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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Archive for May 2020

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence Considering Its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show. (Started Jan. 23, 2020, Published May 20.)

leave a comment »

Post in transition — see below (extended intro).  This will change back to a shorter post, soon I hope.//LGH.  See current national news events and below.

This Post: For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20). (Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-c80,” that final character is a “zero” not capital “O”) (about 5,200 words). Minor copy-editing revisions May 29.

Explanation: Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.
This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then on my home page, Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then a page published Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

That Page:

Do you Know Your NGA? Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

Title probably should’ve read “1996” — not sure why I put in 1998 at the time. PRWORA was passed in 1996.  Certain fatherhood-related, Congressional resolutions, etc. were also passed in 1998 and 1999 while the nation was changing its entire Social Security Act funding (and along with it, distribution methods for child support) in the years after 1996. [//LGH 2020 comment]

Two images (snapshots of a few paragraphs each) from my 2017 Page, next below, give more content.  I also see on review that this page dealt more with the NGA, while today’s post with the NFI.  On seeing substantial overlap (i.e., the ‘NFI’ part I’d obviously planned to transplant here a few months ago), I’m going to remove it from the 2017 page to be replaced with a link here. //LGH 20May2020.

On this blog, remember that shortlinks for pages use a capital “P” as in “http://wp.me/PsBXH-4qs.  By contrast, short-link for this post would be “http://wp.me/psBXH-c80“.  I usually provide just the last three characters as I more often write posts than pages…


For this post, recognizing the acronyms “NFI” (see title) and “NGA” (for ‘National Governors’ Association,’) and “QIC-NRF” (the “Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers” — searchable on this blog, and my post on misleading* terms including “QIC”) would be helpful to know.  

*Why are such terms”mis-leading”?  When it comes to tracking public funds to their private (or other public) grantees or other independent contractors, to the extent this information is supposed to be made available to the public, it’s the ENTITIES that must file and to read what they filed, you must find their names to look them up.  A program (including a non-entity “Center” at some large institution such as a university — or federal/state department) is not an “entity.”  See “example” section, next, but the concept in this paragraph (stemming from the “QIC-NRF” term) continues after the marked section with a few images.

Some business entities are named “Center” “Institute” or “Initiative” (such as the NFI), but the use of those words on a website does not automatically represent a business entity, particularly those within universities.  Sometimes a similarly named nonprofit exists, most times it does not.


CAN YOU TRACK THE MONEY OR GET SOME FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THIS?  CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHO STARTED IT?  WHAT, REALLY, IS IT?

Example:  developingchild.harvard.edu (Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child; I blogged a year or two ago, several drill-downs because several organizations were funding it).

It’s so “normal” and good for sales to characterize a project, a collaboration, or a program as if it had real (corporate) personhood when it doesn’t, if you’re in that business or listed positively on their websites.  The basic process is distraction. — reframing any issue.  In this, Harvard’s great reputation is a plus, but thinking about how large Harvard’s endowment already is (one of the largest around) (or how late in its history it and other Ivy Leagues admitted women as undergraduates, or to some of its graduate programs, too), would be a negative, including for the many (also famous) sponsors of this “Center.” In the center (fine print, bottom links) is also a “National Council on the Developing Child” (as opposed to a CENTER on it?).  From its website (<~~link just provided), it self-characterizes as a multi-university collaboration, later (abstract from a “retrospective report“) simply a “group” and the project as translating science for the lay public and policymakers (specific fields of science listed among the members, including psychology alongside neuroscience, immunology, and specific medical fields):

For the past decade, a diverse group of distinguished scientists has worked to translate complex research about early brain development into language that is scientifically accurate, highly credible, understandable to nonscientists, and useful to public decision makers. Across the United States and around the world, in both public and private sectors, the work of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child has helped change the conversation about providing young children with a healthy, safe, and nurturing start in life.”

[Notice the three icons: “Relationship (adult**/child/abacus)” – Brain – Gov’t Building.” The woman in photo is not necessarily a mother, although the child is clearly a toddler.

In very, very fine print at the bottom of the report (as well as on its title page) it’s mentioned that this National Council is in fact an initiative (not its own fiscal entity) of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard, which “Center” isn’t an entity either.  Harvard is.  Think you can find this center’s activities (and private grants supporting them) within Harvard’s overall financial statements? (if available), or on any part of an associated tax return (for Harvard)?


The intent is (basically) to affect early childhood of the nation’s children based on their shared scientific understanding of what makes for “successful” children, and a Core Story (helped by “Frameworks Institute”) of Child Development — AND sponsored by a series of foundations, which I also (after discovering this center) looked up and blogged at least some of the more unique and less well-known ones, the intent is that this collaborative science should rule over and run public policy — based on how distinguished, diversed, and scientifically accurate the funded scientists (esp. Jack Shonkoff) and collected interests represented here.  It’s also part of the continued attempts to blend in the more generalized fields of psychology and education with the more innately respected fields of neurology and medicine, which can be seen by looking more carefully at the people listed on the “retrospective report” in two columns, with “Former” not identified on that page as to what their PhDs were in.


With such intents, corresponding accountability should exist.  The practice of university sponsored “Centers” with collaborating private backers is routine; the practice of providing fiscal accountability to the public (whether it’s a private or public university, often federal grants are involved) is not.   The word “center”is routinely over-used.


In blogging earlier, on this “Developing Child” center (and associated funding foundations I also discovered and posted that a million dollars of grants over just three years went to a fake/non-existent entity which listed the wrong state on the tax return (grantor organization: “Alliance for Early Success”).   A million dollars may not seem like much if you’re Warren Buffet or one of his descendants, or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation (both involved), but to most of us this is not “chump change” — a small amount to be mis-placed.  What it did indicate, however, is an accounting gap.  And I found it by doing something deliberately “dumb.”  One tax return said they granted (repeatedly) to another, so I looked it up, and found a “dead end.”  No such entity. So where did that money go instead? (Off-the-record, most likely).

For the public, when it comes to accounting for where governments’ tax receipts go (the justification for ongoing taxation, right?), what really counts is at the accounting level –and for that, you need an “entity” unless they are dealing with under-the-table cash, trading favors (at what point does this become just “bribes”?) or intangibles.

When websites at universities like Harvard talk big, drop names (LOTS of names, whether of the scientists or the sponsoring entities, also many of them big names, but play “hard to get” about specifics — with home and other pages full of white space [the Harvard Center on the Developing Child], big pictures, icons, repetitions sound-bytes, and more links to more narratives or solicitations (and not links to numbers, and NOT what we need to know for accountability for groups seeking to influence something as nationally funded as “early childhood” (child care, head start, etc.)), that’s a problem, and it also signifies more where it came from


National Fatherhood Initiative EIN# 23-2745783 tax returns FYE 2016-2018 (which is FYs 2015-2017. Where’s tax return for FY2018, then? I’m looking May, 2020) shows about ½ million-dollar increase in (gross) assets.

For people who will actually crack open a tax return and think about its contents, I’ve provided several years of the NFI’s below, but this time did not call attention to the internal inconsistencies (for example, on Form 990 FY2011 (ending Sept. 30, 2012) between its Part VIIA, showing total Trustee/Officer/Director etc. total salary and checks off three “officers”, and where that same figure is supposed to be (but on the year I checked, wasn’t) incorporate) into Part IX, Statement of Expenses, Line 5.  

The amount off was that year’s CEO’s salary: $116K (not including the ex-President Roland Warren’s $135K).  Part IX, Line 5 showed no entry of any amount where this amount should show.

I see (running yet another update on the NFI EIN#) that for FY2016, the only paid officer is Christopher Brown ($172K) and FY2017  ($149K) and that main reported program service revenue is not revenue from actual program services but from sales of over $1M (for both years) which belongs on a different line in the tax return, as indicated when a negative amount for “cost of goods sold” appears (both years) under “Part VIII Revenues, Line 2 (for “program service revenues,” not  where it belonged, under the line-item (IRS form lists) inventory, which line is towards the bottom, Lines 10a (gross) b (cost of goods) and c (net).  

Putting the million dollars (main revenue) of NFI from those years where it belongs, however, would leave “program service revenues” (it seems, properly) blank, and reveal (for anyone who looked that far) that in fact it’s not really providing any program services, but just recording enough grants to be tax-exempt and selling product tax-exempt at over a significant markup (early years showed 100%).

How is that a legitimate tax-exempt purpose? It’s not a grant-maker (primarily), not a service-provider, it’s an entity with a website that sells product, with well-paid officers, and that doesn’t even fill out its own tax returns right.

I also found (then, now, and as ever) its subcontractors being themselves major U.S. Government grantees or participants (ICF International, The Advertising Council) and in general plenty of aspects of this single 501© organization (such as its legal domicile being in Pennsylvania, which I know to be a state that doesn’t require annual, or even frequent, filings of business returns, despite a Maryland address) and it being in the public relations and clearinghouse business overall — for “fatherhood,” of course, ah, …interesting.

Somehow this doesn’t communicate that well on Twitter…or ANY short-form media platform without a wrapt (or captive) audience.  But, I provided at least the links.

(Post title again):

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20).(short-link ends “-c80”.  Tax returns and some text compiled in 2017 on a Page; moved here with updates, January 23, 2020).

[Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.//LGH 20May2020. First image shows “AFCC” under “ChildWelfare.gov/organizations/….  The Child Welfare Info Gateway has plenty of “father-focused” connections. Protecting children’s mothers and children from dangerous fathers doesn’t seem to figure high on this website’s “To-Do” list]. 


The National Fatherhood Initiative isn’t the largest of the HHS responsible fatherhood grantees around, but its leadership was among the original instigators of that funding.  

Just a reminder:  it’s a private tax-exempt incorporation which must file tax returns.  Using the word “national” is just a name and may or may not relate to how “national” it is.  The part that’s really “national” involved here is the U.S. federal government whose welfare appropriations are national in scope and which runs regional operations, i.e., has regionalized the USA down from 50 states and territories/islands (see Region 9) to just ten regional offices and its own administrative parts, with which local states are encouraged to deal to develop relationships with (especially) tax-exempt private community organizations and state and local jurisdictions. (More at Footnote “HHS Organization in its own words and pictures”)

NFI’s  name continues to come up on federal websites, and when people here are casting around for the name of SOME “fathers’ rights” organization, not having researched from the federal grants angle or any concept of size, age, or position on the networks, this one’s name is easy to remember and may get quoted.

In fact the real “fathers’ rights” entity to be most concerned about, in my opinion, is the U.S. Congress which voted these appropriations into place in the first place.  And elite groups like the National Governors’ Association which think it’s OK to outsource not only the provision of government services to “places where the sun don’t shine” but also the decisions on what services those should be in places where, for most of us, “the sun don’t shine,” i.e., the private roundtables where “pay to play” (or even show up), often remote from the geography governed, is the name of the game.

Recently I was looking at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Children’s Bureau’s information service, “ChildWelfare Information Gateway” where the “NFI” was listed, and I’ve known for years that its influence on a “QIC-NRF” (Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers) listed on the same gateway existed, which I blogged.

As it turned out, the family court-focused association “AFCC” also was listed there (see above annotated image)

And, NFI’s tax returns do show “government grants,” while the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” I know has shown some direct grants to this organization.

So, for this post, on January 23, 2020, I removed a section of National Fatherhood Initiative tax returns and some previous discussion with a view towards re-blogging and for other media platforms, from my PAGE (not post) first published April 27, 2017.  

I hope as a teaching example it may alert people to government privatization and to pay closer attention to nonprofits involved in causes of interest and evaluate them based on their provided (or, if not provided where should be, on that) “financials.” The time invested will be not be wasted!

Again, where this information (below, most of it) used to be:


Do you Know Your NGA?Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

The “NGA is the “National Governors’ Association” which unlike some “associations” similarly named, isn’t actually a 501©3 nonprofit, but an “instrumentality” of government.  BUT, it owns one, called the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.  

The NGA came to my attention at some point for having promoted a statement, which I could personally attest to, on how domestic violence impacts a person’s ability to self-sustain; i.e., it has economic fall-out ramifications.  

Imagine my surprise to later (at some point in my long commute through the family court system, early 21st century California-style) to discover the same NGA promoting “responsible fatherhood” and state-level, statewide “fatherhood initiatives” as far back as 1994!

So, the above page deals more extensively with the NGA as it’d come across my path again during a time when I was studying national networks of non-profits focused on education reform (both political parties).  The topic came up …. education (as a field) and psychology (as a field) and the family courts (as a forum) are connected.

So are plenty of the major foundations who’ve chosen to “invest” in the same long-term, and whose tax returns too often, in too large numbers (millions of dollars at a time) often showed symptoms of “money missing in action” as, these days, standard practice / business as usual and etc.

Read the rest of this entry »

Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here, So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020).

leave a comment »

ANY post (or page) may be further edited (copyedited, condensed, or expanded, or all of the above) after publishing. Blogger’s privilege!  THIS one should be: I tired of working on it amid so much else to blog. Publishing, “as is” but still worth reading, I say.  Another consideration:  I’m not paid for writing  — this blog isn’t an adjunct to a consulting career; it comes from the heart, mind and efforts of a family court (and domestic violence-) survivor parent and aggrieved U.S. citizen whose own government institutions (with all the private conflicts of interests so involved) trashed a family, my career, and didn’t even leave me a safe place to stand after our children turned adult.  Instead of restraining the worst in humanity, it seems to bring out and amplify that worst (greed, economic corruption, selfishness, arrogance, and dishonesty).  Re: this blog, I am looking for more efficient formats to communicate this information in, or ways to “index” what’s been researched (including the “drill-downs”) on here into key — but documented — topics.  

It’s actually a database technology issue.  I continue learning, but can’t produce at the same pace as I learn, or anything close to it. //LGH

You are reading:

Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here, So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020) (case-sensitive post short-link ends “-cmj, about 7,300 words”).  See also nearby (and just-[re-]published May 13) “The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem…” which this came from)..

Others have applied the phrase “Gulag Archipelago” to prison and other institutions across the US, or used the word “archipelago” with other adjectives [1] but my usage here is “Mental Health Archipelago.”

[1] EvoS Journal (The J of the Evol’ary Studies Consortium) | …Human Behavioral Archipelago (Dept of Pshych SUNY New Paltz, 21013) Rachael A Carmen )(&9 others)_-Vol5Iss1 | 20pp 2020May8 (Click a second time on blank page icon to load the pdf)  Almost amusing.. An NSF grant (2009) helps promote the integration of “evolutionary psychology” into all academic disciplines, and comments on how the idea of “shifting the theoretical underpinnings of psychology” is meeting resistance.  Psychology (its representatives, including the APA) is ALWAYS seeking more prestige and r.e.s.p.e.c.t. when compared to other academic fields.

I just re-posted and updated (again, The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem <~link) [2] on the size and extent of at least three American “psych” organizations (for psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis, with the even larger legal association, the American Bar Association).  All of “[2]” is added the day after I published this post and relates more to the previous one, except to show how late filing and/or posting of tax returns enables the “chameleon corporation” activity.  Where is the concern for the public in all this?

[2} After posting May 13, 2020, what had puzzled me about the APA Services, Inc. entity, my own related post (WordPress generates these and shows at the bottom of posts) from two years ago confirmed by a shared EIN# that a name change had taken place.  The D.C. business filings do not provide uploaded, viewable pdfs to see actual images of any filings, so I was in looking there unable to see that fact.  Some states do (Massachusetts, California, Florida) to varying extents, but the District of Columbia does not.  That topic is another post and project (“feel free,” anyone… to take it on).  As I quoted the APA website on my recent post (but not in this color scheme)

APA is positioning our field to play a leading role in addressing the grand challenges of today and the future. In February 2019, APA’s Council of Representatives adopted a new strategic plan that provides a roadmap to guide and prioritize the work of the organization for the next three to five years. The implementation process will be transformative and comprehensive, with the association realigning itself and refocusing its work in concert with the new APA/APA Services, Inc. strategic priorities.

From (https://www.apa.org/about/apa/strategic-plan)

“APA Services, Inc.” is in fact at this time NOT new; the DCRA.DC.Gov record (I posted images) shows that entity dates back to 2000.  The wording is tricky:  the “strategic priorities” shared by BOTH organizations is new, so technically, the statement is true.  But it provides no links (or financials) to show APA Services, Inc.  And at first, as stated on the post,  I couldn’t find its EIN# from a name search (because the name had changed!)  Such situations irritate me…  However, after I published the post and saw WordPress’ auto-generated “related” posts, I did find the EIN# and about the name change…

That post:

Do You Know Your…ABA, APA (Founders, History, and via their Forms 990/O and Financial Statements, As Nonprofits?), Or How the ABA from its start maneuvered around Membership Admission for “men of color” despite existing suffrage and qualified men until long after women also got the vote? If Not, Then You Also May Not Yet Know Your [the Public’s] Assigned Place in the Tax Continuum Pecking Order. (Oct 2014 update, Pt. 3A) (Post title with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-76j”)

(I THINK this is the answer at least, as of now): Former name:  “APA Practice Organization.”  It’s a 501©6, purpose “To promote the mutual  professional interests of psychologists.”  There’s already an APA PAC (presumably 501©4)…NEW (trade)name, APA Services, Inc.

From my July 7, 2017 post on this, here’s a FY2015 Form 990, as uploaded there: APAPO EIN#522262196 FY2015 (45pp) (Sched I of Grants only Grants were USD 471 268 Other Exps (mostly Paymts back to the APA) USD 3 687 269 (<~link to entire return posted there).  NOTE: My FILENAME has a typo in the EIN# (click through shows it to be: EIN# 52-2262136).  The link is a pdf and will require a second click on blank page icon; I have some annotations on its page 2).   The IRS only has (latest return) FY2017 (calendar year), not 2018, or 2019 (and I’m writing in May), obviously not reflecting the name change.  IRS FY2016.  The website shown there is “http://www.apapracticecentral.org&#8221;   Likewise my “Candid.org” search of that EIN# shows only up through FY2017 (Year End, December 31) and under the old name.

APAServices.org viewed May 18, 2020

A NEW WAY TO HELP PSYCHOLOGY:  Meanwhile, if you’re savvy enough to find it (or know a psychologist who will tell you), here’s a discussion of actions taken at the August 2018 meeting transforming the relationship between APA and (the former) APAPO, namely membership in either IS membership in both and only 40% of APA dues are to the 501©3 and hence deductible.  60% goest to the 501©6…

On this website a “financials” page created, it says, Feb. 2019) does post financials|IRS Form 990 for FY2018 (which neither the IRS nor Candid show yet) — however, there’s no “IRS-scanned” date and time stamp (all electronic) and the “date  signed” [electronic signature?] by CFO Archie Turner (APA salary, $750K) is Nov. 13, 2019 for FY2018.

APAServices.org viewed May 18, 2020

APAServices.org viewed May 18, 2020


It seems to me that despite the entity being deliberately separate (so it could lobby) it was making APA members feel obligated to pay dues.  A class action? lawsuit by members was filed, and now APA Services, Inc. has worked hard to re-characterize itself as NOT the bad guys — while re-writing their laws to dedicate more APA dues to supporting their lobbyist entity.

THIS TYPE OF BEHAVIOR IS DEVIOUS & SELF-PROTECTING, AFTER HAVING BEEN CAUGHT IN WRONG-DOING, BUT I ALREADY SHOWED THAT IN THE SELF-DESCRIPTION OF ITSELF AS A “CORPORATION” OMITTING THE ADJECTIVE “NONPROFIT.”  HOW MUCH DEVIOUS BEHAVIOR IS ACCEPTABLE — IF ANY — IN SUCH ASSOCIATIONS COLLABORATING TO INFLUENCE GOVERNMENT POLICIES NATIONWIDE (AND, APA, BEYOND THE COUNTRY’S BORDERS)??  

[LATE FILING OF TAX RETURNS, and the DISCREPANCY between what IRS uploads and the “as yet unannounced unless you already know it new website posting tax returns later than available to the general public…not nice either…]

(If you want links I have so far, submit a comment and ask).  [This para. added post-publication 18May2020//LGH).

This declaration (post) emerged as I was writing the introduction when I recalled how the organization “NASMHPD” fits into the mix, which I’ve also discussed before.  The acronym stands for “National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors” and its home page references a forty-one-billion-dollar ($41B) ‘”public mental health service delivery system.”

About Us: [http://nasmhpd.org/content/about-us]

As a private, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) membership organization, NASMHPD helps set the agenda and determine the direction of state mental health agency interests across the country, historically including state mental health planning, service delivery, and evaluation. The association provides members with the opportunity to exchange diverse views and experiences, learning from one another in areas vital to effective public policy development and implementation. … together with the NASMHPD Research Institute, Inc., a partner organization, apprises constituents of the latest in mental health research in administration and services delivery …

NASMHPD has an affiliation with the approximately 195 state psychiatric hospitals located throughout the United States. The facilities include hospitals for children, adults, older persons, and people who have entered the mental health system via the court system. In addition, NASMHPD has helped establish the following regional organizations, each of which meet annually: the Southern States Psychiatric Hospital Association (SSPHA) and the Western Psychiatric State Hospital Association (WPSHA).

That is functionalism and privatization for a built-up field, well-networked and massive in influence.

In July, 2017, I did a series of posts (some with earlier origins) showing how conscious certain networks were of their influence in Washington upon state legislators, across all fields.

How’d I get here?  It doesn’t take long searching the subject matter of this blog to run across the local court-connected nonprofits and the more (inter)nationally-focused membership associations’ agenda — more mental health behavioral health and (mandated, privatized processes) for EVERYONE approaching the courts, and if possible their families too.

“Pass laws mandating it and funding it — lots and lots MORE of it.”

It’s the general concept behind the family court system — take a judge, the lawyers, and add counselors, mediators, custody evaluators — set up curriculum attracting profiteers, run the curriculum (typically through individuals under a trade name, or nonprofits set up to do just that by people who “pay to play” (sit through trainings) or have already some connection with individual courts. …. or the AFCC (<~basic link).

One of the more detailed posts on the organization which inspired (when I thought of it again) this one, had this subtitle, which is the question I still have to pose: Historically, Governments Fund Mental Health Offices and Programming, So why Not Look at How the Networked Nonprofits Previously Set to Coordinate, Expand, and Standardize the Field Actually Operate, and See which Drug and Insurance Companies FUND them?? (“-79i”).  (July 6, 2017) This one describes the “Big 7” nonprofits, whose names I recommend posting on any spare refrigerator space, assuming you have a refrigerator — somewhere you’ll REMEMBER they exist and REMEMBER that the converse of the income tax is the tax-exempt organizations, and (generally) what they do financially and, if not involved in the same schematic, you can’t.


Here, I say “archipelago” to help with the concept, but the real help (for any specific individual) starts the moment he or she looks for, opens up, and starts to think about tax-exempt organizations and their tax returns, and, behaviorally, continues looking for them as each new cause or corporation presents itself for public service/rescue/fix/transform operations.  Our economy involves the tax-exempt sectors ongoing interaction with individuals as a whole because of tax-exemption!  The tax-exempt sector is also by nature more private because NO one can monitor all of it (not even the IRS) and it’s not public-traded (nonprofit = nonstock; that’s part of the deal that goes with the privilege).

When you combine how many specific functions (including but not limited to violence-prevention (and treatment), fatherhood and marriage-promotion, etc.) have been privatized, while being public-funded, the awareness can be overwhelming, but waht it she alternative? No awareness of how many entities count on continued taxation and forced consumption of services (as in the family court systems) will and does result in dissociative or just plain dumb talk and efforts to protect the most basic concepts of liberty, or justice, or individual choice for which wars have been fought, again and again.

The other organizations (of more recent May 13, 2020, post: psychology, psychiatry, and psychoanalysis) by name, obviously represent specific (controlled) fields, however, NASMHPD does represent a field of practice, but by its own definition civil servants — people in authority (i.e., over resources and grants-making) at the state governmental level, i.e., Mental Health Programs.  Both the four giant organizations (prior post) and the NASMHPD are, by their set-up, private, non-profit (= non-stock) entities.  Their relationship seems symbiotic — and drug companies of course are also involved when the field is “psychiatry” OR “state mental health programs.”

Collectively, these nonprofits exert influence and seek to direct public opinion and policy.  to accept, continue, and maintain the infrastructure (the “Mental Health Archipelago.”) We ought to become more aware of this “type” of nonprofits (it’s largely my category based on observation): specific ones that will be especially prone to taking resources (grants and contracts) from the United States Department of Health and Human Services (directly or indirectly)  and/or coaching, consulting, providing technical assistance in showing other groups (typically also set up nonprofit) how to access the same.


While I used the word “archipelago” in the title, keep in mind that the main topic is “Privatization, Functionalism” and how, gradually and incrementally, this undermines the rule of law, and how far back indeed it started – – – not “just yesterday.”  I spend some time on the vocabulary, but the main point is what’s happening — how tight is that network’s noose pulled on the public?

It’s beyond time to wake with a start from the “dissociative” state which current public policy seeks to induce/inculcate and maintain for the masses, with all the finger-pointing and partisanship periodically marked by calls for global unity in the face of each new, successive, global crisis, whether fiscal, social, medical, or all three, while almost no one opens up, thinks about and then posts and TALKS about the actual tax returns (USA) of nonprofits, to be made available and many are made available on-line, or even some through the IRS databases, let alone any entity’s independently audited financial statements, or to show how hard it is to get TO them in so much media.

VOCABULARY for my ANALOGY

“Archipelago”?  

Some brief definitions from the NOAA, National Geographic & “Wonderopolis”

…and a few etymological (word origins) cites explaining: why a word which now represents islands began representing the deep, wide, ocean itself, how and perhaps when the “archi” part got there, i.e., language changes and meanings are extended, or sometimes, transferred; and how a word with two separate parts that are obviously Greek (“arch-” and (transliterated) “pelagos” came across from medieval Italian.

Now the noun in association with the word “gulag” came to represent a network of some very negative systems of exercised political power in two major world powers, in the 20th century.  (Solzhenitsyn’s book, 1970s).  Looking at the concrete, material, physical points of reference (specific well-known archipelagoes, or maps of them) should help shed light on the usage.  I am saying in effect, watch out!  Think about the situation!


From NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration under the US. Dept. of Commerce:

An Archipelago is an area that contains a chain or group of islands scattered in a lakes, rivers, or oceans. The word “archipelago” comes from the medieval Italian word archi, meaning chief or principal, and the Greek word pelagus, meaning gulf, pool, or pond.

Or deep sea. Other links say “root of uncertain origin” and suggest perhaps the “pelagic” part came by association with Greek town of “Pelagos” and by association with the Aegean sea’s (obvious) scattered islands, by extension to any other sea with such a scattering.

How it gets from “arch-” (principle, first, leader) on the (gulf, pool, pond, deep open sea), I didn’t really know, but  one explanation from Etymonline.com (and  and another from wordster/author ‘Paul Anthony Jones’ (HaggardHawks.com, June 2015 post on the word.  3 minute read).
The “arch-” part probably referred to the Aegaen Sea which, if you were Greek or sailing the Mediterranean at the time, is obviously a main sea — and scattered with islands.  Eventually it came to mean the islands themselves.  Some more links and images below on this post at Footnote “(Archi)pelago Etymology FYI” I just think they’re interesting…

From National Geographic.  They can be formed by volcanoes (some were formed over a single hot spot), or glacial retreat.  The world’s largest is the Malay Archipelago:

…Many island arcs were formed over a single “hot spot.” The Earth’s crust shifted while the hot spot stayed put, creating a line of islands that show exactly the direction the crust moved.

The Hawaiian Islands continue to form this way, with a hot spot remaining relatively stable while the Pacific tectonic plate moves northwest….

The largest archipelago in the world was formed by glacial retreat. The Malay Archipelago, between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, contains more than 25,000 islands in Southeast Asia. The thousands of islands of Indonesia and Malaysia are a part of the Malay Archipelago.

From “Wonderopolis.” Several countries are actually archipelagoes (as is “Hawaii”):

Several large modern countries are actually archipelagos. Some examples of these include Indonesia, Japan, the Philippines, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. Many of the world’s archipelagos consist of oceanic islands that were formed as a result of eruptions of volcanoes on the ocean floor.

(Some emphases added to the above quotes)

Since I’m using the word “archipelago” figuratively, you can probably deduce (from this blog) what I meant by the ocean and the archipelagoes — the scattered islands throughout it which viewed individually may seem disconnected, but probed further beneath the surface of the water, obviously aren’t….

Understanding common known physical, material objects (geographic, oceanic, or otherwise) to me helps symbolize the concepts behind various types of entities and how their economic niches depend upon what side of any tax status and/or accountability divide they exist as impacting their behaviors and what kinds of “fruit” (outcome, products, services, results etc.) they are likely to produce within their respective niches. I saw the niches by doing drill-downs on enough entities that basic categories (a “taxonomy of tax-exempts” or “public/private partnerships” ?) emerged.

Looking for ways to express this, certain analogies make more sense than others.


My phrase “mental health archipelago” may be unique, but I’m also thinking qualitatively and structurally of the Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956″ (<~~from Amazon’s book summary, excerpt quoted below): Vast systems of a governmental bureaucracy and the people warehoused/managed/impacted by the same.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 17, 2020 at 3:22 pm

The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings + Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019)

leave a comment »

I off-ramped this material from the Front Page December 25, 2019 — it’d been up there quite a while but it seems I then left it in draft format.  Publishing it now just over five months later (mid-May, 2020),* I supplemented it extensively at the top, as usual.

*Part of the delay was until I could replace a dysfunctional (and decade-old) laptop and adjusting to the on-set of the “COVID-19” epidemic and business and public buildings, public gatherings shutdowns restructuring daily life and short-term, probably also longer-term plans to keep on living.  

Interesting to write then and now and (as always) I learned more in the process of writing.  You may be interested in the section

 The APA Website and its Self-Description, What’s Missing

..and watching me attempt to match up two APA entities registered in Washington, D.C., both non-profit,** with one tax return for each showing which is which. In the process of trying to do this, I found there ARE two tax returns labeled “APA” but the second one is APA Group Return for the many (about 54) divisions which, says its return, does NOT list all divisions.. and seems to have little to do with the second, more recent, nonprofit, registered only recently (relatively speaking for such an old association).

**(one is called “American Psychological Association Services, Inc.” and uses the tradename “APA Services, Inc.” [initials only] formed only in 2000, the other around since, per DC statement, 1925, although I the APA generally dates itself as far back as 1892 (corrected from “1875 as I just published it.  See next inset).

https://www.apa.org/about/apa/archives/apa-history

APA was founded in July 1892 by a small group of men interested in what they called “the new psychology.” The group elected 31 individuals, including themselves, to membership, with G. Stanley Hall (1844-1924) as its first president.

APA’s first meeting was held in December 1892 at the University of Pennsylvania. The basic governance of the APA consisted of a council with an executive committee. This structure has continued to the beginning of the twenty-first century: Today, APA has a Council of Representatives with a Board of Directors.  …


Realizing that the growth of applied psychology represented a potential threat to its preeminence, the leaders of APA reorganized during World War II. Under this reorganization plan APA merged with other psychological organizations resulting in a broader association organized around an increasingly diffuse conceptualization of psychology.

Now the association’s scope included professional practice and the promotion of human welfare as well as the practice of the science of psychology. This flexibility in scope has remained to the present.

Psychology boomed after the end of World War II with the greatest increase in membership coming between 1945 and 1970….


  • The GI Bill, the new Veterans Administration Clinical Psychology training program, and the creation of the National Institute of Mental Health contributed to the increased interest in psychology.
  • For the first time psychology was a field, in both science and practice, that was richly funded for training and research. This was, as one scholar termed it, The Golden Age of Psychology.

The rapid and incredible growth in APA’s membership reflected these trends as membership grew 630 percent from 1945 to 1970,

 Emphases (except the bolds) added]

By the way, I didn’t ever solve that which entity is which, and where’s the APA Services, Inc.’s tax return, if any?” dilemma yet, but by noting it here highlight that one exists.

How devious and distracting any nonprofit entity (private trade association focused on promoting its own business interests, which are supposed to be aligned with everyone else’s, member or not)  can be may be lost when noticing how gloriously and multi-faceted are their web pages and noble the organization’s purposes.

SO WHAT?  Tax-exemption is a privilege, the taxpayers make up the difference and no group or corporation is “too big to have to report” on time and honestly, and make it available to the public — but it seems, some think they are.

Exactly what is  [any nonprofit] entity, and where are its [for the USA], (A) IRS tax returns and (B) independently audited financial statements (for the larger ones), and ( C) how do these correspond to legally current and registered entities in which legal domicile (state, territory or “D.C.”), and if they don’t, why not?  If not current, why not?

IRS Tax Returns, State (or territory, D.C.) legal domicile registrations, and independently audited financial statements. These are especially important because nonprofits are PRIVATELY controlled, not public-traded, so similar information which might be available to the public and shareholders (i.e., SEC reports) do not apply, and are not resources to know more about such organizations.  How do the websites communicate where these are to the readers?

While the APA (website) is more than evasive in self-definition in business and nonprofit (IRS-responsible, that is in responsible ECONOMIC terms, (and doesn’t encouraging the public to check the other sources and find such discrepancies) rest assured the APA/APA Services, Inc. has a grand strategic plan for at least the next few years, for the benefit of all people, which means, naturally, advancing the field, called “our field”:

Our mission is to promote the advancement, communication, and application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society and improve lives

and,

APA is positioning our field to play a leading role in addressing the grand challenges of today and the future.


I’d like to keep the extended introduction (update) to this post, with its extra hindsight in light of the recent pandemic in place here.  But, being nice, I moved it and some related material I’d added to this post, to: Privatization, Functionalism, the Complete Mental Health Archipelago.  It’s Here: So Why Should We Still Care? (May, 2020)(case-sensitive post short-link ends “-cmj”), where it’s waiting on me to complete it.


Post Title:The Giant APA and ABA Typify The People’s Problem: Distinguishing PUBLIC (Gov’t Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) from PRIVATE (Corporate Holdings and Operations, i.e., Assets and Cash Flow) So As To Hold Gov’t Accountable to Those It Taxes: the People Employed in Public and/or Private Sectors (Moved Here Dec. 25, 2019) (case-sensitive short-link ends “-bXO,” last letter “O” as in “Ohio” not the symbol for zero (“0”) and about 9,000 words)

(Title clarifications: “Giant” and “Gov’t”)

“Giant” – While ABA and APA are not the largest among the nonprofits, they are still giant in influence in that almost every profession or business IN the private sector will be needing the services of lawyers, and many more, including within governments too, of licensed psychologists.

From everything I’ve been able to read about the family courts (USA and abroad), their reason for even existing is to bring on the mental and behavioral health specialists to judge and evaluate families in some sort of transition, thus diverting major business which might otherwise be handled in criminal courts into private services associated with these courts.

No wonder the power and influence of APA combined with the ABA (most courts involve lawyers!!) as a key organization is key to understanding the family courts.

It’d be helpful to get a bird’s-eye view of their organization through understanding how they network (and looking at the financials).

“Government” in the US is not a singular.  The federal government is one entity, but dispersion of its revenues throughout the system involves tens of thousands of other government entities, also typically able to tax and exercise governmental authority besides the well-known 50 states and territories.  I included a brief inset below on the U.S. Census of Governments as a reminder.

Businesses resemble government in that, like government entities, they often have one main “front” entity but many related subsidiaries or companies and they are, though faster, changing hands and evolving, whether through mergers & acquisitions, spinoffs, startups, etc. Knowing public from private guides  people into what kind of financials (we) have a right to expect and should seek out, and where we may have leverage as those governed, and where (if not under direct contract with such entities) we do not.

These relationships and related entities may or may not show up on their websites, but what WILL show up is whether or not the entities’ leadership — who after all are responsible for their own website design, whether in-house or contracted out — wish us to know much, or “not so much” about the companies’ financials:  Do they play “late to file and hard to get”? Do they attempt to distract with ALL kinds of other detailed information about purpose, accomplishments, famous people involved or backing them, and “grand plans for good”?

Does or does not the self-description under any “About” page reveal what kind(s) of entity it is, and if so, buried how deep and mixed among how much less relevant information on the page?

Both the APA and the ABA are organized around basic nonprofit (tax-exempt) status.  They do not have shareholders, are not public-traded, and not being government entities are not directly accountable to the people (of the USA. or its taxpayers) as a whole or need our consent to their operations.  But being incorporated they are accountable to the federal government as to registrations and tax (exemption) filings.

Why I use the word “entity” much and why it’s so important And what IS the definition? (and according to whom?) [Section added 5-13-2020, different background color inside reddish-brown borders marks the addition; I’ll also mark the end of the section.  This is for reminder and examples, because the ENTITIES I’m concerned about in this post are the PRIVATE ones participating (with Public).  

‘We have overall rights  (or so one might think until the recent COVID-19 pandemic!) and corresponding obligations under the public, but not necessarily under the private sector except where we have somehow contracted with them individually.

A big key to understanding the family courts is where the private sector has influenced and invaded the operations of the public, for its own profit and purposes, and justifying (continually, it seems) the deprivation and lessening of basic rights of individuals and individual families.

Basic meaning of “entity” from Cornell’s “Legal Information Institute” (“since 1992): https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/entity (suggestion:  look also at the “wex” page.. it’s a collaborative -effort encyclopedia:  “Wex is a free legal dictionary and encyclopedia sponsored and hosted by the Legal Information Institute at the Cornell Law School. Wex entries are collaboratively created and edited by legal experts. More information about Wex can be found in the Wex FAQ. Here’s a list of all pages.

A person or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation.  An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. [emphases added]

When it comes to law and accounting, who or what is the ENTITY matters!  Especially if one wants to track flow of government expenditures to (or from) that entity, or when the urge to “sue someone” or even just complain about products or services — what’s the responsible entity?
Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: