantees). FY’s 2015 and 2016 from the Foundation Center show nothing.  Public copy of FY2017 available has them in similar size font — and scanned horizontally. (and prior years uploaded there 2015 and 2016 are not scanned horizontally — but are in the same “invisible to the naked eye” sized font…) WAS THIS NECESSARY? (no). The grantees are listed alphabetically.  So long as the organization had decided to use its own format — rather than the IRS which has both horizontal and vertical guidelines (and only about 12 blanks per page, with “EIN#” its own column and a column to list whether 501© or gov’t, etc.) —


In the colorful and fairly detailed (at first glance) listing of Visibly-listed grants and grantees on-site, can one view, in order, an entire year’s worth (with EIN# and grantee actual address, including city and state, and kind of entity (public or private is important)?  (NO).

Does this behavior sound like it’s in the best interest of any community who MIGHT want to know where the impact, influence, and cash flow towards “community” organizations is being focused? (Not really.  The IRS forms are a source of information intended at least in part for the public, not just the IRS, associated with the privilege of functioning tax-exempt.)

What kind of mentality would be behind any organization, long-standing, whose website AND Forms 990 withhold key information, while explaining so much else about how professional all the involved investment managers and advisors are and how philanthropically inclined?  (YOU ANSWER.  I have mine already.  It’s just not right!)

Community Foundations “To The Contrary” could be a blog — except I’m not mentoring interns or offspring or hired hands at this point.  If I could clone, I would.  This one is now ¾ billion assets, it says.  Its website shows much more than others in some ways — but is still lacking key info where it most counts, to simply explain itself in more than advertising terms.

Involvement with Arabella (later New Venture Fund) consultants, “Colonial Consulting” in NY from earlier years of investing too) and the termination of a Secretary/Treasurer “Patricia Dew” in favor of a Ken Robertson? (Robinson?) could be looked at.

Best understood in the larger context with lots of visuals. Not something I’m up for doing at the moment…// LGH 5/25/2019 i.e., “Memorial Day Weekend”


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: