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

You’re reading:  Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is No Accident | Noticing/Naming The Foundations..(Next Posts in This Pipeline) (started Nov. 15, 2019, Publ. Dec. 1).  (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-bCC”, about 2,500 words only).

This post exists only to identify and provide post titles (with links active when each is published only), specific points of reference (names of centers, tax-exempt foundations involved, etc.) and brief descriptions/abstracts of what they already hold in their draft status.  You don’t need to wait for me to publish to look anything referenced up; but I already know most people don’t get quickly (by digging for where not shown voluntarily on the websites) to the financials of such situation, where character and structure (and age of existence) tend to show up.  But if you want to get a head start on this in the public interest…

More Posts In This Subject Matter Pipeline:

(Subject Matter: Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is no accident.)

Or, Behavioral Health Strongholds, Conflict-of-Interest Investors & their reporting behaviors in Arizona, (my) Recent Finds correlate to Earlier Ones)

“In the Pipeline” in my world means, in draft status as posts.  They are more than “in the works” or wouldn’t be listed, but they have not yet (as of this date) been published.

Specifically, my prior post, publ. Nov. 25, updated (tags added, footnote and sections added Nov. 26), seems to have opened some of my “Let’s explore-and-examine on these foundations’ coordinated influence” floodgates.  I began devouring available information and it quickly started falling into categories of operations.  Link and mini-description of my Nov. 25 post, which was just a start (and more focused on the AFCC participation aspects):

It could’ve been easily subtitled: “TO SHOW or NOT TO SHOW? SHOULD AFCC’s INFLUENCE be SUBMERGED or FEATURED?” 

I remember having gotten back to Arizona through reading about a co-editor (in chief) of an international journal based in England; that journal already had an Overseas Editor from Arizona (Ira Mark Ellman), but the co-editor (in chief) Robert Dingwall also had been writing on mandatory mediation as it intersects with domestic violence, which brought up the USA (NIJ)-grant-funded project involving an AFCC-connected psychologist  (as recent posts detailed).

I drafted this “what’s in the pipeline” post (Arizona’s Behavioral Science Biosphere is No Accident, short-link ends “-bCC”, the one you are now reading) because of the background information I kept discovering* on who’s been backing the “Behavioral Science Biosphere” in Arizona, and how this was being engineered and coordinated.

Obviously that biosphere will involve a heavy dose of career psychologists and/or psychotherapists, some ensconced within universities and (as it happened here) chances are, some of those will have strong, career-long connections to the AFCC (“Association of Family and Conciliation Courts, Inc.”) which tends to promote the same fields and obtains court-connected and court-ordered funding for their professionals and networked nonprofits.

Chances are, and I’ve also identified within this post pipeline, a heavy dose of USA’s responsible fatherhood promotion via Social Security Act funding (i.e., “welfare reform”) has also been alive and well in the State of Arizona  since at least the early 1990s, and beyond Arizona due to the nature of the multi-society behaviors of behavioral science professionals (in their mutual field- and career-building interests), to international privately organized interests, journals, and/or associations. These two conditions seem to be mutually favorable to expansion of the field of behavioral health and justifying of existing power structure which happens in this country to identify as patriarchal, i.e., “father-focused.”

*I kept discovering because and as I kept looking.  Like finding the definition of a word one hasn’t seen before, it began just looking up one reference in the (2011) document I wished to blog where one of the author’s references was to a  “School of Mind, Brain and Behavior” at the University of Arizona-Tucson. The follow-up came from looking at when this School of Mind, Brain and Behavior was first established (it seems, only about 2009) and by whom (which led to the Flinn and Thomas R. Brown Foundations, articles talking about it).

For length and better flow, I’ve moved the material to a number of different posts by main subject matter.  With “Oh Arizona…” as (#1), they are:

(#2) Arizona! (Career AFCC Academics’ Self-Disclosure Habits, Home Habitats/Economic Niches, cont’d.) Nov. 13, 2019 (short-link ends “-bAu”). (Has some overlap with my latest post). [[//LGH: About to be published now Dec. 30 2019…]]

Once I saw two major foundation websites** Flinn and Thomas R. Brown Foundations (“TRBF”) backing (together) a school at the University of Arizona, and (Thomas R. Brown Foundations) also a major Univ. of Arizona donor and fundraiser, looking to establish a climate favorable to certain industries, I felt it was time to bring back a reminder of the Cummings Foundations (Nicholas A., formerly of Kaiser Mental Health) contribution to Arizona State University, also in “Behavioral Health“)  to this whole theme, leading to:

(#3) Look Who’s Been Building the BioScience/Behavioral Modification Ecosystem | ‘School of Mind Brain and Behavior’ at Univ. of Arizona (cited in an NIJ Report by AFCC-Friendly Associate Prof. Connie J.A. Beck, Ph.D. (Psych.)) (Nov. 13, 2019) (short-link ends “-bB7”) (now published)

This one, post “(#3)” has references to (and I may do drill-downs by EIN#) of the Cummings Foundations which in 2012 tag-teamed with some of the “Our Broken Family Courts” professionals and PR/consulting groups (i.e., like Center for Judicial Excellence) which at the time was a real eye-opener of hypocrisy among that movement to me. Not that the general trend wasn’t already noticed over a year earlier..I may change the name to reflect its inclusion of those topics, but the link will likely remain the same.

(**representing more than just two organizations, however, something only a tax return would normally reveal, under (if it was a Form 990 2008ff) Schedule R or otherwise.  Here I found THREE (so far) bearing some form of the name Thomas R. Brown…Foundation (in different varieties) all at the same address.  I also found their supported organization, Community Foundation for Southern Arizona. (“CFSAZ.org” or it calls itself “CFSA” for short). Which led me to another short post:

(#4) CFSAZ.org, 1980ff in Tucson. (Arizona! Post #4 Nov. 2019). Just Another Community (sic) Foundation with $125M Assets, a new Disregarded Entity for Its Campus, 11 related Tax-exempt Orgs, and sending largest grants OUT of state. (Started *Nov. 14, 2019.  (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-bBP” as moved only about 500 words.  Now separated, I should add screenprints taken today from just that one Form 990 FY2017). “sic” meaning “so-called.” 

These comments refer to exploring the TRBF organizations which led to exploring the CFSA (Community Foundation) one as they are entwined, and one TRBF Donor fund seems the largest of the 11 “related organizations” (shown on a certain tax return) for the Community Foundation.

Put another way, TRBF money is having a heavy influence on both the Community Foundation and (through common leadership and at some points, purposes) the University of Arizona, i.e., a public institution supported by both Arizonans and the federal government as all public universities in the USA are….

It was an easy read (just a few more lookups) to see money flowing FROM one private (990PF-filer) TRBF TO another one (at the same address and using the same website, which doesn’t post its financials to signal this to the readers), and that (latest year viewed) the largest (CFSA) grant wasn’t in fact to the “supported” organization but to a San Francisco nonprofit (CARE, EIN#131685039, $1.1M — between one-fifth and one-sixth of the total contributions that year), and the second largest to the University of Arizona Foundation.  It also tossed $170K+ directly to the Arizona Governor’s Office and (by recall; see that tax return) Boston University.

“CARE” in SF (I just checked the Registry of Charitable Trusts in California) is not the full entity name; it’s a California organization (Entity C0652054) showing an Atlanta Georgia mailing address and, from 2001 forward (as far back as this registry normally goes), generally, both assets AND revenues every single year of about, approaching, or exceeding $500M, i.e., one-half BILLION dollars yearly.  The charitable details also show a string of “incomplete” notices from the State of California, multiple “Miscellaneous Documents” (unfortunately, not labeled by contents) and at least one “Founding Documents” hyper link. (!!) The legal name seems to be “Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc.” (!!).

Could not CFSA in Arizona have easily included its actual legal name?  How many people would’ve looked this up by EIN# and discovered the situation?  I’d call that a red flag!

The primary source of revenues for this DC (legal domicile), Georgia (street address) entity “CARES” which also seems to have a San Francisco Address as far as this Arizona COMMUNITY foundation is concerned, is USAID.  CARE’s (and USAID’s) historic scope of operations and field of concern is international — the exact opposite of “Community” and not even close to “local” when referring, as the business (foundation’s) Community Organization For Southern Arizona, Inc. legal business name does, to several counties within a single state of the United States of America.

For CARE’s 2019 “renewal filing”in California, an state RRF (Registration Renewal Fees) form requiring it to list its government funds (with specific contact numbers and individual’s names) was not complied with.  Instead, it combined both government and private funding in one list minus the required personal contact information.  (But who monitors that and enforces compliance at the state Attorney-General’s Office level?)

CARE is the well-known organization providing disaster relief, etc. formed right after World War II.   However I question why an Arizona regional “community” foundation spent its largest grant to an organization that (the year before) already received $193 MILLION of USAID.  Here’s a description from a recent financial statement:

The Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere, Inc. (CARE USA or the Organization) is an international humanitarian organization delivering emergency relief and long-term international development programs. CARE USA’s mission is to work around the globe to save lives, defeat poverty and achieve social justice. CARE USA operates programs in more than 40 countries throughout Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America.

CARE USA’s program activities were comprised of the following for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016:

• Development. CARE USA and partners provide innovative solutions for sustainable development through supporting new ways of supplying or strengthening essential service delivery, building capacity, building resilience for reducing risk, and empowering the most vulnerable, particularly women and girls. For the years ended June 30, 2017 and 2016 development work represented 62% and 73%, respectively, of total program expenses

(etc.) (to be continued as relates to CFSA… on Post #4 in the Pipeline above (“by the grace of God” if I get to it….)

Local organizations were more numerous, received far smaller CFSA grants. I’ve notice in community or other large-assets tax-exempt foundations, this can easily obscure where the main focus is.  Another reason to actually browse such things on the tax returns where possible…  I believe some of the smaller coins scattered abroad, each requiring some form of line-entry on a “Grants” page, are good PR (no doubt appreciated by the recipients — where those recipients are real entities) and function to a degree as static (‘smokescreen’) to the money and purposes (agenda) of that foundation at those times.

Money seems to be traded and circulated/re-circulated ALL THE TIME among the larger tax-exempt entities, creating maze of accountability unlikely to be tracked and seen openly by the masses (i.e., the public). That’s why I don’t really believe the tax-exempt sector can be held accountable or cleaned up.  Unfortunately or fortunately, it’s here, it’s very influential and it’s increasingly centralized OUT of view of the public while pushing public debt (not assets) as a key theme throughout.

I also see from the CFSA website that the leadership is changing approximately every two to three years since 1980 and that NO independent contractors are shown.  Probably the continuing power structure of the foundation is not the chairman of the board, despite the title and legal responsibility of any board of directors for the corporations…It may be administrative staff (DNK).

For Thomas R. Brown, the foundation through which this money flowed was kept smaller than the one backing it, whose assets were held primarily (this is AS I RECALL and should be double-checked; my next post provides links and may include the screen-prints from the tax returns) “OTHER INVESTMENTS — Assets not Available for Public Trading,” and the next smaller amount in “Mutual funds.”  While smaller, relatively, the TRB Family Foundation was itself the largest “related entity” over at the Community Foundation for Southern Arizona.

That’s why I started the fourth “Arizona” post (Listed “(#4)” above) regarding CFSA, based on the quick preview of its financials (and website) I just saw.  Characteristics here are typical of other community foundations in various states, so would be of general interest.  Link not included here, though, but I’ve been looking for about two days now. (as of start date listed for this post)..

Post titles unlikely to hold those numbers in them.  I’m just numbering them for reference here.

GENERALLY, about COMMUNITY FOUNDATIONS:

How community foundations are perceived and what their financials (and varying degrees of transparency/spin) show seem to have major discrepancies.

For example, they are not always primarily grant-making organizations, however the number of involved nonprofits and manner of reporting effectively conceal how fast money moves among the 501©3s, and where, after years (here, decades) of tax-exemption, it’s “no big deal” to also invest in real estate with special favors to nonprofits for subleasing, as has just happened here.

In addition, the level of grant-making OUT of state cannot be known by only reading (self-) promotional summaries!  You have to actually find and read those financials.  Unfortunately before the year 2000 they may be hard to locate on-line.  Between Flinn, Thomas R Brown Foundations (“TBRF”) and CFSA, the latter at least posts its financials, both kinds, from FYE2002 forward. The former do not, that I could see.

There’s more on the Flinn Foundation and on the Thomas R. Brown Foundations (researched because of their relationship with Flinn and because their connection to the semiconductor industry makes them a significant force, it seems, in the state economy) in the first “companion post,” (#2, after “Oh Arizona: Mind Your Behavior“, shortlink ends “-bzx, published Nov. 25), more on the Cummings Foundations in the second (#3), and as mentioned above, I just started a third “companion post” (or #4 in the “Pipeline”) featuring Arizona today, November 15, 2019, regarding CFSA .

I am coming back to this post after Thanksgiving Day (USA), Nov. 28, 2019.

(Publishing, December 1, 2019).