Archive for January 2022
“NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’… [Yesterday’s (Jan. 30, 2022) post, second half]
(Revised/minor updates in early February, tags added Feb. 4).
This post is, literally, the second (bottom) half of the one I published yesterday, which was about 10,600 words, mostly text not images. Let’s call this half — well, I just did:
“NATIONAL” Nonprofits? (Centers, Initiatives, etc.) in the USA? No Such Thing. US Treasury’s CAFR explains ‘ENTITY’… [Yesterday’s (Jan. 30, 2022) post, second half]. case-sensitive short-link ends “-dvu”
The one I published yesterday:
“National Nonprofit: True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal domiciled Entities? […publ.Jan.30, 2022] case-sensitive short-link ends “-dgS”
PREVIEW (about 3,000 words). I have some points to make!
Reading CAFRs (Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports, compiled by governments) at any level help a person comprehend the concept of what is and is not an “entity” and governments’ usage of the word “entity.”
Many nonprofit entities use the word “national” as part of their business name. That name doesn’t make it magically “national” in any sense of the word. So many things called “National” are intended to mislead domestic and foreign (i.e., not USA) populations, when such things are even “entities.”
The label “national” is also applied across a number of websites or campaigns masquerading (by implication if not direct claim) as “entities” but which aren’t. These will also have the word “national” in their names– that is, there will be initial caps followed by a few more adjectives and, if you’re lucky, a noun of some indefinite sort: center, initiative, coalition, campaign, or almost anything else.
There’s a difference between categories of existence as some entity (government or non-government, i.e., private) and assigned or registered names of entities.
(Quick post-publication update from the world of Twitter:)
Within just two days of publishing this post (and the one before it) on this topic, I saw another website featuring “protective mothers” groups claiming an international coalition along with this one: “NationalSafeParents.org” At least two of the sponsors, judging by the logos, I know as organizations (for many years now); another promoting it is (so far as I can tell) another NONentity at a university center, another is a survivor Mom selling High-Conflict and (in general) AFCC policies, so is a second one (which I’d previously looked at, seeing its activity onTwitter).
Others seem to represent the names (and some, a nonprofit or campaign associated with) murdered young children — great for curb appeal (a little late for the children…) — but that doesn’t make the “*.org” national, any of the associated nonprofits or for-profit businesses associated national, or representative of all mothers in this condition. It’s a sales pitch, typical for that particular group of individuals (some organizations have been around longer than others), and I noticed the website is also TELLING us what to do — sample Tweets, what laws to promote — after all, it’s about dire situations, the words “National” “Coalition” have implications, and who could be against “safe parents” although, in the context, it seems that safe CHILDREN is more the focus.
Not posted here, but I did click on every logo listed (some, not for the first time) for the overview…IF you make a practice of looking up entities and finding (USA) what legal domicile (subsidiary to this country) each one IS or as it may be (and was for one of these) WAS registered in, per the IRS, this gives a point of comparison with the surface claims to be national, a true coalition, representing as many parents as it says it is, and, possibly why such an agenda. NationalSafeParents.org was being promoted (on Twitter), which doesn’t surprise me at all, by the non-entity (so far as I can tell), “National Family Violence Law Center,” which (click Donate to follow through) is in fact, George Washington University in Washington, D.C., ℅ Joan Meier. For now, it’s a non-entity.
This new (2022) website and the collection (“coalition”) of logos on it so far (two more were just added) deserves a separate post. I already Tweeted out a quick Buyer Beware, however.
Though I’ve been saying these things for years, it seems my posts are timely, and I’m glad to have them to point to, and classic examples of exactly what I’m protesting. How timely! (“More later…”) I tweeted out an alert. //LGH Feb. 2, 2022.
Unfortunately, many government websites facing the consumers (i.e., us) within the USA don’t mention that our country doesn’t do “national” nonprofits or corporations. Many government websites also inconsistently “mix-and-match” terminology discouraging public identification of what types of organizations (or non-entities, i.e., projects perhaps of some other organization) are meant.
This post leads you to and guides through** how a recent U.S. Treasury CAFR report defines “entity.” (and, much more…). That section is in the bottom part of this post (below a clear separator):
**by specifying which parts, linking and quoting or summarizing the U.S. Treasury’s explanation of, at this point, the difference in usage between “entity” and “agency” in context (“entity” is a broader term) and listing so many of them by example as to get the concept. There are “entities” within “entities” in this case.
Something similar (but not identical) can happen within the nonprofit sphere; for example one Schedule attached to some IRS Forms 990 (for tax-exempt organizations which must file), is Schedule R — Related Organizations and Unrelated Businesses” and asking for these to be identified by categories:”Disregarded, Tax-exempt, Taxable as a partnership, or Taxable as a corporation or trust (Click and scroll down (or go straight to the bottom and scroll up, probably faster) through after Parts I-XII of any tax return (except abbreviated Forms 990EZ), through its “Schedules” to Schedule R and read the sub-headings given. This example came up (BiPartisan Policy Center, Inc, FY2019 Tax Return; it’s mentioned below the section on CAFRs on this post).
(“What’s a CAFR?” Still unsure what that refers to?) Investopedia summarizes, but I disagree (extremely) based on having read enough CAFRs, with one of its summary statements — governments aren’t into hoarding assets. Oh, really? I certainly agree with this (second paragraph) — “shouldn’t we be making sure they’re making good use of our money?” and other parts explaining who files CAFRs, and that their MD&A section (and notes) are “important analysis tools.”
“Navigating Government and Nonprofit Financials,” by Jonas Elmerajji, Updated July 27, 2021, Reviewed by Andy Smith).
Governments and nonprofits take our tax and contribution money to provide valuable services—shouldn’t we be making sure that they’re making good use of our money?
…Governmental Reporting
Each year, every governmental organization in the U.S. and Canada puts out a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). While the formats and contents can vary, these reports present the financial statements of the governmental entity, as well as important analysis tools like the management’s discussion and analysis (MD&A) and the notes to the financial statements. CAFRs are done according to GAAP and Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) regulations. (See also: What You Need To Know About Financial Statements and Footnotes: Start Reading The Fine Print.)
Too bad one sentence refers to governmental “organizations” and the next, “governmental entity.” I think the phrase should be “government entity.” It’s either government, or it’s not. If it’s “government” that’s not “governmental” — “sort of” government. Investopedia articles are intended for a general understanding..
CAFRs often present financial information for individual funds (or at least significant funds) as well as governmentwide financial statements that show the position of the government as a whole…. The MD&A is a very useful portion of the CAFR that gives quite a bit of insight into the decisions made by your government’s decision makers. Typically, the MD&A has quite a bit more content than the managerial discussions found in the annual reports of business organizations.
Besides entities called “National” , there are also many “Centers, Initiatives, (etc.)” within registered entities (within governments and, often, universities, or at times, within some other non-profit entity) which aren’t “entities” (‘things,” or distinctly separate from where they are “housed”) at all, but those behind them and involved want the rest of us to think they are. Many times I’ll find out simply looking for the entity and finding there was (or is) none — the name or label refers instead to some project of another organization (or, government unit).
In the United States, such labeling — “National [ABC] for/on [Cause XYZ]” isn’t illegal, just mis-leading and deceptive. It ought to be a ‘red flag’ every single time you see it, unless referring to the federal government itself. It’s a ruse… It’s mimicry — it’s evidence of (someone’s) posing like something it is not. This word “National” serves to help undeserving entities or non-entities (small or large, powerfully connected or not at all powerfully connected) encroach on other turf, like an invasive species, until the original ones are crowded out, or suppressed JUST enough to keep feeding the parasites. The “turf” it’s encroaching on is representative government as designated by not just local state constitutions (as to the USA), but under the national one also. It’s an attempt at nationalizing things which belong under state, NOT national, control.
Because it’s so easy and now commonplace to replicate, ‘clone” or just set up nonprofits, it’s become logistically impossible to track all of them without extreme specialization. However, they do tend to organize around the “host” functions of governments and can be seen mimicking and feeding off such government sources.
This post begins listing some of my prior published posts naming a series of non-profit entities (mostly) which call themselves National and how they collaborate to form the background, kind of “shadow” government while maintaining private tax-exempt status making their (collective) influence/s harder to discern, and the money much harder to follow.
Some of these are so confident about themselves they self-selected into “The Big Seven“: Wikipedia lists them but says little about them.
I blogged them in July, 2017, (a major deep-dive drill-down on several). That post is a good background for this one; background information includes display of many images — both the entities’ self-descriptions, and annotated/captioned screenshots of tax returns. That my blog was so close to top of the Google search results on this phrase might tell you it’s not discussed often enough.
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘National Nonprofit’: True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities? [Started Dec. 11, 2021, Publ. Jan. 30, 2022]..
Disclaimer: For the next several weeks, perhaps months…
I’m publishing this and probably a few more posts lingering in draft status “As-Is,” knowing that if I don’t, they won’t get out, at all, in the next few months. Read for context! It’s just taking too long to get my posts out. While figuring out how to change this, unless any post is exceptionally embarrassing or unintelligible, it’s likely to be posted — soon. The concepts are timely, each one will have several quotes or links helpful to the overall purpose of this blog. Also (FYI) on Twitter, I changed my usename (not the address, but how it displays) to “SheLooksItUp,” which happens to be, generally, I think, my leading characteristic.
This post has several “read-more” links. It ends in a footnote about to dissect something (I think) off Wikipedia quoting some Greek. I’m interested in etymology (not ENTomology, the study of insects) and word origins in general, have studied Latin and Greek (helps with the grammar and vocabulary) but am not fluent in either. I’ve sung more languages (in a former life) than I actually can speak. I consider music a language, one of the best, but that’s another story… But within any language, and within English (the only language I actually speak), various vocabularies, like dialects, segregate understanding. I’m acutely aware from having first, sought help and protection from violence in the home, thereafter, enforcement of existing orders (whether restraining, visitation, child support, or any other), thereafter the court-connected corporations which were interested in things other than their declared functions. So, I’ll say, “I speak ENTITY” and that’s what I also look for when researching.
Too many helpful (sic) government websites are expert in NOT speaking “entity” while promoting what good they (the services described) are doing. We can make a difference, people concerned about various causes (mine are just a few examples) by insisting on “entity-speak” among each other, well aware that it’s not appreciated in some circles — like the American Bar Association when talking about itself in public…
THIS POST IS:
‘National Nonprofit’: True or False? Wishful Thinking or Flat-Out Deception for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities? [Started Dec. 11, 2021, publ. Jan. 30, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dgS”). Please note the qualifier: “for USA-Legal Domiciled Entities.” (12,000 words as I hit “Publish”)**
I’m calling the second half, and will remind us of the link again, at the bottom (where I split it):
Disclaimer: I am neither lawyer nor accountant. My statements are based on observation and reading over time and made as a highly-motivated and, I believe, diligent-in-the-pursuit-of-truth “layperson.”
“Diligent:” I have to be diligent and efficient because I do not make a living or even part of one, from this blogging, or from any of the research and administrative (record-keeping, file-labeling) or editing (trying to get these danged posts into shape), while trying to keep up technology competence and, occasionally upgrading my devices at least once a decade (about all I can afford..)
Why diligence and accuracy ALWAYS matters:
I understand the temptation to just leave it to the experts and take their word for overall assessment of situations, the temptation to not do the necessary legwork to “get a second opinion” (on said experts) and to just “go with the flow” when it comes to family court matters, which by definition overlap consistently with family values and domestic violence and child abuse issues, as well as sexism, racism, and class issues. But there are other options, and that temptation to just leave it up to someone else to understand, should be withstood… (See “But there are other options” below)
I may curse some (use expletives) in this post. I also use direct address (second person “you”) more often; not with the cursing, of course!
In my daily life, I don’t curse much (am not often in a place where I would; don’t hang out in crowds), but if you see some expletives, nouns, adverbs or adjectives (with substitute characters of course) below (“WTF” “p1ss3d”) or involving the name of a certain well-known respected (and/or hated) religious hero, leader, or prophet (not that one, I’m not that foolish!). That’s just me expressing a reaction to whatever the paragraph was referencing to punctuate a point.
It’s deliberate and for illustration of what I think and feel about a situation. It was probably also my spontaneous sentiment, but keeping a few such phrases or words in the post is deliberate.
My using a few such words doesn’t mean I intend harm or to damage any person, property, or entity. I do however intend to rain on [certain of] these parades. “Business as usual” in the profits and undue influence from misleading verbiage {->Merriam-Webster definition} like language characterizing US-legal domiciled nonprofits as “national” or private corporations (also dealt with below) as “agencies” (i.e., of government) when they aren’t, ought to be “rained on” by competent adults cutting through such verbiage and identifying, publicizing habitual use of misleading verbiage, and properly ask, “WHY?” — without expecting to get honest answers from habitual liars or copycat automatons influenced by them.
One purpose of habitual and widespread use of such misleading verbiage is to short-circuit (circumvent, curtail, derail, discourage) even the potential for sound thought: to so condition people to the perpetuation of non-sense — stated with serious tone, demeanor and intent, often quoting “professionals” [in a given field] — that sound thought and speech looks eccentric, suspicious, and by association because so different, just plain “wrong.”
The ability to have “right” tactfully switch places with “wrong” but not quite get caught at it until it’s too late must give a real sense of power and accomplishment for those engaged in it, especially for some of the more conscious perpetuators of such misleading verbiage.
When comes to terms describing entities, there are identifiable right and wrong (legitimate, illegitimate) labels. Using using terminology designated for “entities” to describe non-entities is less “wrong” legally than mis-leading.
Slathering the word “National” over both categories (entities and non-entities), especially when using proper noun capitalization (initial caps as part of a longer name) is technically more permissible, but still misleading. The word “national” is as over-used and as such almost meaningless as a common noun referring to anything service-provider or government-program related as ‘family” “families” “children” “parent” “parenting” or, for that matter, “justice” “safe” or even the word “courts.” Without more specifics and a context, they mean nothing, but the common definitions of those words by association imply huge, vast, broad categories.
So this post takes on “National” but in doing so, I have to address some other concepts including entity and agency.
This usage — and know that our federal government seems to be expert in the misleading verbiage usage, as expert as is the private sector — serves to dismantle or delete (make ineffective) within individuals’ thinking and minds any vocabulary to understand and from there, discuss in informal private conversations and shared public conversations, to identify and see how public and private finances interact.
Any form of labeling (as in categories) which helps individuals sort (“differentiate”) such as real or fake, public or private, small or large, active from inactive (legal status revoked, suspended, delinquent, or never-existed) and in general, speaking the languages that business and government, interacting with each other and the public, must speak, seems to be targeted for dilution and eradication. This maintains class and caste systems, an “insider-outsider” language barrier.
Apart from that, in the U.S.A., no matter how well networked and functionally delegated among their own kind as to subject matter mirroring parts of government entities private corporations which freely use the word “national” in their titles are, in this country they are NOT national; they have single, one at a time only, possible chosen legal domicile; anything else must be an office or outpost or file separately. That domicile is either a state, the District of Columbia, or anything else comprising the United States of America — not one of which is actually “national” in scope.
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 