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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

The “public/private” issue it addresses remains important and has specific applications in the USA.  Other than the above title adjustment and these few words, and one re-run of a Form 990s table for the “NCCD,” the post is unchanged from as written in 2016.  Personally, in late January, 2016, I’d JUST been improperly forced out of a long-term rental (kept uninhabitable, but I was (circuitously) prevented from exercising tenants rights which did exist in the area) the previous month which may also be reflected in the opening sentiment. I was in a fight for housing and economic survival, for which “justice” would’ve come in handy...

I also just realized, though it wasn’t published at the time, January 2016 was when I finally broke that year and a half pause in posting on this blog with a different post, as I recall, in disgust at what was taking place with the David and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki family court case up in Minnesota and despite  key domestic violence organizations being located from the early 1980s right in that state. As usual, there had been AFCC personnel involved in the judicial AND custody evaluator decision-making in the case.

As is except for minor formatting checks (and while doing that, a few copyediting comments added within italicized “{{…}}”s where I thought it might help. I also on viewing this, changed the level of some Headers to make them larger.  I also added tags, and because I wanted to mention “Sir Ronald Cohen” (who I was originally looking for when discovered this post had been left in draft), added these two although the post doesn’t really deal with those topics:

  • “Big Society Capital (BSC) Oct 2016 SAID Bus School Case Study on SITF + Sir Ronald Cohen’s Leadership in the same in the UK”

  • “HBR-Bridgespan’s “Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact” + Sir Ronald Cohen”

By clicking on either of those tags, more information may be connected to this post. “HBR: in the second one stands for “Harvard Business Review”…

Another change I’ve made is to add a screenprint of the NCCD/AFCC section (from this post) near the top as a visual.

INCIDENTALLY: The NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency) is an odd organization I’ve featured in other posts — odd because of how many other governments are recorded as granting to its projects, while it’s operating tax-exempt with the word NATIONAL (not “INTERnational”) in the USA and (so it seems) seeking to digitize the handling of people in almost any public institution within the USA.  A Children’s Rights group (Children’s RIghts, Inc. founded by an ACLU lawyer) in New York was using NCCD as a subcontractor with an Oakland, California address which is what first brought it to my attention.  Which, of course, I found out when I looked up (and read) the tax returns of Children’s RIghts, Inc.

[Link provided to their Audited Financials and 990s in Oct. 2021.  Fine print at the footer level and two clicks down, but at least it’s included]: https://www.childrensrights.org/about-us/audited-financial-statements/ (the page also has Forms 990 by year).   [I just reviewed FY2020 (both 990 and Audited FS.  Their main revenues are attorney’s fees from class action or other litigation won; in 2020 the government granted them $739K (COVID-19, PaycheckProtection loan — which was fully (100%) forgiven; otherwise they seem mostly (and as I recalled earlier) private-funded, not public.

Schedule L (FY2020) “transactions with interested persons” shows about $1.5M loans TO three board members.  Odd. A few (three) different foundations loaned the organization money to be repaid when their litigation received settlement.  The FS said settlement of $5.4M paid of $2.2M of loans from (three tax-exempt foundations), I guess, “keep the change.”  //LGH Oct. 2021

[Written earlier, when the post was published, not 2020] A distressed mother from Georgia’s comment on this blog referring to (another) NY-based nonprofit subcontracting with the NCCD brought my attention to that Children’s Rights group, in case you were wondering whether comments on this blog are noticed and their contents considered… They are…

Overall, this posts’ material blends well with the current post(s) I”m trying to wrangle into some acceptable shape soon…

//LGH “Early 2020”


Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it.  Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms.

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

Over the past six years, as I tracked  or did “drill-downs” on one “national” nonprofit association or another associated with some primary function of government in the USA — and most of them also operating internationally, just like any other corporation might — I see there really is a network of organizations which, taken together, really do “shadow” and influence government itself.

In mainstream media, including on TV, major national print and on-line publications, etc., it’s not uncommon to report in the influence of corporations (implying for-profit businesses) as an improper influence on government, but I have yet to see a significant, ongoing discussion of the nonprofit sector itself (ALL of it) as an improper influence on government.

I’ve talked about some of them before on this post, and currently, have been looking at and will be posting still on one called the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges.  HOWEVER, today, I’m talking more about the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as part of Social Impact Funding.

It’s time to talk about who’s in control when the unified, coordinated language coming from:

(1) sources such as Forbes magazine, representing of course, corporate wealth,

(2) philanthropy, as coordinated with other philanthropy and

(3) federal agencies such as the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) and the White House [both representing of course the Executive Branch of Government, to the extent we have separate branches of government in the USA any more…]

uses such terms as “Social Impact Funding” and “Pay for Success” to represent  deals cut privately with a federal agency by those with wealth to invest, with “intermediary organizations” scattered across the states, and networked into “subgrantees” (all nonprofits it seems) to do the work that the public is already taxed in order for government to do as a great thing.

The power of common words, undefined, to “spin” what’s actually happening is nothing new. But the acceleration of this spin made possible in recent (decades) HAS to be noticed, and ought to be protested, differently.

Regarding taxation, specifically 1913 forward  — those who benefitted most early on, understanding the system, still (through their heirs, or foundations if no functional heirs remain) expect to rule the planet, and are, I see, preparing for the time when a tipping point of population figures out (as some of us individuals have, some years ago) that we are continuing to be taxed (“coming, going and inbetween”) in order to fund — for private benefit and population control — social research and demo experiments on the population, with a heavy emphasis on “mass behavioral modification” (where medication, incarceration, and basic extortion don’t work well enough).

I didn’t learn this overnight, and can’t explain it in one post either. Keep reading, I will attempt to keep posting and show for example, what I discovered recently regarding just how pre-planned (over 100 years ago) was the privatization of government, despite our national mantra of liberty and justice for all, or, say, government of, by and for the people, or anything else patriotic in nature.

In the context of “country,” typically “private” means non-government and “public” means government (at whichever level: federal, state, county, and independent districts, including school districts, water districts, etc.). However, courtesy present systems of taxation (incl. but not limited to the income tax) and accounting (including, but not limited to the governmental financial statements nearly no one reads, although all entities have to show up on one somewhere).

But what we have in play here is a huge knowledge (not just “income”) gap between the wealthiest and the poorest and middle class through lack of even familiarity with the concepts: “Public/Private Partnerships” are huge business. The government entities involved pledge future revenues obtained through force (taxation, in other words) to fix problems in conjunction with coordinated major corporate (usually housed in tax-exempt foundations) wealth to fix social problems throughout the land, according to the private/public definitions of what is, really, the problem.

Instead of leaving more money in the hands of individuals, which JUST might also help those individuals develop their own stewardship and express their own values through what they invest in, this line of reasoning is — we already have those institutional and pension (including public pension) funds, major wealth — why not invest them in government projects?

Social Impact Funding (SIF), per Forbes:

Why Tax-Exempt Privately Controlled Wealth (Philanthropy) LOVES it…

Forbes, 9/20/2014, “Is Social Impact Investing the New Venture Capital?”

Guest post by Sir Ronald Cohen and Matt Bannick

Poverty, homelessness, crime, unemployment continue to plague even the wealthiest of nations. Imagine if in addition to existing efforts, we could leverage trillions in private capital and bring the same level of focus and entrepreneurial dynamism that we see in the private sector to meet the pressing needs for better schools, more job opportunities, improved public services, safer streets?

We don’t have to imagine. It is already happening – and it is called impact investing. The idea is simple enough – to invest in efforts that not only provide a return on investment, but also target specific social needs.

We can dramatically accelerate the growth of this important market by partnering with government to remove roadblocks.

If you don’t think government policies matter in the development of new investing opportunities, think about how the venture capital market emerged

Notice “removing roadblocks.” Another way of saying this is “fast-tracking to targeted areas.” Partnering with government to remove roadblocks to private ideas and priorities literally means accelerating private + government takeover (to invest is to “own” which is a form of takeover) of specific geographies, populations, households, school systems, according to mutually, PRIVATELY-determined, models — and standardizing them. Good from one point of view, bad from the point of view of, again, actual government by and for the people as the USA is supposed to represent, to its own people, and to the rest of the world.

Take a look at “SIF Pay for Success” at CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service), with “CNCS” being essentially a federal agency. I discovered, continued studying, and privately wrote up and communicated about this to individuals in Minnesota involved with the case featured here.

As active in my own state and area (San Francisco Bay Area, California) I also did extensive, detailed follow-through on specific intermediary and end-recipient nonprofits, and found a pattern of noncompliance with filings, and rapid changes of name, address, etc.

I study nonprofits extensively and the list of “SIF 2014 recipients” includes at least one I know to be taking, as a California organization, INTERNATIONAL grants to transform the justice system — and they are headquartered in the same town where I lived a domestic violence nightmare, followed by family court fiasco, and now am STILL dealing with the aftermath in a new venue — probate courts.

That nonprofit reporting “government grants” from governments outside the USA is NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency).

NCCD, as an organization and an “SIF/Pay For Success” grantee:


NCCD in its earlier incorporation pre-dates the income tax!

It was formed by probation officers (public servants, right?) less than a decade after the first juvenile justice court opened in Cook County, Illinois (translation: Chicago is in Cook County). Originally formed in Minneapolis, it was first a National Probation Association. The intent FROM THE START was to standardize this system of juvenile courts. Later, apparently, “family courts” were appended, with the intent to of course standardize them also. The pattern of public servants starting with a court and then expanding and developing to set up similar COURTS across the country was actually mirrored (it seems) by AFCC (of much later origin). See that link: you will see “standardize, nationalize, centralize (merged with another national organization), change the name, and expand tax-exempt target markets.

You will also see the intent from the start was focus on behavioral modification — both preventing youth delinquency, and rehabilitation. You will also see where it’s claiming to operate and where it’s programs are in use:

Madison, [Wisconsin], Oakland, [California] and DC, NCCD works with agencies and organizations across the United States as well as in Australia, Canada, Bermuda, Singapore, and Taiwan.

[2020 update: As I like to do when updating much older posts, I’m going to re-run that EIN# and add subsequent years’ tax returns. This will mean that the text below the table is referring to the older years (FYE 2012-2013-2014) not the updated rows, which I’ll post on top of them.  I’m interested to find how current the record is. //LGH Jan. 21, 2020]


(<~~That’s an updated link to “Candid.org” for 2020, but it’s the same nonprofit database provider, “Foundation Center.”  Foundation Center recently bought “Guidestar” and “Candid.org” (bright orange-yellow, black and white color scheme, larger fonts, etc.) is the rebranding and, I believe, a trade name.  The database provider’s EIN# as a nonprofit itself hasn’t changed.  See footer fine-print info on the link provided).

Click on any year’s organization to see the attached tax return in pdf (multi-page) format, as always when I post tables of 990s within the blog (unless it’s shown as just “png” image).

National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2018 990 54 $10,662,693 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2017 990 46 $8,476,446 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2016 990 44 $9,706,341 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2015 990 ?? $8,253,379 13-1624111

Some of my 2020 Update Observations remind me how truly disturbing this nonprofit is, taken as a whole and viewed from its chosen places of operation, office-holding and especially its own tax returns: The tax year 2014 (Just looked up, bottom row above table:  remember, it displays “2015” for fiscal year End on this column**) marks a change in its primary source of revenues from “Contributions” to “Program Service Revenues” (Click through and just look at the top of page 1 to see).  ~~~> I’m calling this one a red-flag (at minimum, orange) alert. It’s been around since 1907, has a broad-based, vague description of its mission, is clearly not at all “NATIONAL” in its affect, revenues, operations, or necessarily agenda.  The areas in which it’s chosen to focus are, generally speaking, areas of government operations — yet it’s organized tax-exempt private.  It reports (as of this year’s returns) NO “Related Entities.”  What’s really going on here?!! <~~~ It’s not a “billion-dollar baby” but it’s targeting billion-dollar public institutions, and not particularly forthright with the public about where its funds are going.  It does not (says the tax returns) voluntarily post its own audited financial statements, etc.

For supporting detail — there is none, really:  Part VIII simply labels it “Contract Revenues.”  

There are no Independent Contractors listed on Part VIIB to show who these might be with; yet you can see that MOST of its activities (Page 2, Part III, Lines 4 a,b,c,d and the “Additional Data” or “Schedule O” supplementary information on the “Other” part) are operating at a profit, yet somehow this year it’s reporting a “budget deficit” (spent more than it took in) of over $2M.   The prior year it reported $20M of contributions….

A look at the details of Part IX (Statement of expenses) again shows a large amount (over $4M) categorized as Line 11g, “other” which, being so large, is supposed to be detailed on a Schedule O.  In a pattern I see frequently, that “supporting detail” of Schedule O barely says anything — but the words “Contract Services.”  Contracted with whom?

National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2014 990 32 $11,102,090 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2013 990 29 $10,415,127 13-1624111
National Council on Crime and Delinquency CA 2012 990 30 $8,015,446 13-1624111

….(“Total Assets” column represents I see End of Year, Total Gross Assets (before any liabilities). This would be Line 20 on Page 1 of the Form 990 right-hand (Current Year) column of the Summary Page.  Please also note that for this database (and from observation, I’ll also say, the IRS.gov Exempt Organization Search results), “State” may or may not represent LEGAL domicile and often doesn’t.  NCCD’s LEGAL domicile is listed as New York, not California.)

**NCCD’s FISCAL YEAR ENDS June 30;  so the “YR” column shows latest Tax Return posted above was for FY 2013 which I’m sure the underlying tax return will show too. In other words, as of January 2016 when I first wrote this post, the tax return for FY2014 (ending June 30, 2015) had not yet been posted or uploaded to this database, which gets its returns from the IRS.  Whether it was the database provider, the IRS, or the NCCD (or all of the above) who was not “current” with their returns, I do not know and it’s hard to know without specific inquiry into the practices of all three . Delayed reporting by nonprofits acting to influence and deal with public institutions isn’t good news and may be a red flag.  //LGH Jan. 21, 2020).

[2016 commentary, cont’d.]

How accumulating their tax-exempt assets over time? Well, the top row’s returns shows, for one year only, $20M Receipts ($20M contributions), almost no other significant source of revenues. The $20.4M out of $20.5M total are labeled (Part VIII) “Government Contributions” — and here’s the shocker, not seen on this tax return — but because it’s a California charity, I was able to look it up (“Verification” link) and see on their “RRF” form that these contributions were NOT just from government entities (agencies, etc.) in the US but also internationally. Get this also (and it was one of my first alerts to look the organization up) — its HQ are in California now, but its legal domicile is New York. Why??

(The charitable registration has a strange “typo” — it mixes an Oakland California address with a Madison, Wisconsin subdivision, and comes up with “Oakland, WI.”  Anyhow, NCCD’s registration is current.  To see further details from this source, you must repeat the search — use “Verification” link above; search results aren’t saved.  Remember to click on the organizatino name after a repeat search and look at the “Details” page):

Organization Name Registration Number Record Type Registration Status City State Registration Type Record Type
NATIONAL COUNCIL ON CRIME AND DELINQUENCY 003783 Charity Current OAKLAND WI Charity Registration Charity

Are they distributing this to the poor? Heck no — they are helping the poor (?) by better coaching the institutions that warehouse them, to equalize the justice system and help various country governments get proper software-based decision-making to standardize, equalize, and streamline population management and control more efficiently. Tax return tax-exempt purpose reads simply:

“Promote Just and Equal Social Systems for People & Community with Research, Public Policy & Practice”

Tax return page 1 shows clearly — 0 grants to others, and their receipts of $20M were split, about 50/50 into $9.4M salaries (employees: 115) and $9.8M “Other expenses,” leaving a “measly” profit for the year of $1.2M. … As an organization, they show a board of directors, 16 people — but most are working 2.0hrs/week as volunteers. There are only 5 officers, 3 of them paid 9well).

Notice that website now reads “nccdGLOBAL.org.” Notice on the left side, several links to their products, or service offerings (trademarked of course) involving public institutions: SafeMeasures, SDM (Structured Decision-Making), JAIS, CAIS. These are all privately-controlled, trademarked (presumably — or check USPTO.gov to see) analytic/actuarial systems to simplify major population control and management.

Incidentally, NCCD has an Office right near “AFCC”

Click (left, near acronym “NCCD”) on “Childrens’ Research Center” which (I consider this so odd) happens to have an address in Madison, Wisconsin that is walking distance to Association of Family and Conciliation Court (AFCC) headquarters.  See?

NCCD’s Contact Us/ Offices:

1970 Broadway, Ste. 500
Oakland, CA 94612

1601 R St. NW, 2nd Fl.
Washington, DC 20009

426 S. Yellowstone Dr., Ste. 250
Madison, WI 53719

Contact AFCC“:

Association of Family and Conciliation Courts

6525 Grand Teton Plaza 
Madison, WI 53719
Phone: (608) 664-3750
Fax: (608) 664-3751

Google Maps / Directions (or, copy in both addresses to see).  They are on the same block — literally “3 minutes …. 0.1 mile” apart.

Coincidence?  I don’t   know, but now you know.  AFCC gives no suite #; Anchor Property Mgmt has the same address, it looks like an office building.

Another “factoid” about AFCC (as an organization name, as written out, just above) — a 2014 tax return has them claiming year of formation 1963, and legal domicile, Wisconsin.  Both, from what I’ve seen, false.

It also shows, as a 501(c)3, they barely have public contributions to qualify — only $34K that year.  The main revenues ($1.9M) were business-related (i.e., Line 2). Of about $2.0M total revenues, they spent close to $700K on “Salaries” (19 employees only) and $1.0M on “Other Expenses”) and kept the difference. In a 2005 tax return, they showed only $19K contributions, and the rest, some “program service revenues” ($582K), and some “membership dues” ($419K).  Of the total, $1.0M that year, most ($723K) was expensed out under “program services” and the difference of $226.9K, kept.

And, another “factoid” which fits into this general theme — I see now that the “Child Welfare Information Gateway” lists AFCC as a “Related organization.” (In fact, the only one in that category).

Look at the link, top row of print, to undrestand this is a US Department of HHS website:  It shows “Health and Human Services …. Administration for Children and Families (ACF) … Childrens’ Bureau (CB).  The organizational hierarchy there is:  Department (federal agency itself) … Operating Division … Program Office.  Essentially, this is a website resource operating as a traffic director:

Child Welfare Information Gateway promotes the safety, permanency, and well-being of children, youth, and families by connecting child welfare, adoption, and related professionals as well as the public to information, resources, and tools covering topics on child welfare, child abuse and neglect, out-of-home care, adoption, and more.

A service of the Children’s Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, we provide access to print and electronic publications, websites, databases, and online learning tools for improving child welfare practice, including resources that can be shared with families.

Help with a personal situation

Child Welfare Information Gateway does not have the authority to intervene in or give advice on personal situations. We are not equipped to accept reports of suspected child abuse or neglect, or to offer crisis counseling. For help with reporting child abuse and neglect or to speak with a counselor, contact Childhelp® at 800.422.4453

This next quote is from the “CRC” page at “NCCD” — notice the international quality of their clients. Nothing illegal about this — NCCD is a corporation. It’s also functioning Tax-EXEMPT in the USA to start standardizing the sectors it works in: Criminal Justice, Juvenile Justice, Child Welfare, Adult Protective Services, Education (anything left out yet? When will they add, perhaps: housing — or is that market for low-income populations saturated already by the HUD intermediary organizations?)


NCCD’s Children’s Research Center (CRC) has been working to improve child safety, permanency, and well-being since its establishment in 1993. CRC works in partnership with child-serving agencies to improve direct practice and organizational operations through models that integrate evidence-based assessments, family-centered engagement strategies, and implementation science.

CRC has collaborated with child welfare agencies in 40 US states, three Australian states and a territory, four Canadian provinces, Taiwan, and Bermuda, to construct actuarial risk assessment instruments, design and implement decision-support and data analysis systems, conduct workload studies, and evaluate agency service-delivery programs. CRC also monitors educational outcomes for schools to help administrators and teachers use data to improve student and school performance.

CRC is best-known for creating the Structured Decision Making® (SDM) system, a set of research-based assessment instruments. In 2011, CRC launched a new initiative to incorporate research-based assessments into a unified practice for child welfare agencies. Agencies often seek to improve outcomes for children and families by adopting new programs or reforms.

Pay for Success/Social Impact Funding, per Federal Agency “CNCS” (NationalService.gov)

2014 Pay for Success Subgrantees and Subrecipients Announced 43 State and Local Governments and Nonprofit Organziations (sic) Selected to Receive PFS Funds and Services

Pay for success (PFS) has emerged as a new approach for government to partner with the private sector to fund proven community-based solutions. PFS is an innovative contracting and financing model that leverages philanthropic and private dollars to fund services up front, with the government, or other entity, paying after they generate results. This strategy has gained strong bi-partisan support in Congress, as a strategy for increasing return on taxpayer dollars while improving the quality of services provided in our communities.
At its core, the Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is about finding what works and making it work for more people. PFS is another critical tool with the same mission – supporting innovation, ensuring solutions have the dollars needed to scale, and paying for results. As part of both the 2014 and 2015 Congressional appropriations, the SIF was given authority to use up to 20% of grant funds to implement a competition to test PFS approaches.
The SIF Pay for Success program aims to:
  • Strengthen and diversify the pipeline of governments and nonprofit organizations that are prepared to engage in PFS projects
  • Assess the potential of PFS to address a variety of social issues relating to diverse populations in diverse geographic contexts
  • Attract capital to high-performing institutions seeking to strengthen, grow, and sustain effective solutions for challenges facing low-income communities

Consider yourself warned. Think about this — this is federal government (which isn’t taxed — it receives revenues from people, and corporations, that are taxed) cooperating with significant wealth, often also stored in tax-exempt foundations as funded by major business operations — or inheritances, for purpose of continued control of that wealth and income-producing assets. Someone has to work in the income-producing assets — and that is, specifically, the populations who are to be controlled (“serviced”) generation after generation. Notice the word “pipeline.” Other places, the word used is “cohort.”

You have to look at the nonprofit sector. It will NOT be occupying a major timeslot on any Presidential debate, or town hall, but to the extent it is, it’ll be in a positive sense: Philanthropy, private charity can step in and function more efficiently than government, and philanthropists donating millions (or, billions) to public causes are really altruistic.

If you read as many tax returns as I do — specifically for groups assuming functions of government or organized as membership associations of any primary government official (judges included) who handles or has the power to control, assign, or re-allocate major personal/private assets**) — you will quickly perceive a few things.***

**obviously, for many of us familiar with the family court fiascos, these “assets” in the public/private mindset includes living children, not just businesses and real estate. A child is an SS# which represents potential billings for treatments in any NUMBER of settings, especially if they can be first traumatized or abused somehow in order to need more treatments to get over the abuse and trauma.

***For example, there’s a lot of “book-cooking” going on. Tax returns are unrealistic, internally inconsistent. There’s also the matter of the rapidly revolving doors through which funds can flow when a group takes the funds, fails to file, then dissolves (or lets itself be simply administratively dissolved by the state authorities — or the IRS), and where did that money go then? ….

I’ve seen a lot of this in the HHS “CFDA 93086” or other related marriage/fatherhood promotion outfits.

You would NOT believe it until you pay attention to this, over time, and actually follow through from HHS-declared grantee to state-level corporate registration (as a business entity) AND to related IRS tax status.

Presentation Updates:

It’s harder to write up for a general audience, I found, than to demonstrate in person (from laptop) in a series of ongoing conversations, casual but consistent, with people who may be interested in where their taxes go.  I am not personally ready to do “conference circuit” or public presentations at this time, particularly as this material is hardly swimming with the currents on the volatile issues discussed.

Over the past year {{meaning basically, 2015 and last half of 2014 when I wasn’t publishing posts//LGH update Jan. 20, 2020}}, I’ve also been working diligently on how to possibly overcome technical (html/browsers/wordpress version) formatting difficulties by putting information into word processing format, complete with images from tax returns, filings, public websites for a specific group, and using style sheets (for formatting consistency), which also lets me generate a table of contents.

Visual presentation is a big part of demonstrating for an “at-large” audience, which any blog represents.

Being only one writer here (not including all the sources I quote and comment on!), better use of my (volunteered!) time is important.  I’ll see whether I can upload some of those word-processed documents, to the blog, I hope soon.  They are already written, but need to be vetted for not quoting too much of any single source in light of copyright issues.  As a series, they are probably an effective “Citizen’s Level 101” on the topics discussed.

For some reason, it’s harder than heck to get anyone swept up in family court reform communities (there are several streams of “community” in the field) to take a brief time out to even consider.

For one, like any discipline, it takes some discipline before the figures start showing their patterns; so it’s a postponed gratification situation, and such individual parents within family court reform communities are usually under extreme, time-sensitive, pressures unable or unwilling to further postpone gratification {{of a demand for action, or a sense of doing something productive in proportion to what’s just been suffered}}.

What time they may have to themselves is encouraged (by the groups) to be spent on-line re-blogging material fed to them — or to invest time showing up at rallies, signing petitions, and demonstrating WHOM they endorse — as opposed to developing a solid understanding to the point of being able not just to tell others, but to {{both ask and}} answer tough questions, if asked, with authority based on personal knowledge.

By “personal knowledge” I mean one’s own face in front of the evidence — and not hearsay, anecdotal.

By evidence, I mean, generally speaking, not what others call evidence, either social science statistics, or experiential knowledge of particular situations. The “EVIDENCE” all of us ought to be concerned with is how governments, plural, account for their revenues, and their expenditures, and where they are holding their assets — and what those assets are producing in relationship to budget.

There are discrepancies and holes throughout the nonprofit system. The more layers, the more intricate the maze through which government funds (as nonprofits often take such funds) can simply disappear from visible records. No single human being can get through them in normal, real-time accountability. But, when there is an intent to study, say, a target, small sector of nonprofits and/or a small sector of funds as dispersed across the landscape (I refer to federal funds), the forms obstruct, rather than facilitate, tracking. It’s not possible to stop, usually, with just one layer of nonprofits in following almost any group. Getting an overall picture of any field, is a tough task. At best, we can take continuing samples (like a geologist drilling down through the layers in specific locations) and compare them, intelligently, as to what seems to be taking place, over time.

The nonprofits also allow breakdown of geographic and political jurisdictions set up with the purpose of representing the people who live in those jurisdictions, at least through their state legislatures.  Whatever the publicized results and outcomes may be, that breakdown of jurisdiction, I can say with authority based on what I’ve seen over time, is the real purpose, and that those involved (at the leadership, top levels) indeed know it’s a sinister purpose can be seen by the need to constantly employ, virtually “stealth” methods in achieving their desired results.

“Hook, Line and Sinker”

The “social impact” causes are the hook, but the undermining of representative government itself — which entails jurisdictional boundaries and limits of authority — is the line, and it will be the “sinker.”  Don’t be fooled — this is government of the masses by the few, and to the detriment of the masses — not the few.  If you take into account who is taxed, and who is tax-exempt, this should become obvious over time.

I am available for questions, and if contacted privately, may consider sending in pdf format what I’ve already written up, but I don’t encourage this until you are serious about taking a look at what’s already on this blog.

[To go back to the top of this post, click on its title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 20, 2021] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).]

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: