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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements, Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Publ. Sept. 18].

leave a comment »

Another post held in draft now being released… From its contents below:

This post punctuates the overall message with the vastness of systems change 1999-2019 IN ADDITION TO major changes mid-1990s due to Welfare Reform + VAWA (also especially advancing public relations consultants and media owners), both …set up two decades ago.

Sure, it takes some concentration to follow, but no apologies offered!  Concentration is a helpful quality in life, as well as judgment on what to focus on and for how long!

Another choice quote from this post:

This fills in some of the billion-dollar-background context which sheds light on what the intense focus on “Zero to Three” “First 5” and “Early Childhood Education” special interest group coalition leaders know well that probably has escaped substantial notice of the paying public.

The coalitions happen at university and state leadership area backed by philanthropies (tax-exempt foundations) that often just do not even post their own financials, let alone post them in both legible and functional formats.

I wouldn’t dare make that last sentence if I hadn’t found it, repeatedly.  Really, the situation is shocking.

One foundation associated with a center listed below, at some point during recent drill-downs, I found claiming to have donated over a four-year period a total of one million dollars to an organization which actual organization (by its name) was at the time IRS-revoked status in Florida, while the foundation tax return recorded a Massachusetts address, as I recall, directly associated with this center, i.e., with Harvard. (Foundation: Alliance for Early Success, which is listed as an investor in the center).  Not posted here; that’s just my comment. If you want to see this, start looking for and looking up tax returns, then looking up among their larger grantees! I do not recall offhand whether I actually published any post containing that drill down, but probably have provided some links to it within the last three months)

Why posting this now, a bit out of sequence from recent themes?  Take a look at it below!  Would YOU go to all that trouble and detail and not publish? It also contains summary (first) and many valuable points of reference, I feel, below that.

It helps provide an overview of a system which the originators of the system so far have not and do not seem inclined to offer the public, from the perspective of expecting systems for fiscal accountability to exist within the United States, even in the tax-exempt sector, which we all know is interacting significantly with the public sector, which we fund every time we work and receive a paycheck, and in countless other ways when receiving or seeking services or accessing ANY of the vast infrastructure privately owned by the federal and state governments (as to USA) which frame our lives continually.

I see on reviewing this one just before publishing that in addition to the topic referenced, I’d also just recently run across “Harvard Center on the Developing Child” which intersects with subject matter of the family courts because of the psychology/education/early-childhood subject matter and professions organized, generally, into private societies by geography or special interests, so often accessing U.S. Health and Human Services grants and contracts.

THIS POST’s TITLE:  Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements + Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Published Sept. 18].  (Shortlink ending “-aaH,” and (unbelievably) under 5,000 words)

SUBJECT MATTER CONTEXT: The most closely related post was published August 7, 2019 (which no longer shows on the “Last Ten Posts” widgets shown below as images or on the blog sidebar): A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) ((Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019) post short-link ends “-a6m.”  Currently 5,200 words, having just been shortened (split), but this one is still a bit complex. Following the funds has been made complex. Last update, Sunday, August 11, 2019.

I’ve been trying to get out a “By Now We Should Know” post for almost two months now, while trying to deftly knit together some complex information as a backdrop to that basically simple post.

LGH|FCM post (pre-publict’n) Admin, ‘Health Systems Still Flushing w Cash’ Last Revs 3 months ~|~ 3 wks ago (June vs Aug 2019) (see June22 published post) ~~SShot 2019-09-18

LGH|FCM Sidebar ‘Last Ten Posts’ viewed in 2 images ~~>Screen Shot 2019-09-18 (Image #1 of 2)

[Sept. 19, 2019 Pre-Publication UPDATE: “By Now We Should Know” was published June 22, 2019.]

Meanwhile, I’ve also been working on blog front-page and trying to stay current with developing (family court legislative reform and government restructuring) events. (See small image, below-right)

I could just show here an image of the top of “By Now We Should Know” but feel it’s more helpful to provide it in-post, with active links.  So this post (otherwise complete at under 5,000 words) starts below with an updated section, added Sept. 18, 2019, after which I have published it basically “as-is” meaning, as it was, as written (last previous edit) August 28, 2019).

LGH|FCM Sidebar ‘Last Ten Posts’ viewed in 2 images ~~>Screen Shot 2019-09-18 (Image #2 of 2)

I’m also posting FYI here from the blog sidebar (as of today) annotated images to show the last ten posts reflecting some of the current content and (back through Aug. 15, 2019) the one most recently dealing with this Health System Flush With Cash” (see nearby, one on the left, the other on the right)…

This information is of course easy to see now (without annotation) under that sidebar widget; I’m including here only for future reference,  for anyone including myself who may be reading this post possibly months or a year or more from now). That situation comes up from time to time, as you’ll see below where I reference the “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan topic” I posted on earlier, and how large an impact it had on the US economy (for starters) in the 1980s and 1990s.  Basic concepts to keep in mind and timeframes to remember (i.e., those LBO leveraged buyout years, major players, and more)…//LGH Sept. 19, 2019.

TOP SECTION, “BY NOW WE SHOULD KNOW” (encased in red borders, cream-colored background, with “Two Helpful Links” configuration also shown (as on that post)), published June 22, 2019:

“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019).  (short-link ending “-9NU,” post drafted as insert to “More Perspectives” in late April, under 4,000 words, for starters…). (now exactly 6,000 words; latest revisions for clarity and extra links, 6/23/2019).

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)

TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):

 Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.”  About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and, 

(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)

This post (that you’re reading now) prepares people for another post, already written, which asks a hard, “what-if” rhetorical question.  I hope readers on considering that (coming post’s) rhetorical question have the integrity to consider where they may have been radically mis-led about the real purposes of family court reform/fix/correct movements.  Even though it may be embarrassing, confronting, or disturbing.


IF I COULD FIGURE THIS OUT 2006-2010, especially (and subsequently)…

END, Sept. 2019 insert of TOP SECTION, “BY NOW WE SHOULD KNOW” (published June 22, 2019).

Now The rest of THIS post, started earlier, going to be published today, Sept. 18, 2019

Again, You are Reading:Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements + Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Published Sept. 18].  (Shortlink ending “-aaH,” and (unbelievably) under 5,000 words)

The complex information isn’t really optional in that it does explain more of a sudden influx of billions of dollars of revenues at the state levels just a few years after Welfare Reform of 1996 restructured (and diverted signifcant amounts of) that which was already flowing from Federal to State.

Of course, funds flow continually from state (people’s paychecks) into federal through a longstanding mechanism called the federal income tax — and many other ways.  It’s rather a circular process, it seems, but somehow people seem to be having less and less, getting bounced out of their work lives (or some, killed off), while from what I can tell, organizations and entities set up by both welfare reform promotion of marriage fatherhood and the major anti-smoking successes (?), some shown here, continue to support in fact, similar types of programming.

Such as Early Childhood / Children and Families programming.  It’s politically correct and socially acceptable, and less likely to start inflammatory debates about the gender divide, it seems.

However, child and family-focused entities (for example, in California’s “First 5” system, referring to the First 5 years of life, i.e., KIDS) tends to also include a heavy dose of fatherhood funding to counter the alleged woman-dominant social structure nationwide, particularly when it comes to government services.  (When will it ever be enough to rebalance the equation away from feminism or women’s rights, including even if they’re mothers of young children? Who knows….).

As previously written (but I do not recall whether or not posted yet.  See TOC links above):

This fills in some of the billion-dollar-background context which sheds light on what the intense focus on “Zero to Three” “First 5” and “Early Childhood Education” special interest group coalition leaders know well that probably has escaped substantial notice of the paying public.

The coalitions happen at university and state leadership area backed by philanthropies (tax-exempt foundations) that often just do not even post their own financials, let alone post them in both legible and functional formats.

This takes some concentration to follow, especially for those accustomed to mentally tagging along behind self-proclaimed “thought leaders.”

I present here** several tobacco litigation Master Settlement Agreement dots and connect them through the funding and the partnering to the “early childhood development” national obsession (and special interest) and from there to “fatherhood” promotion, and through and because of this correspondence, a level of financial corruption which can only occur with cooperation at the highest levels,*** which has already been shown, not just by me, but in that particular category, featured on this blog.  Nor do I spare “DV” organizations when they behave the same (however, it’s also notable how the two work together privately at the strategy and technical/consulting levels, which is not divulged to clients at the face-to-face service provision level (or on the service-providing organizations’ websites, generally).

(**between here and the other post with similar title, shown above.//LGH Sept. 19, 2019)

***How many examples does anyone need to come to that conclusion?

I’ve been blogging TEN YEARS now on these matters and cited group after group after group, some of whose leadership has cycled in and out of key positions at HHS (and the USDOJ), who among them (often citing each other as positive examples on each others’ websites) simply: do not file tax returns, and/or have had tax numbers revoked by the IRS, but continue being given public “cred” at public (government entity, including but not limited to within a state university system) website.

I have posted before (especially in Fall 2017) on the massive build-up of what is now the department of HHS with specific help and prodding from the widow (Mary Lasker) of a major ad agency executive, Albert Lasker.  This is still taking place and further centralizing. (Links provided below).

This post punctuates the overall message with the vastness of systems change 1999-2019 IN ADDITION TO major changes mid-1990s due to Welfare Reform and VAWA (also especially advancing public relations consultants and media owners), both of which were set up two decades ago.

Sure, it takes some concentration to follow, but no apologies offered!  Concentration is a helpful quality in life, as well as judgment on what to focus on and for how long!

Self-proclaimed “thought-leaders” often are more strategically organized, funded, and better cross-sector coordinated than they seem, and (my opinion) given the back-stories they are aware of and most of the public is not, are not who they seem to be, either. There’s always some segmentation and dissociation within movements, but at the leadership level, people know who they are and whom they’re working for when it’s NOT the public interest. They apparently just don’t care; it hasn’t entered into the thinking to the point of being worked out into practice, and held to as a standard within the sector.  The sector has other goals, it seems.. 

This capacity (see Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan** consulting model) is far more mainstreamed in policymaking now than it was even in the early 1990s.  A key part of manipulation is concealing the intent to manipulate or “frame” the conversation from the public for a desired result.

**That link is a blog-search on my three-word, made-up phrase to describe what I was seeing. (Browsing it gives some good background, or a general scope). “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan” is probably also a tag on FamilyCourtMatters.org here.

Unfortunately, sometimes using the “search (this) blog” function, producing a link for a specific terms, I’ll get many posts in the results– but some older posts lack a proper abbreviating link (“Read-More”). Then I have to go back to insert missing ones, or elevate existing ones placed down too far. This time I did not; maybe in a day or so. BASICALLY, Harvard is, well, “Harvard” (especially its Business School). Bain & Company is consulting. Bridgespan is a nonprofit consulting modeled after Bain, but targeting the nonprofit sector (as I recall it). Think “Boston Consulting Group,” (perhaps Mitt Romney for the Bain Capital)

Bain Capital on Wikipedia (image taken & annotated 6-22-2019).

(Wiki, see next image I’ll toss in for the reference point), then exponentially multiply it (as McKinsey copied that model, only larger). Think BIG, and possibly TOO BIG TO TRACK, you have the general idea. Create a new field, define the terms, and who better than the field-creators to consult in how to apply them?  Read enough billionaire’s Forms 990PF (or 990s), look at the section on independent subcontractors (i.e., consultants) and see what they’re being paid, especially investment consulting.


Sometimes, when power talks to power, little effort to conceal the arrogance is made.

Just two days ago [when this post was started//LGH] I ran across another profiteering non-profit esconced now within Harvard at (another) university-wide “Center” with proprietary tactics even boasting about its ability and intents to frame the discussion with the public to promote its clients’ — deliberately intended to blend public and private for selling the ‘science’ behind collaboratively determined ‘solutions’ (across the [mostly progressive] spectrum of causes).  The 501©3 calls itself “Frameworks Institute” and its proprietary produce also uses the keyword “frame.”  (A reference to DevelopingChild.Harvard.Edu, keep reading…)

(See “Frameworks Institute” (Susan Nall Bales, M.A. and Nat Kendall-Taylor, Ph.D., both at Frameworks and both “Senior Fellows” at ~~>Harvard’s University-wide “Center on the Developing Child at Harvard University” directed byJack P. Shonkoff, M.D., MPH, who chairs the “National Scientific Council on the Developing Child” (at that Center).

Ms. Bales, with an M.A. in French Literature from Middlebury College, after her time at the Benton Foundation, discovered that:

…nonprofit organizations and foundations lacked access to the latest approaches in the social and cognitive sciences. At the time, most nonprofit organizations either relied on outdated thinking about mass communications or used research methods that were developed for purposes other than social change. The nonprofit sector was, in large part, applying the communications practices of the for-profit sector and, as a result, undermining its own effectiveness.

Bales set about resolving this problem. Early in her career in the nonprofit sector, she experimented with public opinion research and published several studies on how Americans view children’s issues[i].

The Benton Foundation based in Evanston, Illinois, is named after and was founded by Yale graduate and advertising agency (Benton & Bowles) and post-World War II U.S. Senator William Benton, who took on Joseph McCarthy, probably what cost him his re-election. It is run today in part by his granddaughter Adrienne Furniss, does not take unsolicited grants, and is a very relevant and minor, ‘in-passing’ reference by the self-description at Frameworks Institute of its founder’s perspectives and interests.  Benton was also publisher of Encyclopedia Britannica.  Benton’s son Charles lived until 2015.

(Shonkoff at “ZeroToThree” shows among his affiliations the Society for Research in Child Development (“SCRD”),** a name which keeps coming up in connection along with the “Foundation for Child Development” (“FCD”) with marriage/fatherhood programming promotion.  For example, the FCD is listed a partner (sic) in Princeton-based “The Future of Children Among the so-called partners, three are actually private tax-exempt foundations (one Swiss, two American) and the others instead, centers (and one “section”) at either a university — or within one of the foundations (Brookings).

**Claims foundations in 1923; see Robert S. Woodworth‘s (1869-1962) Wikipedia to realize we are at Harvard, Yale, William James, G. Stanley Hall, and Behavioral/Experimental Psychology (see Edward Thorndike, who I looked at knowing that a Nancy Thorndike was second wife of Zero to Three Founder Stanley Greenspan…and wondering if they were related)

(The name “Zero to Three” only acquired in 1996, after the “National Center for Clinical Infant Programs” formed in 1977, Terry Brazleton joining in 1988, finally got federal contracts, under Early Head Start Quality Program Design which later became an EHS “National Resource Center.” By 1997 its history page is showing the name of an AFCC married couple known for fatherhood studies (he’s the husband:  Kyle Pruett))

We also know, or should by now, that the handling of domestic violence has been RE-framed (by special-interest groups and staff/directors/faculty often at UNdocumented centers at universities (fiscally untraceable monies) and other public/private consortia, collaboratives, etc.) under the primary issue of behavioral modification, which is in a word to say, as a sociological HEALTH issue more than a criminal one.  This goes with both the impact on those victimized and those perpetrating it who need to be rehabilitated.  This is also a global policy (WHO, etc.).  See “HiAP” (Health in All Policies) searchable on this blog or off it, but I’ve documented on this blog.

The “fatherhood collaborative” I just looked at in Santa Clara County (see my May 26, 2019 published post, itself reviewing things I’d reported in 2013), only formed in 2013, and sometime after 2016 as a business entity was “FTB Suspended.”  With the current California SOS system that seems to have been sometime in 2017 — but in June 2017, its website was being positively referenced at a public university (center) in Texas, part of the state university system, i.e., part of government.

Looking the term “fatherhood collaborative” up at SCC.gov (i.e., the county website) I saw that two nearby counties had had either a fatherhood COUNCIL or COLLABORATIVE in which the current “DCSS” (Department of Child Support Services) director of now a third county, Contra Costa County, Ignacio J. Guerrero, had been involved.  These four counties are all near each other:  Santa Clara County (contains San Jose and generally also associated with “Silicon Valley,” contains Palo Alto (i.e., Stanford University), etc. San Mateo County (just south of SF) and Alameda County (“Alameda County Fatherhood Corps”) where the “First 5” sponsorship was clearly shown.

So my preview*** features (shows) the vast size of the tobacco litigation master settlement agreement funds and how these connect in part to California’s county-based commissions for administering some of these funds.  In other words, where did all that money go, after it was awarded?  For the purposes the litigation claimed were primary concerns?

[***UPDATE: coming back to this post after some months working on others, I  believe it may have been a section off-ramped from one which has since been published:  “Health Systems Flush with Cash.”  See sidebar (if you’re reading this within a month or two of publication), or scroll down from the top of blog Current Posts page if I haven’t yet entered Sept. 2019 into the 2019 Table of Contents page.  Thanks.//LGH]]

Apparently not quite.

In looking for handy links summarizing this, I found one from “Health Affairs” (by DC-based “Project Hope”) commenting on how these funds were essentially unrestricted grants to the states.  Besides this, just a few years earlier (1996, with some transition periods), we’d seen 1996 Welfare Reform also vastly restructured existing Federal-to-State grants based on the Social Security Act, with “TANF” (Block grants to states) giving states more flexibility.

With this flexibility, the Health Affairs article on the MSA monies points out, sometimes the special-interest groups direct beneficiaries benefit most directly — while (despite them being grants in the first place) the public shares the larger costs, spread more widely.  The money received wasn’t necessarily spent on the purposes stated in the class-action litigation.

This IS a re-cap for me. It should be for many “custody-challenged mothers” I have known (some whose children are now aged out) and others still with children in the system.

It is NOT news to many involved professionals, of course, and I seriously doubt it’s news to the various county-supervisors or commissioners whose responsibilities entail dealing with children and families, or resources (i.e., public grants and contracts) administering programs directed at them.

One example which has recently resurfaced (through my blogging) of “Commissioners” in California would include those whose receipt of late 1990s Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement monies (i.e., from multi-state class action lawsuit filed by state attorneys-general; I’ve posted on it perhaps three? years ago in detail; searchable on this blog).  It had an impact (still) on structuring of the HHS, and resulted in billions of dollars  – $206 billion over time — of payments to States, which then distribute to Cities and Counties.

This was the largest civil litigation lawsuit in U.S. history!  The payments to the participating (46 out of 50!) states from it, per the Master Settlement Agreement have not only been in the billions, those payments are “in perpetuity.”

PublicHealthLawCenter.org, MSA Summary (Nov. 2018), quote is on p. 2 and labeled (fine print at the top) “Tobacco Control Legal Consortium” – a name which this center at a Minnesota law school now, May, 2019, announces it’s retiring this name  because it was confusing the public (and, they’re broadening their mission).  This law center was only formed in 2000… (“Public Health Law Center Retires Consortium Name“)

As explained on California Attorney-General’s website:

Under the Master Settlement Agreement, seven tobacco companies agreed to change the way they market tobacco products and to pay the states an estimated $206 billion. The tobacco companies also agreed to finance a $1.5 billion anti-smoking campaign, open previously secret industry documents, and disband industry trade groups which Attorneys General maintain conspired to conceal damaging research from the public.   (see “OAG.CA.Gov/Tobacco/MSA“)

Detail from Tobacco Settlement Payments to Counties and Cities, 1999-2019 Shows final page + Total Paymts @ 2019 (excerpt only) with Los Angeles’ County portion $100M, and City, $10M (by far the largest every year). Total $16B (<~Billion) over 20 years, half (see top of image) to the State, half to the Counties (San Francisco’s was “City and County” one payment)

[caption oversight: $16B was called “$16M” altho annotated image has it right at the top (and the image also shows it was “billion” on top row). Noticed it July 30, 2020, corrected at once. Why: I included a link to this and related post on my Front Page (“FamilyCourtMatters.org” gets you there), which I’ve been updating…//LGH

(From same page) there’s  Tobacco Settlement Payments to Counties and Cities, 1999-2019
(a pdf with chart, one page per year, the rows are all counties in California, some “City and County” Payments). See nearby, annotated image which includes up through Los Angeles County (and City of Los Angeles).

(First 5 Commissions in California)

What happened to all that money after all those lawsuits? Search results show this article as early as 2005 showing diversion and appropriation of funds based on studies of six key states (two not in the MSA).  It doesn’t show many cites, but does summarize (by state) how the MSA money was essentially treated as “unrestricted grant-in-aid” to the states, and used for things like reducing state budget deficits (!), to water projects (North Dakota) to helping tobacco-dependent communities negatively affected by these law-suit (North Carolina) to passing on the cost of the tobacco control programs to cigarette smokers anyhow, the most dramatic of which was in California:

States’ Allocations of Funds From the Tobacco Master Settlement Jan./Feb. 2005 in “Health Affairs” by (several authors: see image**), © Project HOPE – The People-to-People Health Foundation, Inc. (EIN# 530242963~>(Forms 990 show VA address, D.C. Domicile, and 1958 Founding, assets declining to around $49M but Gross receipts that year $111M)**

Using information from six states—California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, North Carolina, and North Dakota—this study evaluates alternative explanations of why states made the allocation decisions they did. The six were selected for geographic diversity and varied approaches to tobacco control and public health. Together the states contained 27 percent of the U.S. population in 2001.  4 Attorneys general from four of the states represented the forty-six participating states in negotiating the settlements.  5….

This abstract talks about how decisions are made, and in some states, what decisions were made about use of those funds, emphasizing my point, again, that how this money is used affects politics…

Given the high costs of being informed on all issues, voters delegate responsibility for decision making to elected officials. Particularly on less visible decisions, such as how unrestricted funds from an external source are to be allocated by the state, elected officials can exercise considerable discretion. … ||para. break || Many decisions, including those concerning allocation of funds from the tobacco settlements, involve concentrated benefits for a few well-defined groups, with the costs being widely shared among the population at large. Under these circumstances, the incentives to influence policy design are much greater for the direct beneficiaries than for the public more generally.  7 In the context of the tobacco settlements, such beneficiaries consist of groups that advocate on behalf of tobacco control, public health, tobacco growers, tobacco-dependent communities, and other special interests, such as education lobbies, which may view the settlement dollars as a new source of funding.

Speaking of “costs being shared widely by the public” even after these major settlements, California instituted a $2/pack cigarette tax anyway:

If the governors generally have not supported funding for tobacco control, the larger question arises: Why did so many states file lawsuits against the companies? Among the reasons are structural features of state government: U.S. attorneys general are often elected and may use involvement in litigation against companies engaged in conduct that appears contrary to the public interest as a platform to pursue higher public office. For governors, who have more general fiscal responsibility, the availability of unrestricted money for use in solving short-term problems is very tempting.

Here are those authors.  Note the sponsorship of RWJF administered at Wake Forest University in NC, also the “About” page of Health Affairs as well as background of its current Editor in Chief (since 2014) Alan Weil, all quite interesting:

Frank Sloan (   ) is the J. Alexander McMahon Professor of Health Policy and Management and a professor of economics at Duke University, in Durham, North Carolina. Jennifer Allsbrook is a project coordinator at the Center for Clinical and Genetic Economics, Duke Clinical Research Institute. Leanne Madre is a project leader at the Duke Clinical Research Institute—Outcomes. Leah Masselink is a graduate student in the Department of Health Policy and Administration, School of Public Health, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Carrie Mathews is member services manager at CXO Media in Framingham, Massachusetts

This study was supported in part by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation administered by the Substance Abuse Policy Research Program, based at Wake Forest University.



Footnote “Health Affairs (Journal) | Project Hope, the People-to-People Health Foundation.” (context, its Jan/Feb. 2005 summary, based on six states, on usage of the Tobacco Master Settlement Funds).  

This is general interest; I also want to point out that its publication is used to brief Congress, and that it doesn’t volunteer its tax returns or financials on website, although Health Affairs kindly did provide at least the EIN#.

IRS Tax Return (EIN#530242962) FYE 2017 (Fiscal Yr=Calendar Yr) program purpose statement (FY2017), pg 1:


and Page 2, Pt. III Line 4 (another mission statement):


I see from its Schedule F (activities outside the United States) that about $63M (or so) of its total activities for the year were overseas, with the largest single region of activity, MENA (Middle East and North Africa).

(I just browsed past tax returns — the fiscal year changed from YE June in only 2016 (not so marked on tax returns); while they’re getting government grants each year ($10M, $13M were figures I saw) their main contributions — usually more than ten times the gov’t amounts — are “private” (figures I saw, $245M, one year only $80M, etc. and of those (speaking of Part VIII “Revenues” on the various returns) MOST was “noncash.”

They are it seems receiving donations of medicine and pharmaceutical equipment.  

View the Part X Balance Sheets (line items) and see that inventory is a good chunk.  Look at FY2013 for example, or FY2014 (both ending in June, not December).  Interesting…Not unusual for humanitarian aid organization.

[For what it’s worth…]

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

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

%d bloggers like this: