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.

Search Results

Assembling the Pieces: [1] AFCC 54th Annual Conference (2017)’s Diamond (Top) Sponsor “Avirat” (2001 MN, later -2015- in UK, product “OurFamilyWizard™”) found promoting [2] “Family Works, Inc.” (last found registered in Oregon, running “ParentingWisely™”) which probably profits ℅ royalties from [3] “Center For Divorce Education, Inc.” (Ohio Legal Domiciled Nonprofit at the same Ashland, Oregon, address, under same CEO, running “Children In Between™”) which takes Court-Ordered Parent Education Business (Out-of-State + Spanish-Speaking Parents) from [4] Cuyahoga County Ohio’s Domestic Relations Court’s “Special Circumstances, Rule 34” (1994ff).

leave a comment »

Assembling the Pieces: [1] AFCC Conference Diamond (top) Sponsor “Avirat” (2001 MN, later in UK, product “OurFamilyWizard(™)”) found promoting [2] “Family Works, Inc.” (last found registered in Oregon, running “ParentingWisely(™)”) which probably profits ℅ royalties from [3] “Center For Divorce Education, Inc.” (Ohio Legal Domiciled Nonprofit at the same Ashland, Oregon, address, under same CEO, running “Children In Between(™) “) which takes (for Out-of-State + Spanish-Speaking Parents) Court-Ordered Parent Education Business from [4] Cuyahoga County, Ohio’s Domestic Relations Court’s “Special Circumstances, Rule 34” (1994ff). (Short-link ends “-9lB” and the middle character is a small “L” not the number “1”) This link and full title will be posted again further below. Post as published is just under 12,000 words.

(How do you think I keep my own posts straight after nine years and almost 800 of them — by total recall and three-word reminders or by placing as many clues in the title as possible to the contents resulting in outrageously long, but memorable [to me!] titles?)

Dec.12 post: https://wp.me/psBXH-9ld (scroll or page down to middle for section with colorful images on OurFamilyWizard® & AFCC’s 54th Annual (2017) Conference in Boston); Dec. 8 post: https://wp.me/psBXH-8HX


Don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t make this mess.  I’m just untangling and translating some of it.

See nearby image: My last two posts have background on this (mess) and explain why I haven’t dropped the topic yet. (Red Flag for RICO situations evident as well as a prime example of classic court-connected programming). If these two posts aren’t still showing under the widget to the right (i.e., if you’re reading this post months later, knocking them off the “Last Few [10] Posts” list), to access those two posts easily, use this blog’s “Archives” (calendar widget near top right): set it to December, 2018, and click on Dec. 11 or 7, which display on the calendar as having links. The “Most Recent Posts” widget displays dates automatically; Archives links to them automatically;I don’t know why they are one day off from each other. You can also use the links I added to the nearby image caption.  

The first of these two, ‘A Substantial Background Check and History,” (posted separately Dec. 12 but written almost a year earlier and originally published then on my extensive Front (Home) Page) has a section on “Avirat” and court-mandated consumption of its digital-platform product (OFW).

The second post shown in nearby image, “The Public/Private Nor-For-Profit/For Profit…” (posted Dec. 8) focuses on the nonprofit “Center for Divorce Education” (“CDE”) as related to the presumably for-profit (NOT tax-exempt) “Family Works, Inc.” (“FWI”) being also at the same Oregon address In this dynamic duo, the nonprofit is legal-domicile Ohio and the other one, at this point, I can’t say in what form or where it still exists…).{{**}}

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

{{**Later, I found it (?) back in Ohio.. Searchable at the Secretary of State Business Search website}}.  Its single incorporator (Don A. Gordon) and the only filings shown are: 1997, 1999, and again in April, 2018, then June 2018.  I knew Ohio didn’t require annual filings — but only once every about twenty years??)   Typo in Entity # corrected.  Correct Entity# is “975105,” it formerly displayed “971505 .” I realize the slideshow (image gallery) format is sometimes hard to see details on, which is why I’ve also provided a link so people may repeat the search on-line themselves from the Secretary of State website, and view whichever pdf images are also available there (recommended!).//LGH Image gallery added Jan. 14; typo in FWI Ohio Business ID or Entity# corrected Jan. 16, 2019 }}


To know whether or even approximately how much revenues stream through CDE through court-mandated referrals (in many different states) to FWI, or separately to FWI directly OR through nonprofits supported by social services federal grants, or federal grants to states, one would have to also find some of those government entities accounting trail that handles those types of grants or that type of programming.

In this post, while I just picked one of many county entities that CDE apparently counts on for its business, I couldn’t even find that county’s CAFRs (comprehensive annual financial report), although the county website freely admits it’s obligated to produce them and submit to a higher authority (the “GFOA.”). It doesn’t admit, in the same paragraphs, that the public might deserve access to these or have an interest in reading them.. It sounds to me, then, that generally speaking, this topic tends to on closer look, run through a leaky circuitry whose overseers are less than interested in talking about such leaks, or plugging them, or that the public should even be aware such leaks may characterize the system overall.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 25, 2018 at 3:16 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

OHIO. My Oh My… 501©3, EIN#34-1376870, ACTION Ohio Coalition for Battered Women, a 1970s, deficit-ridden holdout, Still testifying – NOT, of course, about OHIO.Fatherhood.Gov (1999ff), though…

with one comment

[Two sections with images added post-publication, March 2, 2017.. the post is now only about 700 words longer, but takes up more vertical space because of the pictures]

This new post title (and case-sensitive shortlink ending “-5R3”):  OHIO.  My Oh My…  501©3 ACTION Ohio Coalition for Battered Women, a 1970s, deficit-ridden holdout, Still testifying – NOT, of course, about OHIO.Fatherhood.Gov (1999ff), though…

Where this came from, my January 22, 2012 post: ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others:  Reconceptualize This!  [Some Ohio Councils, Commissions, and Headlines, Incl. Basic Links][Chosen to represent 2012 in my 2017 Retrospective, includes its own].

This post took almost a week to complete.  You will notice distinct sections with somewhat different tone or voice (although I wrote them all, it may reflect what I’d been immersed in studying at each point in time).  For example, I thought on discovering that Action Ohio Coalition for Battered Women had leadership in common with Ohio Women Inc., a significant feminist organization for which I couldn’t find a single tax return this century — but which is clearly still soliciting funds, I thought that was good enough to publish.

THIS SECTION (marked by background-color) ADDED post-publication:  

Six (6) annotated images down the left side and, separately, down the right side (in form of their filenames as pdfs, separated by this symbol: “||”) links to view each full-size. (The images may extend below the displayed end the light-pink background color depending on the viewing device):
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

February 28, 2017 at 9:43 pm

ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others: Reconceptualize This! [Some Ohio Councils, Commissions, and Headlines, Incl. Basic Links][Chosen to represent 2012 in my 2017 Retrospective, includes its own]

leave a comment »

ABA, APA, AFCC, AAML, . . and others:  Reconceptualize This!  [Some Ohio Councils, Commissions, and Headlines, Incl. Basic Links][Chosen to represent 2012 in my 2017 Retrospective, includes its own]  [Words in italics added during 2017 update (adding an intro with images)/formatting cleanup]. {With case-sensitive Short-link ending “-101”}

So here’s the deal: I have been reviewing early (January)-year posts back to 2009 and was looking for a representative one, or at most two, for each year.


The “Reconceptualize This!” phrase came from having observed how hard certain types of professionals, and their associations, in their conferences (and publications, presentations) etc. were working to “reconceptualize” assault & battery behavior, and the other criminal behavior that accompanies (1) domestic violence and (2) child abuse, and (3) other related felonious behaviors – as something else.

ANYTHING but calling it what it is, and attributing cause to the actual perp, as opposed to say, his or her spouse (for lack of communications skills), society (for prejudice against, in this case, his race or gender), or his lack of a biological father in the home growing up (i.e., blame it on his single mother, or conditions which discouraged women from getting and staying married when they have children), and so forth.

“Coincidentally” in the process of reconceptualizing the criminal laws defining what is and is not a crime in the country as needing some serious behavioral modification makeovers for actually holding perps and lawbreakers responsible for their own actions, the presence of bad childhoods, missing daddies, difficult divorces, or poverty, notwithstanding, [the language also changes.]

So, in this post, you’ll find its own internal retrospective — and along the way naming MANY key entities, organizations, and personalities still at work in the same lines of work, that is, to make the justice system work for their mutual, private purposes, and calling it the public interest.

Year 2009: Development of a Framework for Identifying and Explicating the Context of Domestic Violence in Custody Cases and its Implications for Custody Determinations

Year, 2008: Reconceptualizing Child Custody: Past, Present, and Future—Lawyers and Psychologists* Working Together A Continuing Education Conference (in other words, basically ABA & APA memberships) (Chicago)[*see “notes2008 below the quote”]

Year 2007:  Changing the Culture of Custody  (Pennsylvania) 

(more on this, below, in fact most of today’s [1/22/2012]post is on this).

Year, 2006:  Rethinking Domestic Violence (Donald Dutton, book, Canada) [**See “notes2006 below the quote”]

Year 2005:  Batterers’ Intervention Programs still going strong:

Year, 2002: Batterers As Fathers: Rethinking and Reconceptualizing Policy and Practice (book, Lundy Bancroft/Jay Silverman)

[I commented] ~ ~ ~ How many people can actually “reconceptualize” a world in which the habit of battering automatically precludes the habit of parenting, of participating IN a family, and of having anything at all to discuss in the custody courts?
Not going to happen.  Too much profit in the less-effective alternatives & case-churning.
The truth of the matter is, too many believe that the sky would fall, government wouldn’t work right, and the economy would go under IF men’s (AND women’s including mothers, stepmothers, and new girlfriends) rights to be around children, or romantic partners, would CEASE, QUICKLY and PERMANENTLY – — over the crime of what would be a crime if perpetrated upon a stranger.
[My 2018Oct18 thought added, though it’s not a new thought]… In effect, preserving the “right-to-abuse” and commit crimes upon relatives & family members as basic and intrinsic to the concept of “FAMILY,” and infringing upon said “right (of men) to abuse (esp. women & children)” as a true human rights outrage, while the abuse itself, apparently, isn’t REALLY so outrageous…  
But, it not being politically correct to say this outright, ways and rationales to “work around” the system are found.  Distractions — and professionalizing “father engagement” qualifies — abound.

[**”notes2008 below the quote”]

In moving this summary to the top of the page, I unearthed more information from the 2008 reference, screen-printed and linked/captioned it, included more from 2006, and threw in just for good measure two screenprints from the “Batterers’ Intervention Programming link to BISCMI.org, a situation and organization (because of what it’s doing and who shows up at its conferences!) I’ve been paying attention to over time, and have done some major drill-downs on conference attendees.  Particularly when I found the recently-renamed “Family Justice Center Alliance,” which public/private collusion in combination with “theDuluthModel” and the associated DV cartel has done more to set up women for the take-down than, perhaps, the violent men they were fleeing in individual situations, generation after generation, including up to today.

That model for the uninitiated isn’t just “globalist” it’s socialist.  FYI not all women protesting personal violence wish to become socialists simply to escape the same, and not all women who are adamantly more in favor of the US Constitution then a UN-based world order in which national boundaries, for almost any key subject matter (cause, values) area just doesn’t matters, are necessarily avid, say Donald Trump followers.

In fact if there’s anything women in, for example, my situation MIGHT wish to do is to quit being forced to join cults in order to survive other cults, and I’m referring in my case to the so-called Christian ones in particular. (Another flavor there is just how much Unification Church, then and now, still permeates what many may think is actually some version of right-wing Christianity…) We would LIKE to live peaceably in our countries, wherever that is (and mine happens to be the USA) and from that perspective have a good understanding of What The F _ _ _ our country (adjust according to which is yours, respectively) is doing with its tax receipts from our work energies and wages over a lifetime, and as disbursing “services” throughout the land, several of them of the compulsory (if not entirely necessary) variety — and particularly when faced with women seeking personal AND social change in accord with, not in utter disregard of, the laws of the land.

So, I moved my expanded version (of above summary) and several screenprints below it, to:
[Who’s Been Covertly — in widely dispersed conferences and publications — insisting we (in the USA)] Reconceptualize This! (cf. my Jan 22, 2012 post and 2017 updates) (<= This post title’s shortlink ends -5SI)

[**”notes2006 below the quote”]

BUT:   A few notes on this one: I replaced an image in the post for this $87 (hardback/ only $37 paperback) book

See URL http://www.ubcpress.com/search/title_book.asp?BookID=2695

See URL for more description of this title.  Donald Dutton is a professor of psychology at UBritish Columbia as of date of this abstract (it also has a book TOC).

published by University of British Columbia Press (UBC Press), self-described as:

UBC Press | thought that counts
The University of British Columbia Press is Canadaí’s leading social sciences publisher. With an international reputation for publishing high-quality works of original scholarship, our books draw on and reflect cutting-edge research, pushing the boundaries of academic discourse in innovative directions. Each year UBC Press publishes seventy new titles in a number of fields, including Aboriginal studies, Asian studies, Canadian history, environmental studies, gender and women’s studies, geography, health and food studies, law, media and communications, military and security studies, planning and urban studies, and political science.  UBC Press publishes many series (etc.)

From this book abstract:

… the stated aim of refuting what he describes as feminist “dogma preservation” 2 in the field.** He seeks to dislodge the perceived dominance of this perspective by providing his own “more enlightened” 3 and “dispassionate” viewpoint, one which disputes the relevance of gender to domestic violence and foregrounds a gender-neutral and exclusively psychological account of its causes. Dutton argues that because personality disorders have not been acknowledged as the real cause of domestic violence, legal responses to domestic violence have been misguided and ineffective.Dutton extends these two primary themes throughout the entire book. Dutton designates the first seven chapters to explaining why feminist accounts that identify gender and gender inequality as relevant to domestic violence are wrong  (DID I mention, he’s a tenured psychology professor there?)

https://drdondutton.com/about/ His PhD in Social Psychology was in 1970, from Univ. of Toronto, and his work experience 1973-1995 includes court-ordered “Assaultive Husbands” therapy.

From 1979 to 1995, he served as a therapist in the Assaultive Husbands Project, a court mandated treatment program for men convicted of wife assault. In the course of providing therapy for these men, he drew on his background in both social and clinical psychology to develop a psychological model for intimate abusiveness.

He has published over 122 peer reviewed journal articles and 10 books, including the Domestic Assault of WomenThe Batterer and The Abusive Personality.

Dr. Dutton has served as an expert witness in criminal trials involving family violence, including his work for the prosecution in the O.J. Simpson trial.

 

Note — the off-ramped/off-shored post has more information connecting Dr. Dutton to AFCC (June 2016 conference in Seattle, Washington) and showing in the same conference, more organizations listed below here, and which I have been blogging for several years.  This is important information to know, and I hope to publish it soon and that readers will take time to consider what the situation really signifies, particularly as I’ve already blogged, in 2016 as I recall, “Outflanking National Sovereignty through Functionalism” and “Accounting Literacy Matters:  Cause-based doesn’t.”

I am putting so much time into this particular update (so far, I believe three extra posts have branched off from it) because it really did identify — now FIVE YEARS AGO — many key players, contradictions in their mutual claims, networks among the various players, and that the overall programming intent, collectively, was indeed to decriminalize domestic violence, while setting up women for failure in believing that the many advocacy groups were still thinking or acting independently enough, and could be trusted to help us more than, sometimes, temporarily

…and after that, sometimes women might make it free long enough to struggle in the family courts for YEARS, and others, they might not — having gotten simply “offed” (or their kids) shortly after filing.

This is still happening, according to social media reporting on the headlines, something I could no longer stomach, as a survivor, doing and was not primarily about in the first place on this blog, either. ///LGH Feb 13, 2017.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

January 22, 2012 at 12:58 pm

Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct. 2018].

leave a comment »

Post Title: Family Court Analysis {Lit., Breaking It Down* into Basic Elements} Is Still Too Uncommon! | Blogger’s Recent “No More!” Nomad Status (Generic Personal Info) | Impact of PTSD & Safety Concerns on My Two Writing Modes [Written mid-Sept., published mid-Oct., 2018]. Case-sensitive WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-9gi.” Published Oct. 21, 2018.

* ..I “couldn’t” resist: (below: see Etymonline.com, or the “OED” for “Analysis” and how many related words — including “psychoanalysis” come from that root “leu” to loosen, dissolve, free, or (break it down into basic elements)… But I’m talking about the basic elements of “Family Court.”

How can so much analysis of how to fix family courts (or, as some call them, improperly, “custody courts”) so often omit and so confidently so many basic elements  — such as: the membership associations (plural) driving policy; the related public funds beyond basic public funds for the infrastructure flowing to the courts and to “community services” the courts refer to and often mandate parents attend AND often pay for privately; and/or any quantitative OR qualitative analysis (or even overview of) the nature, character, and filing habits of such community service providers?   {{the last phrase in navy blue font just added Dec. 2018//LGH.}}

What’s “analysis” about most common “syntheses”  — such as protecting children IN the family courts, training professionals in “domestic violence awareness and sensitivity” — that omit key basic elements of the whole and skip straight to “what we want to do!” as if the analyses were complete — or as if organizations hadn’t been engaged in such trainings for decades, including how to dismiss or minimize it?

What’s “analytical,” even coming from expert (lawyers and psychologists) about omitting key evidence on the creation, maintenance, driving organizations, operations, and in general tendencies — basic character indicators — of the family courts as a system WITHIN a country attempting to standardize it ACROSS country lines, importing ideas foreign to the U.S. (specifically) Constitution itself as “best practices”??

What’s accurate and respectable about assuming that batterers’ intervention, supervised visitation, access and visitation should ALWAYS dominate right to separate — and because of this, generate professional networks taking public and private resources both from divorcing or “in-conflict” parents — that just need to undergo “Coordinated Community Response” trainings to become more sensitive to safety issues ,that is, to endorse the DuluthModel circle of control?

This approach not only perpetuates the private ‘trainings” endlessly (public-private funded, run often under tax-exempts while most of the population is not “tax-exempt” at all..), it also

  • undermines the concept of representative government at the local (state or county) jurisdiction level…
  • complicates the accountability for public funding beyond reasonable transparency.
  • privatizes control of what ought to be public institutions.

This is just an annotated image sample. Look up “BIHR” (British Institute of Human Rights) and read for more understanding.  Equality & Human Rights Commission | BIHR “About” & (Sept. 2017, The Guardian, “The Observer” Britain faces rebuke over refusal to back more than 100 UN human rights targets” with concerns about worse conditions after Brexit)

See above image.

As I remembered from many years ago, and as I am seeing again — while the UK is setting about to revise its own divorce-laws (with backing from a private foundation, the Nuffield Foundation) and through incorporation of the “Convention on the Rights of Children” the “EU Human Rights” into the British “Human Rights Act” standards (a basic part being right to ongoing contact with both parents) —  what’s right, fair or even honest about attempting to put the USA, NOT a signatory to the UN CRC, under its authority in practice, if not in letter of the law, by aligning family court standards with Commonwealth countries? (Membership as typifies the international, interdisciplinary membership association “AFCC.”)

Besides the links to nearby “BIHR” image, I just found the following article which  I’m  including although it’s dated 2005, not more recently, because it summarizes the “contact” issues and impact on family law of the CRC, EU Human Rights, and other things of parallel references.

I know little about the “JRF.org” (Joseph Rowntree Foundation) other than, per his “Wiki,” Joseph Rowntree (d. 1925) was an English Quaker chocalatier, businessman, and philanthropist who set up three entities (now four trusts) for social reform and associated with Charles Booth. (<==Encyclopedia Britannica) whose cousin, Beatrice Potter Webb, with her husband Sidney Webb is associated with the Fabian Society, Labour movements, George Bernard Shaw, London School of Economics etc.; see second gallery below the next one — just two images)

Human rights obligation and policy supporting children and families by Clem Henricson and Andrew Bainham (posted at JRF.og) 26th May 2005 (first two images of the three just below):


What’s historically valid about talking as though family courts were not (speaking the USA) a fairly recent creation, in some states (Maryland, Kentucky come to mind) as recent as even the mid-1990s?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

October 21, 2018 at 4:51 pm

Evidence of ONGOING Censorship by Omission from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”: From 2010 (book), 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to historic “minor omission” of the TANF-based, 2006 $150M/year federal department grants stream)

leave a comment »

This post’s title: Evidence of ONGOING Censorship by Omission from “Crisis in the Courts Crowd”: From 2010 (book), 2014 (conference), an info-laden “minor omission” from 2006 (newsletter) in addition to historic “minor omission” of the TANF-based, 2006 $150M/year federal department grants stream) Case-sensitive shortlink ends “-8ZJ.”

This post supplements (and by being here also condenses) a Page published April 26, 2018, which page’s title also includes (and starts with) the phrase “Censorship by Omission“:

which itself goes with a related (originating) “sticky” post which will be permanently (insomuch as anything on a blog can be called “permanent”) stuck to the top position on the blog, so I’m adding its title here…

Although the sticky post just above features this topic in its long title, that post originally had more to say on the extent to which public policy in this country has become public relations (i.e., propaganda) and where certain major professions sit in that national climate.

That title arose (see the post) because of the current “House Concurrent Resolution No. 72” being pushed through federally and I understand in several states also, by the collaborating “coalitions” (official, unofficial) referenced in it.

I am opposed based on the information I’ve been blogging for nine years, now, and personal acquaintance with the element of obsessive if not paranoid determine to control the public discussions of “family courts” by those involved.  It seems that the only hope of keeping a containment lid on the truth is:  new generations being born continually, older generations how went through the family court gauntlets (after in-home battering, another one of its own gauntlets) burning out, dying off, or being so homeless or bankrupt there’s no breath left with which to talk) — in combination with reaching overseas to (hopefully) engage personnel in the “cause” which may be less familiar with the workings of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its historic embedding of sexism and racism (BOTH!) into social services, not to mention the philanthropic sector’s involvement.


I anticipate below three separate sections reviewing three specific pieces of evidence (and/or a bit more if I go into more detail on “NCADV” — not for the first time — which has a cameo appearance in this first section as an Executive Director endorses the 2010 book).

“Exhibits Discussed” (One item each for the years referred to in the title. The “thumbnail”  images here just as visual (color) cues for each section, where they will be larger):

2010-2013 website announcing new bk ‘DomesticviolenceAbuseandChildCustody’com’ (viewed) 2018Apr22

For 2010 — publication of book “Domestic Violence, Abuse and Child Custody,” an event I was around for and remember.  I do not have the book, but do have a complete table of contents (first edition) and have had my hands on it through others willing to cough up the (at the time) $100 for hardback version.

For 2014 — one of a series of BMCC Mothers’ Day Rallies (apparently) as blogged on website “Mothers of Lost Children.”  I’d printed it in 2014.

For 2006 — not by “Crisis in the Courts Crowd,” but instead symbolic of key information in two key categories** the Crisis in the Courts Crowd” ignored and historically will not## teach or take into account, call consistent attention to, or encourage followers to think about or explore..just one newsletter or “gazette” produced by Kids’ Turn, Inc.[** listed just below to include several related phrases, searchable on this blog or outside it.] [## parenthetical phrase just below].

KT Gazette 2006 outside (for mailing) area (note return address, and names at top, which’d be bottom of the gazette!) Click image to enlarge.

KT Gazette 2006, short description of the classes, “Bay Area” reference is to San Francisco Bay Area. Click image to enlarge.

Significance of Kids’ Turn, Inc.: an organization whose founding is intricately linked to AFCC membership (along at least four fronts — family court judges, family lawyers, custody evaluators (mediators, parenting coordinators, etc.) and family court administrators) — which I’ve established often enough in this blog to not repeat it again here. However my home page (if you scroll down) deals with the shape-shifting SF version of Kids’ Turn, as it merged into another corporation which then (recently) changed ITS name, but continued running the classes.

**[1] FEDERAL INCENTIVES: 1996 wfare Reform (PRWORA-related) overt sponsorship of fathers’ rights throughout social services, regarding child support, and with intent to favorably influence fathers (as opposed to mothers) in custody outcomes, through HHS funding streams under [at a minimum] two different + complementary titles (IV-A, IV-D) of the Social Security Act.  Fatherhood.gov.  HealthyMarriage.org.  Oklahoma Marriage Initiative (1999ff) and its connection to mass-marketing curricula trademarked and owned by individuals, to welfare populations, through churches, through child support agencies, etc.,  and

**[2] PRIVATE PROFITS ORGANIZED & STEERED THROUGH FAMILY-COURT SPECIFIC PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION/S: The existence, nature, activist membership categories, and agenda of the IL-based nonprofit, “Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC” for short), with tax return claiming (year after year)  instead Wisconsin legal domicile.

## including until now, in vast majority of public, on-line rhetoric, newsletters, published articles on the problems in the courts, and in general, on organization websites, on individual participants on-line (*.org *.com or other or blog) websites, and when they conference, generally, as a workshop or plenary topic at  conferences too.  Most of the key leaders over time are (I checked, over the years) aware of and a few groups I know, have been specifically informed by myself and other individuals of this information and are reasonably knowledgeable about how significant it was to the problems they were reporting on and proposing solutions for, early on in their existence….solutions which did not take into account the existence of the AFCC or Welfare Reform marriage/fatherhood or access visitation grants and the impact of both on the family court landscape. In light of the existence of these two (not the only two, but a significant two) realities, the solutions make no sense, and are in essence, a pretense (a selling of “hope” at the cost of the truth).

MY 2006 CHOICE — somewhat arbitrary except it also matches the year those $150M annual HMRF (<=gov’t. website.  Gives some basics & timelines) started.

  • Kids’ Turn  (inc. 1989 in San Francisco) and Kids’ Turn San Diego (inc. ca. 1996) symbolize the field of court-ordered, i.e. “force-fed” parent education (or “divorce seminars”) as a condition of custody modification.  Fees-based and embedded in the legal process, sometimes by administrative rulings by presiding judges (who — guess what — may just happen to be AFCC members), essentially this ongoing income stream (“Do the math – how many couples are divorcing or involved in custody modification processes, within the geographic range where Kids’ Turn (N Calif, S. Calif. or, other entities running it in the MidWest, and it’s said, the UK)?)

ALSO in 2006 (timing…)

URL label includes the phrase “TANF HMRF Integration”. 3/20/2018 OFA (Office of Family Assistance) ‘Dear Colleague’ Letter.

2006 – NOT on this post (at least for now) also relevant, a major round (10 years after PRWORA of 1996) of $150M/year marriage/fatherhood + incarcerated fathers’ re-entry funding). The related post to this one (“In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform…” also top “sticky” post on the blog) provides more details, including the nearby image of a very recent “Dear Colleague” TANF letter. //LGH 4-25-2018.


Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 11, 2018 at 8:47 pm

If Dog-Fighting, Cock-Fighting, and Exploiting Prisoners as Gladiators (resulting in shooting deaths for some, and “hundreds of shootings,” not to mention fight-related injuries for others) is “BAD,” then why isn’t also Federal (PRWORA-based) and State (Family Courts) Policy with similarly staged, high-stakes conflicts — rigged for intended outcomes, and obviously potentially lethal for the combatants and, periodically, bystanders — on a far larger stage (national, and in some high-profile cases, international), also involving known criminally violent** fathers and their children’s mothers, AND young children of all ages?  [Published Dec. 17, 2017]

leave a comment »

The “parent post” also dealt in part with guns and groups seeking to reduce death by gun violence. I guess they just weren’t thinking in terms of, “of prisoners, by prison guards…” Its title:

The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-87w”)  (Started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”**  preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts)

This is a short (ca. 6,700 words or so) aside to that post, and a link to return to the parent post above is provided again at the bottom. There may be some repetition as I added documentation and examples to the text before publishing.

[Post-publication: An extended footnote adds about 4,000 words referencing BWJP, the Wellstone promotion of supervised visitation (both quotes and news articles, as is well-known this progressive Senator, his wife, his daughter, three staff and two pilots were killed suddenly — about 15 years ago — during a small plane crash.  He’d been on the way to debate his opponent for an anticipated competitive fight for his third term.  However, an identifiable incorporation of acceptance for continued, but modified (i.e. “supervised”) exchanges in passive acceptance (and silent assent to AFCC policies while presenting at their 2000 conference on alienation, access and attachment with special emphasis on the first issues) effectively “headed off at the pass: any open, informed discussion on another possibility which better preserved safety — NO forced contact where abuse has been identified. By separating dangerous from not-dangerous parenting situations, this also would clear the path for fairer handling of non-abusive fathers’ issues.]

It originates in making references of these topics as analogies for the situation I am most deeply concerned about, the macro-economic, system-wide practice of the same power blocs setting up artificial, high-stakes and sometimes life-and-death conflicts especially between men and women overall, and between individual men and women who are mothers and fathers of children in common, while demanding the public fund both sides (the public as taxpayers and through other service consumption of governmental business enterprises, including accessing the courts, registering vehicles yearly, marriage licenses even, continues to pay “up front”)

Many men and women can handle themselves without hurting or destroying each other economically or physically, and not all men and women, on divorcing, use their children as pawns or take them as hostages.  But WHEN some do, it seems to be “game time” for others. It’s “show time.”  All can be manipulated, and the longer the conflict goes on, the bills are higher,  more civil and legal rights concessions are demanded of them (and the larger public) the stakes are higher, and the risks of those personally involved, greater; these concessions are often described as intended to change the outcome.


But doing so directly is contrary to our self-impressions of the country and view that we have a possibly functional system of laws and courts.  The influences are from the sidelines, from outside specific jurisdiction of family courts involved, and these influences come from Congress and the White House (which expends funding allocated to it by Congress, i.e., that budget) and are applied through, as the title above says, a real “money maze” — sometimes direct to the states, sometimes direct to nonprofits within the state but involved in the courts, and sometimes otherwise.


That’s why I say the game is “rigged.”  It’s not a level playing field, and its rules can be altered year to year, and situation to situation — and that’s the way some people like it.  Rather than SETTLING the standards by the law, with a preference throughout of NOT prioritizing privilege for violators of penal codes when there are two parents and one is a violator and the other, not.

Rather than just having fair laws and enforcing them fairly.

We (so to speak) also already exploit at least federal prisoners for slave labor, through FPI (Federal Prison Industries) a.k.a.  Unicor (and have since the 1930s), which is also referenced here near the bottom, but not in this post’s title, which reads:

QUESTION:  What’s bad when found to have occurred in secret, in confined and closed quarters from which combatants cannot escape, and involving animals (whether dogs or roosters with spurs) or when it happens in prisons with caged men, and in ALL of the above resulting in serious injury and sometimes death, not to mention being “exploitation, defined,” ….

LA times 4/24/2000, by Staff writer Max Arax, “Guards on Trial in Corcoran Shootings blame Prisoners

…Pointing the finger at a vast group of prisoners with no faces or voices in the federal courtroom, the defense is using the government’s own witnesses to put Corcoran’s violent culture on trial. Sounding at times like prosecutors themselves, attorneys for the eight guards are also blaming official state policy handed down from Sacramento for the thousands of fights between inmates and the hundreds of shootings by guards during a six-year reign of terror at the San Joaquin Valley prison.

Beginning in 1989, defense attorneys contend, the state’s integrated yard and shooting policies required guards to mix rival inmates from different street gangs and then to fire at them with deadly force if they refused to stop fighting.

why is the same basic routine under  “family-friendly policy,” and when the forced interaction with known dangerous persons frequently happens WITHOUT armed guards or trained personnel nearby but WITH women and children, boys or girls nearby — in fact sometimes without even any authority supervising the exchange, but the exchange is still court-ordered, forced after reasons for separation or requested protection are on record as domestic violence or child abuse somehow justified as moral, ethical, and as “American” as (well, what should we say, truthfully — as American as slavery? or as indentured servitude based, this season, meaning, this past half-century minimum, on parent gender?)?
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 17, 2017 at 8:09 pm

Why Bother To Unravel the Proliferation of Private Associations Representing Public Offices? Well, re: the sponsored database project SchoolMatters.com, That Might be a $10M Question for “The Council of Chief State School Officers” (CCSSO.org) in D.C., Grantee, and “The Broad Foundation,” in Los Angeles, Donor. (Publ. June 16, 2017)

with 5 comments

This post:

Published without tags, about 13,500 words (including captions to its many images), Friday, June 16, 2017.

By the time you read this, if you’re still in denial about the extensive networks of private associations involving government officials on the board, or restricted to them as members (but — hey, let’s not reject some donations — not as sponsoring partners or “Associates”) and that while government at different levels continues to fund such entities, they aren’t exactly advertising the inter-relationships on gov’t websites, or the financials on the association websites — and that these associations operate in the private, nonprofit sector with intent to affect the government sector (at all levels) bypassing normal input from citizens — then please seek personal help.  Fast.  You’re cognitively disabled.

* My last two at June 15, 2017.

Maybe this post should have preceded the two I just unleashed,* for just one example of why we ought to be talking about and in terms of the hidden scaffolding of private associations dedicated to individual government positions (Governor, Mayor, Chief Justice — or, case in point here, Chief State School Officer — State TANF Administrator, not to mention, below state level, City or County Manager, Child Support Enforcement Directors, etc.) or entities (State Court, Legislature, etc.).  Every branch of state-level government is covered with some association.

There’s even an association called “Council of State Governments” (EIN# 366000818) which proudly describes itself as serving all three branches of (state) governments, and being the only national organization to do so. This is not one to lose sight of…particularly with their “CSG Justice Center” which has its own EIN# (56-2655371) and Identity — sort of — but is “℅” the CSG. (Keep reading, I discuss it below).  Sections in purple-background color + any related images:

(<=EIN#366000818, that links to its latest tax return showing about $33M Total Gross assets, and where its $36M Gross Receipts came from, went to, and are being held.

For example, in a symptom of “fantastic” stewardship, (see Pt X Balance Sheet, Assets) ALMOST NONE is being held in public traded securities, or income-producing assets, but $26M in “Savings and temporary investments.”).

In a symptom of “fantastic” awareness of how to follow instructions on an IRS Form, that is, to label different sources of its own $36M of revenues being held in cash, not investments to produce some sort of revenue which might reduce their need for contributions (or membership dues of $7M), this nonprofit (coordinating efforts to coach all three branches of state governments AND with a program to draft suggested state legislation), on  Pt. VIII, Statement of Revenues, Line 1 shows $11M total”Contributions,” none from “Government.**” ($7M from membership dues — no doubt from member government entities’ budgets — and only $4M from “other contributions.”  However, Line 2 on the same page shows they’ve (improperly) lumped “Grants (which belong on Line 1) and Contracts (Line 2) together under $17M of revenue.  Could some of that be, actually, government grants?  Or more corporate?  Certainly.  In fact, (see image, or Page 2, Pt. III Line 4a) they admit it is and even name  some of the federal granting agencies.  Foundations are also granting to it (improperly listed on Pt. VIII Ln2 also)

But a higher number on Line 2 makes it look like more valuable services are being provided, and justifying the high percentage spent on employees for this entity.)

Page 1 FY2014 Council of State Gov’ts Form 990 (Hdr Info only)

From PtX Assets –notice almost nothing (relative to the total assets) listed after Ln 10 (Land, buildings equipmt), which isn’t much either. See large total. $26M of this (NS in image, see tax return) is on Ln2, Savings. See (related image) Pt.VIII Ln3, Revenues — little investment income).

Pt VIII, Statemt of Revs (Lns 1-3 only)

Pt. VIII, Page 2 Lns 4abcd, Progr Serv Accomplishmts.

Sched O (Supplemental Info). Note it has a website for explaining the Form 990 at top. CSG didn’t follow, though.

EACH IMAGE above is ANNOTATED (relating to above para.) I also have more on the CSG below on this post.  The information is disturbing at a gut level, on quick review of just FY2014:  it’s mis-categorizing revenues, avoiding explanation of its high “Consultant Expenses” where required, and running the “Pt. III Line 4c avoidance” tactics, which this year failed to account for over $892,000–almost $1M — of Line4d expenses, as well as not posting its financial statements (but people may request them).  I didn’t even post an EXTENDED section on attempts to draft legislation affecting the criminal justice system (Sched D details), or Sched C details, its attempt to bypass an Ethics Commission requirement to register as a lobbyist (when it was actually lobbying) in one or more states, or that its primary “Other Liabilities” (almost exactly matching its $11M admitted contributions) are “due to managed organizations which brings up the question — which ones?  All or some of its listed “affiliates”?   For the record, the Council of Chief State School Officers (different — and not listed as an “affiliated” org at CSG.org), of this post, has about the same Total Assets per its tax returns.

 

(The reasoning for Council of State Governments (<=its website) I guess, being, “What the heck — why not combine all three branches created originally for separation of powers, and unify them into just one master-planning entity membership organization? After all, wouldn’t this be more efficient use of “scarce governmental resources” and result in better “evidence-based” policies?”).

CSG is active in criminal justice reform, one thing I discovered (as I recall) long ago tracking some HHS | “HMRF” programming.  The tax return tells about this, too, on a Sched C or D attachment, in detail.  Some webshots from the “CSGJustice Center “Collaborative Approaches to Public Safety.” show: what by sectors, what it’s doing, that it’s “120 employees spanning three time zones,” and, at the bottom (in almost invisible print) who funds the website, and a disclaimer for any responsibility on what it says on behalf of those federal agencies providing funding (!):

This website is funded in part through a grant from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Neither the U.S. Department of Justice nor any of its components operate, control, are responsible for, or necessarily endorse, this website (including, without limitation, its content, technical infrastructure, and policies, and any services or tools provided).

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 16, 2017 at 4:09 pm

Yet Another “Recent Research Suggests” link (2015 quoting pre-2010 source) unearths Yet Another Chameleon Corp. and Its Also Recently Re-branded Partner, ALL Targeting the $20 Billion School Supplies, Facilities, Technology and “Learning Environments” Marketplace. Internationally, of Course. [Publ. June 10, 2017]

with one comment

Read THIS post,

Yet Another “Recent Research Suggests” link (2015 quoting pre-2010 source)~ unearths Yet Another Chameleon Corp. and its (Yet Another, Also Recently Re-branded) Partner, ALL Targeting the $20 Billion School Supplies, Facilities, Technology and “Learning Environments” Marketplace. Internationally, of Course. (with case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6Wy”),

together with another one called:  School Facilities Planning Roundtables (2008 in California) and the Internationally-conferencing Trade Association Re-Branding Runaround (case-sensitive short-link ending “-6Zr”), both to be published, I hope, today, June 10, 2017. They have been about a week in process as more organizations, publications, and interrelationships continued to surface.


The material on the above to two posts came out of a page so long I provided an orange-bordered (like this) roadmap to its alternating-background-colors sections — in fact, from a reference in road-map section which identified a previously unknown professional association of the “School Facilities Planning” persuasion.

I already copied and have published the top third of the long “Page “to a “Post” promoting it:

Here are links to first the top one-third (post), with its long title, then the whole thing (page) with its shorter title), each with a color scheme as found on its place on FamilyCourtMatters.org:

Promoting Page added May 27, 2017, on “The Whole Nine Yards”: Who’s Been REstructuring the PK-12 School Planning Infrastructure; the Capital Appreciation Bonds [raising funds for school facilities] Scam; CAFRs; Unbelievably Unethical, Internationally-Conferencing 501©3s; Where University Centers, each University’s Supporting Foundations (sometimes plural); and of course Many VFFs (Very Famous Foundations) Coordinate for Cradle-to-Career GLOBAL Control (of Education).”  Here’s the ==> case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6WW” to that extended title!

[That] PAGE title, with its case-sensitive shortlink ending “-6TM” is:

About My Blog Motto (formerly on Vital Info/Sticky Links post, moved here  May 26, 2017).

All four links will be repeated at the end of this blog, some in the middle, and in addition there are titles and links to other developing posts herein you’ll see, all related to same central theme, representing research already done and soon to be posted. And, as usual, there are plenty of captioned images and internal links to outside material to make and support my points in posting on this topic.


Ironically, the shorter post title includes the phrase “The Whole Nine Yards.” Since the phrase came up (came to mind as a label for the whole mess of information), let’s talk terminology:

“The Whole Nine Yards” is a common use phrase of colloquial origin.  It gets the point across.  Unfortunately many common-use phrases regarding government financing and operations — including of schools — including planning to expand or renovate the existing school infrastructure — and how money should be raised for this — and who controls distribution of it, and the school renovation/expansion infrastructure–  come with all kinds of tax and income level references and short- and long-term consequences. “It’s a whole different ballpark” and NOT understanding their points of origin can be disastrous to the average person tossing those terms around without realizing what they refer to and, from that realization, and what they and those shooting them off in “for-public-discussion” media, specifically wish to avoid referring to, which might be summarized as “The Whole Nine Yards” of a trade and commercial sector in motion towards certain destinations (that is, with payloads for certain few, though it’s a large sector, persons at the expense of most others.

“The Whole Nine Yards,” just means “everything,” per me (I used it!) and Wikipedia, has a simple basic meaning that works OK in the colloquial arena. It’s the point of reference and origins that have puzzled experts.

A Few More Inches of Post about That Phrase and where Casual, Common-use terms Trap wise-sounding Discussions into Closed-Circuit, Going-Nowhere Collective Behaviors.  

Let’s look at the difference between colloquial phrases which work, harmlessly, for their limited purposes, and common but casually tossed-around words referencing technical, ongoing vital relationships which, generation after generation, describe and define our relationships with this country, and the states, counties, special authority districts — and school districts, and who pays how much interest on which capital infrastructures they probably will be using, periodically but will never actually own or control.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 10, 2017 at 6:53 pm

Challenging the Annenbergs’ Public Education Challenge Grants, Still Searching for AISR@Brown as a Form 990 filer, Still Scrutinizing Why We Accept that Privately Controlled, Synched, Billion-Dollar, Tax-Exempt Foundations Care about the Public as Much as About Controlling Their Collective Assets (and the Public, Lest It Start Demanding a Better Look at the Books!) [moved here Apr. 15, Publ. April 21, 2017]

with one comment

This sprang un-mid-wifed (?) from the belly of another post,** where it’d grown submerged under that post’s main identity until ready to burst forth into a free-breathing, distinct publication from the other, as itself, and at a different street address (url) on the same blog.  I have been pregnant (and carried to term; they’re young adults now), so I do know what it feels like getting around the last few months: cumbersome. That’s how the other post was getting.

**the post (published 4/17/2017) which gestated (? incubated) this one:

Others talk so freely about conceiving, founding, launching and incubating various projects (or nonprofits) under some larger fiscal agent, or donor-advised-funds community foundations until they are “spun off” or “born,” I figure I can talk about having “given birth” to another post every now and then.   🙂  Sometimes, when I’m tangling too close with certain subject matter (here, the University of Pennsylvania and University of Southern California’s “Annenberg School of Communications” Trusts, not to mention the Annenberg Foundation itself) unpremeditated offspring are conceived.

So, this one being my “baby” I gave it a nice long name, in the  family (“FamilyCourtMatters)”tradition:

The first several paragraphs here overlap from the originating post, before I “get into it,” scrutinizing some of the Forms 990PF and relationships between various Annenberg projects and their main foundation. *** [see below next para. and link]

As previously explained (on the last post, above), this is a large family foundation (well, at least one) whose primary wealth came from ownership of publications/media field — the sale of “Triangle Publications,” by a second-generation business success, Walter H. Annenberg.

As much as I might want to elaborate more on this, after starting to do so here, I ‘re-allocated’ this into a spin-off post, which is now (a day later) complete and ready to go when this one is, under the name:



***And whose family style of philanthropy, prior generation and the new one (daughter Wallis), tends to put its name on the things it funds and endows — like entire schools within at least two universities, and to advertise about the amazing, large-scale things it has accomplished by the sheer scope and size of commitments.  No question this philanthropy is appreciated by the recipients, especially the art museums, but I do have a “show-us-the money” (financial reports) issue with the private-university-located entity which not only seeks to transform the US Public School system but also I gather to privately steer how, and in what direction, and to do this nonprofit and somewhat fiscally underground.

I also believe it’s time to start questioning the university homes (here, private universities) who help hide the cashflow involved while publicizing the program and project aspects, both this one, and other related ones.   

About this principle: I am noticing the habit across subject matters and at other universities also (example:  National Center for Adoption Law and Policy at Capital University in Columbus Ohio turns out to have been a trademark of the university, and while its featured website was referenced repeatedly on-line at different sites ending “*.org” or as I recall “*.edu”, at the end of the day, the website for which $230,000 (for starters) HHS funds were obtained by a Capital University Alumna (and US Rep), looks to have never been put up; the domain name is for sale with no redirect, and what was “NCALP” then became FYLaw, equally untraceable, most likely. You can see this interest across several of my posts within the last half year.

That was “Child Welfare Training” subject matter, but it also occurs in domestic or “Intimate Partner” violence prevention fields also (Ohio IPV Collaborative).  In reality, it may be less the subject matter than the accounting and reporting practices we should be paying attention to. At some levels, I believe the stated “cause” may be functioning as a hook, to reel in public support for the private or public/private consolidated interests (wealth, in other words) to problem-solve and retrain all involved in the new way of thinking, communicating, or in of course new electronic databases or platforms for the same.


In this post, “AISR” stands for one of the advertised projects for which I’m having some trouble locating financial reports (showing gross receipts, program-related revenues and expenses (payments to others, including subcontractors), plus annual reporting of a balance sheet, showing where are its investments), despite how popularly and widely it is referenced both by the involved universities and some of the funded nonprofits, some of which are either themselves networked, or helped start one (i.e., “Coalition for Essential Schools.”

If there IS no such Form 990-filing entity by the legitimate name AISR (written out), thing, then I would question why a corporation by that name was ever set up, which, as I established in my last post, Rhode Island Corporations Division says does exist; it has a business entity and listed board of directors, is classified as a nonprofit, and a start date is listed.

“AISR” represents “The Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University” which is in the USA’s smallest state: Rhode Island or as the Secretary of State/Corporations Division website says “Rhode Island and the Providence Plantations.”

Here’s a street sign for the AISR but who can find its tax return (EIN#)?  I see there is a corporate filing for it.  Donations to it are coming (mostly) direct to Brown University EIN#; Brown being a private nonprofit, files its own Form 990s:

Ramifications: IF there is no proper EIN# (for example, if AISR is an UNregistered trademark of Brown University, or some other explanation), then what does that say about the famous Annenberg Foundation whose $500M to public education — and $50M of this to this institute named after the donors — is displayed on their website and recited faithfully in histories of the respective institutions?

If, by contrast (however) the secrecy and “catch-us-if-you-can” aspects of the cash flow TO the AISR is symptomatic of Brown University only, not the Annenberg Foundation whose claim is to have committed $50M gift to it months after its first $5M gift (and this in 1993), then PERHAPS the donee may be found by starting at the Annenberg Foundation end and working downwards as to the Public Challenge Grantees.

I cannot easily access EIN#s before this century, but early in this century did find a list of some of those grantees (but not named AISR and representing any EIN# outside of Brown U’s main #). Will show it below. This all will make more sense if you read the annotated images, not just the narratives around them.

What’s more, when a major foundation IS claiming to donate money which cannot be readily found on a financial report to an institute within a private university not subject to (or complying with requirements to) file — I figured perhaps it might be good to identify, in this situation, the OTHER “Challenge Grantees” specifically and see if, as a group, they are doing any better.  Perhaps also it is a symptom that something might be radically wrong with the entire picture; whether or not should be identified and whatever is wrong should be corrected. Where, for example, are the checks and balances?

CYC (found at AISR Brown University) Notice “Cradle to Career” is the goal.

At all points, when public schools major institutions are targeted for systemic change as sponsored by untrackable, or hard to follow private money, (projects of school districts across the country, who as specialized, special-purpose government entities, must maintain their pension funds, facilities management, maintenance, construction and acquisition at times (i.e. real estate), staff, administrative overhead, support staff, school security, books, computers and consumable classroom supplies, not to mention supply of properly qualified teachers, and security-screened for criminal backgrounds at all levels too — should we not already have familiarized ourselves with at least our own school districts’ financial statements too, how they are put together, and be able to tell when any unethical, immoral, or potential racketeering influence (RICO) might be operational?    And be talking about those financial statements with each other, as opposed to devouring the press and funded public relations material (only) about them?

If the school districts — and their projects, the schools —  are collectively a major “distressed asset” in which foundations wish to personally invest (or, have the public “divest” more and more) — shouldn’t we be able to see where they are dealing with the private contractors seeking to reform them in coordinated fashion based on theories from, for example, specific Harvard, Yale, Brown, Columbia University, Princeton or Ivy League models?  [This maroon font marks three paragraphs not on original post, in the “overlap” section].

From ANNENBERG FNDTN WEBSITE About Page 1989 – 1993 (School Reform) + 1958 School for Communciation at U of P (Screen Shot 2017-04-14 at 1.32PM (Goes with next image):

The School Reform challenge is featured on Annenberg Fndtn’s own summary of itself, along with establishing schools of communication in 3 institutions, and substantial contributions to art museums and endowed chairs at universities. It also gives a size reference for the initial funding of the foundation — sale of a media empire (Triangle) for, judging by this, $3.6 billion, presenting another major problem to be solved — federal taxes on capital gains! And, public image vis a vis the less well-endowed (i.e., the working poor and middle class).

The foundation still has a Pennsylvania Address, although its surviving Annenberg family members and some of the staff/contractors seem to be more in Southern California (Los Angeles, Beverly Hills, etc.).

Timeline FAQs from its “Who We Are” (after identifying as a family foundation).  Notice the years, please.

  • 1989 The Annenberg Foundation begins operations on July 1 with $1.2 billion in assets. [see also annotated image to left]
  • 1990 To focus attention on the needs of historically black colleges, the Annenberg Foundation makes a $50 million challenge gift in what becomes, at the time, the most successful fundraising drive ever by the United Negro College Fund.
  • 1993 The Annenberg Foundation makes a $25 million grant to Harvard University. The grant will be used for scholarships, seminar programs and renovations to historic Memorial Hall, including the creation of a freshman dining facility named for the Ambassador’s son, Roger Annenberg.
  • 1993 The Annenberg Foundation makes a historic commitment to public education with the $500 million Annenberg Challenge. The Annenberg Challenge is one of the largest gifts in philanthropic history and works to revive and inspire school reform efforts across the nation. Eighteen locally designed Challenge projects operated in 35 states,** funding 2,400 public schools that served more than 1.5 million students and 80,000 teachers. [[More on how it identifies (or doesn’t) these projects, below, look for the “**”]]
  • 1993 The Annenberg Foundation grants $120 million to the University of Pennsylvania.## The grant endows the Annenberg School for Communication and creates the Annenberg Public Policy Center, which conducts research and convenes discussions on the critical intersection of media, communication and public policy.

“**” and “##” mark two footnotes I’m making to the organization’s summary page.  “##” is addressed first, and several paragraphs below that, and likely next to an image, **.” Look for both the symbols and titles in those two colors to tell one from the other.


## Annenberg School of Communication Financial Relations with the University of Pennsylvania and the Annenbergs:  

This 1993 $120M endowment for the (pre-existing since 1958, per description above) Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania (“ASC at UofP” for convenience here) becomes interesting when eight years later, the UofP endows a trust whose income goes to the school, but is still controlled by Annenberg and their historic financial and legal managers from other foundations or trusts.

I found a 2002-funded Trust which was initially funded with $100M (even) FROM the University of Pennsylvania [currently held in the UofP’s “AIF” and possibly from it in the first place] which was from the start under the control of (a) a Dean or Director from the ASC at UofP, Annenberg Family Members (originally Leonore + Wallis; Leonore the mother died in 2009, her famous spouse Walter H. in 2002), some lawyers from (as the Form 990PFs show) from a Philadelphia Law firm Dilworth Paxson also known for handling other Annenberg financial and estate matters.  One of these men (Wm. J. Henrich) was previously successor to Triangle Publications when its owner (Ambassador Annenberg) stepped down in, I believe the NYT article showed, 1984.

Closer looks at some of the respective tax return details reveals operation practices and the larger strategy.

(Shown again below:   tinyurl.com/1984Nov16NYTHenrichSuccdsAnnbg.  Not too long after, Triangle Publications was sold?)

“AIF” is a term I found on the tax return, and as seen on a financial statement (at university site) must stand for Affiliated Investment Funds” managed by a third party, it says:

AIF is Associated Investments Fund third-parties-managed, then 2’8B (excerpt from FY2001 UofP Financial Statemt)” (<==click for full-sized).

I will post more on this below; I’m still trying to understand it and wrap my head around how a university as large as the University of Pennsylvania, around since 1740 (!!), could be operating as a private nonprofit, and not as is seen in other states whose similarly-named universities ARE often state corporations or instrumentalities, or may have started as land-grants, but going by the name “University of Pennsylvania” similar to other states   Apparently.

This would mean that Annenberg has chosen two PRIVATE universities for Schools of Communications (here, and Univ. of Southern California) and private university Brown for its AISR.

The interesting feature to me here is that what I considered a state university, and would expect to be subject to “CAFR” filings, is apparently (judging by the size and description of “Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania) instead, just a humongous 501©3, that is, a private, nonprofit.  Each state may do its state-supported university systems in its own way, but that was a real surprise for me.  The ramifications?  It may not have to produce the type of detailed reports that other government entities have to.  For a contrast, I’m working on a separate post looking at the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s CAFRs, not that this topic hasn’t been covered on this blog (and a related one) in earlier years.

Take a look! You’ll have to ignore the wrong name supplied by the FoundationCenter, again; the EIN# represented belongs to the “Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania” which a small image from the IRS “Exempt Organization Select Check” search page also shows.  Or, just click on any oddly named organization in the table here to see the Form 990 attached to it.

Total results: 3Search Again.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Out-Of-School Time Resource Center PA 2015 990 142 $17,230,855,000.00 23-1352685
Morris Arboretum PA 2014 990 238 $16,398,248,000.00 23-1352685
Institute of Contemporary Art PA 2013 990 204 $14,905,771,000.00 23-1352685

The IRS “Exempt Organizations Select” check search site verifies that contributions here are tax-deductible and who actually owns that EIN#:  “Trustees of the University of Philadelphia.”

$17 BILLION dollars of assets of course includes buildings, and liabilities to go with them.  BUT, a closer look shows it includes substantial investments and related companies (foreign and domestic).

 

Click to read Annotations and view full-sized (Sched E self-identification by U of P on its tax return)

The Annenberg Foundation “About Us” summary fails to mention that after it gave UofP $120M to endow the school named after the family and setting up another “Center” with the family name, eight years later, in 2002, the UofP then set up a trust controlled by ASC leadership and Annenberg family leadership, starting with $100M — and not too many years later, doubling in size, which income was to go to back to the University of Pennsylvania (i.e., the terms of the trust strictly controlled where its revenues went).  However, someone had to administer this, and over time I saw that the, or an independent subcontractor investment management firm (Bessemer) also had funds titled after itself in which the assets were invested, as well as being paid (as a subcontractors, plus separately, there would be also more “investment management fees”).

About Bessemer — this firm began when Phipps, who helped found Carnegie Steel, sold his share and (obviously) than had some investments to manage.  The investment company (1907 started) continued privately controlled, but by the 1970s began inviting in some of their kind (wealthy families, foundations, or trusts) to work with them.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bessemer_Trust.  Still run by a Phipps descendant (as of this “Wiki”), it manages over $100 billion assets for its 2,300 clients, has offices all over the US in major cities, and the Cayman Islands, and London.  In 2001, this Bessemer Trust formed a partnership with someone from Morgan Stanley aimed at “middle market equity.” See next image:

Minimum investments to get involved in Bessemer Trust, if they want you, is $10M.

Guess what the 2001-formed partnership middle-market partnership specialized in?

“Lindsay Goldberg is an American private equity firm focused on leveraged buyout and growth capital investments in middle-market companies in such sectors as consumer products, commodity-based manufacturing, energy services, business services, financial services, energy transmission and waste disposal.[2]

The firm, which is based in New York City, was founded in 2001 by Alan Goldberg, who had previously served as chairman and CEO of Morgan Stanley Private Equity (later Metalmark Capital) and Robert Lindsay, who played a central role in the Bessemer Trust private equity business, serving most recently as Managing General Partner since 1991. Goldberg and Lindsay had worked together in the 1980s at Morgan Stanley and were founding members of the private equity business in 1984.

The firm has raised approximately $13 billion since inception, across four funds. The firm raised $2 billion for its first fund in 2002.[3] In 2006, the firm completed fundraising for its second fund with $3.1 billion of investor commitments.[4][5] In 2008, Lindsay Goldberg commenced raising its third fund with a target of $4.0 billion. As of November 2015, $3.4 billion had been raised toward its fourth fund.[6]

Leveraged buyouts and growth capital.  Per this (brief) Wiki, there was also some press over a controversy regarding one of the projects, Duff Capital Advisors, which lasted about one year, period, 2008-2009.

Investment in Duff Capital Advisors[edit]

In 2009, Lindsay Goldberg received media coverage for controversies related to its investment of $500 million in seed capital in Duff Capital Advisors.[8][9] Launched by former Morgan Stanley CFO Phil Duff, Duff Capital was led by financial services executive Eileen Murray, who served as its Co-Chief Executive Officer and President.[10] Duff Capital Advisors started in March 2008 and shut down in May 2009 prior to moving into the 43,400 square feet of office space, complete with food court, showers, and other amenities, which the company had leased in an office park in Greenwich, Connecticut.[11][12] Subsequent to the closure of Duff Capital Advisors, Phillip Duff formed Massif Partners, another hedge fund; however, Lindsay Goldberg declined to make an investment in this enterprise.[13] Massif Partners went on to encounter similar challenges to Duff Capital.[14]

(For timeline comparison, the alteration in the UofP / Annenberg School of Communications financial setup involved moving $100M into a trust “fbo” (for the benefit) of UofP in 2002 and another one “fbo” USC (University of Southern California), looks like the same amount or close to it, also about the same time.)  However, they weren’t involved with the partnership, just Bessemer Trusts.  BUT, later on, you can see the investments are in funds named “Bessemer” part of the time.  [I do not recall on which tax return, but remember seeing this.  Perhaps it was on the foundation proper and not one of the ASC Trusts…Anyone is free to review; I’ve provided the EIN#s…]


But here’s an image from a UoP tax return showing that EIN# as part of its overall “related entity” operations.  I’ll show the table for the same EIN# below.

Trustees of Univ of PN EIN# 231352685 FY2014 990 Excerpt showing ASC Trust as supporting entity.  Meanwhile, see also the corresponding entity’s filing (the ASC Trust at U of PENN) FY2014 Form 990 acknowledging the Univ of Pennsylvania as its own Schedule R Related Entity (and the only one, in fact):


** Annenberg Public Education Challenge (footnote to the Foundation’s summary page)

(**18 projects in 35 states by definition indicates crossing state jurisdiction lines, which helps break down accountability with the departments of education and school districts within each state involved.  But that’s nothing particularly new in the field of public/private partnerships…)


Question:  Where are the Foundation’s Forms and audited statements for year 2015? I can understand why 2016 may not be out yet — but why not 2015? (2015 return has not shown up yet on the FoundationCenter search, either) — this is the latest year showing as of now, April 2017.  They are two to three years behind in reporting to their own openly transparent website.

ORGANIZATION NAME ST YR FORM PP TOTAL ASSETS EIN
Annenberg Foundation PA 2014 990PF 101 $1,663,095,893.00 23-6257083

Above represents FY2014 because at this point their FYr.=Calendar Yr. That means FY2015 isn’t posted yet, at least here (also not on their website).

Just a word on the relationship with the University of Pennsylvania and Annenberg School for Communications (started in 1958) and its endowment (and new name, Center for Public Policy) — who funded whom, and who controls whom, gets a little complicated when I read an Annenberg Foundation 2002 return stating that the “[Ann’brg.] School for Communications” had converted into a private trust. I looked up the private trust and found its initial return (2002) which shows a $100M contribution TO this trust:

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

April 21, 2017 at 8:43 pm

(1) Fund for Educational Excellence. (2) Foundation for Excellence in Education (or ExcelEd). (3) Alliance for Excellent Education, and (4) ConnectEd (Note the backers) and I just showed (5) Communities in Schools (Remember the subcontractors). Also Consider (6) Brown University’s AISR ~Smart Education Systems~ based on Ted [Yale, Harvard]+Nancy Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools. [Publ. April 17, 2017]

with one comment

published April 17, 2017 (the day after Easter) at 19,000 words.

Tags (there would be many!) to be added later.

This post,

(1) Fund for Educational Excellence. (2) Foundation for Excellence in Education (or ExcelEd).  (3) Alliance for Excellent Education, and (4) ConnectEd (Note the backers) and I just showed (5) Communities in Schools (Remember the subcontractors). Also Consider (6) Brown University’s AISR ~Smart Education Systems~ based on Ted [Yale, Harvard]+Nancy Sizer’s Coalition of Essential Schools. (case-sensitive short-link ending in “-6pr”),

continues from the bottom of

Three (or Four) Famous, Privately Controlled Nonprofits Who Just Wanna Transform Public Education (and Urban Populations to Practice On (case-sensitive short-link ends “-6iI”) (just published, with a long introduction, April 3, 2017 mid-day),

and represents where the writing started after deciding on that title and subject matter.

Among other questions, I first remind us (and I have the standing as a parent, former teacher across a variety of systems, and more recently, investigative blogger of nonprofits and public/private partnerships and their self-reporting of programming while concealing, withholding, or delaying until forced to, their books — i.e., holdings (cashflow, etc.) to say this with confidence):

Controlling the education (esp. public school system) = controlling the next generation = controlling the nation, including the revenue-producing options of those same generations.

By “controlling” I mean “restricting” in order to keep most of the nation in its assigned places in society — NOT in the top echelon who control the investments, and steer the systems, and train their own offspring, marrying into each others’ family, to continue doing the same generation after generation.

Look for the matching questions I have about this agenda in similar-styled box quote below.  There is a discussion and several paragraphs inbetween.

Along these topical lines, you’ll hear a lot about “closing the achievement gap.” It may come from groups pushing charter schools and more choice,* or those opposed to the same.

From generic (Google) search results, 1st and 2nd page, you can easily see the variety of domain names discussing this, from NEA (National Education Association), to PBS to Www2.ed.gov (federal Dept. of Education), to what would seem to be product-specific domain names, and others, state-specific.  I looked at several of them, and no matter where I looked, I found those so enthusiastic about closing it were operating either as tax-exempts backed by other tax-exempts — or public/private partnerships, and when debating the issue of charter schools (as I just said, above), on closer look whether those for or those against, both are recommending more investments for systems change, and typically involving digital learning platforms.

Again, this conversation also tends to be partisan, with progressives complaining about conservatives and vice-versa.  Everyone seems eager to discuss the “big bucks foundations” backing the OTHER side, or blast for-profit schools — but neither side is discussing the tax-exempt sector AS a networked sector, drawing both finances, sponsored voices, and collections of assets available for investment (wherever the privately controlled group chooses) towards that sector and away from the low-income, poor people.   [Example in this 2013 document focused on Massachusetts, [“Threat from the Right focused on Massachusetts”] but see its pp.76ff discussion of “Foundation for Excellence in Education” w/ references to Betsy DeVos and the DeVos family, Bush, Broad, Gates, and others].  From reading it, one would think there was no substantial sponsorship of education reform from progressive foundations — but I’ve seen and posted on it at the highest levels (Open Society Foundations, Omidyar Fund Network, etc.).

It seems to be off the radar to discuss that the tax-exempt status itself might be a contributing factor — as opposed to a solution — to poverty in the USA, which has now passed its 100th anniversary in taxing all individuals except those able to drastically reduce, legally evade, or illegally, dodge accountability and paying it. IF that discussion were ever to be held fairly, as I through this blog consistently have intended for it to be, whether court-connected, or gender-war-connected (both sides), or as we have here, public-education-reform-connected, the fingerpointing would be equally at both political parties.

~ ~ ~ I’ll talk more about the Achievement Gap-Closing Group Debates, reviewing some of the top-level search results on the phrase, separately. Some fascinating data on the sponsors continues to surface (well, after I dug into the Form 990s) ~ ~ ~ (link active now, but accurate only when it’s published: “Tax-Exempts Against the Achievement Gap (Accounting Details ALWAYS provide a fascinating backdrop to the Cause-connected and Controlled-Debates SPONSORED Rhetoric) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-6zO” as in “October” not as in the symbol for “zero”)“) ~ ~ ~


This “closing the achievement gap” talk does NOT refer primarily to the significant gap between the schooling of those of inherited or significant (entrepreneurially-acquired) wealth, typically private schooling from grade or high school forward and the public schools, BUT INSTEAD basically achievement gaps within and across public school systems, according to defined demographic (racial, gender) or geographic (i.e., urban/inner-city or not) sectors and with a view to eventual utilization across country lines, too.

In this sphere of discussion, schooling in USA inner-city, impoverished, disadvantaged, low-income (etc) urban areas is compared for potential program application for schooling in conflict-ridden, violent zones in other countries. Programs have been and still are being developed with a view of working internationally, not just in the USA. There is a profit and self-propagation motive, which pushes back against the actual intention to solve poverty in the USA.

What we tend to forget: public schools as fantastic market testing place (just like the family courts also have been — so many people getting divorced, forced-consumption-of services on an unprecedented scale also, just like welfare reform — it’s a remarkable market niche for those with their eyes on it.

The USA just happens to provide (to people of this mindset) an irresistably wonderful, and wonderfully large testing ground in its massive school system, and (unlike some other countries) significant public education funding too. Our compulsory education laws K-12 and our Department of Education (Federal and state levels) with corresponding budgets, and supportive, supplemental “education foundations” are already and for decades (over a century) established;  common practice.  And, we are a large country.

Having filled themselves up well here as corporate entities with wealth poured into tax-exempt foundations (family, private operating, or public charity) and through social and class connections, able to fly around for conferences and networking to (spawn) more nonprofits, many nonprofits and their backers (working closely with for-profits providing the digital or other platformed, often proprietary) are eager to spread the good news in countries where there’s less competition with educational choice [private incl. some legal forms of homeschooling; public, parochial or other religious] or savvy middle and professional classes who might over here see the profit motive involved in school-reform entities operating primarily tax-exempt.

FOR AN EXAMPLE (of US Schools being used as educational laboratories): I have recently been hunting for WestEd‘s comprehensive, annual financial reports (audited) covering ALL its activities and stating ALL is assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses to date, for a specific year as, being a Joint Powers Agency, it has to produceAnyone who can locate such a report more current than, let’s say 2010 (WestEd was formed in 1996), please submit a link in a comment!

WestEd (a JPA formed from two previously-existing JPAs under California’s Joint Powers Authority Act; roughly translated, it’s a government entity under which citizens have no direct rights, although it is public-funded, probably mostly public-funded). runs an REL (Research) Regional Education Laboratories).  (The image this time = the link, also).

WestEd has been subjected to at least two negative audits I found while looking for their CAFR.  One, from 1998 (USDOE OIG) I already posted.  Here’s another one from the NSF: Audit Report OI8-08-1-011:

Attached is the final audit report, prepared by Mayer Hoffman McCann P.C., an independent public accounting firm, on the audit of NSF award number ESI-0119790 awarded to WestEd. The audit covers NSF-funded costs claimed from September 1, 2001 to June 30, 2007, aggregating to approximately $11.05 million of NSF direct funded costs and $1.25 million of claimed cost sharing. NSF requested and OIG agreed to conduct an audit at WestEd because of findings in prior A-133 and other NSF audits that identified that the policies and procedures WestEd used were inadequate to monitor and track award activity for subawards, cost sharing, and participant support.

The auditors identified four significant compliance and internal control deficiencies in WestEd’s financial management practice that contributed to the questioned costs, of which we consider the first to be a material weakness. Additionally, the first three of these control weaknesses were previously identified and reported in NSF OIG and A-133 single audit reports. Given the systemic and continuing nature of these compliance and internal control deficiencies it is likely that NSF’s eleven other current awards amounting to $13.6 million, as well as future awards are impacted by the same weaknesses.

…In case there was any question whether the US public school system, at public cost, is being subjected to “R&D” monitored by government agencies who have questionable internal control (reporting weaknesses).  SO DO MANY OF THE NONPROFIT NETWORKS WISHING TO FIX THE SCHOOLS, but the only real auditor of this sector as a sector seems to be the IRS, and public who get around to figuring out it might be a good idea to research.

This all seems obvious to me, but readers who question this are welcome to submit comments.

For more indicators of school-reform as “development” in conflict-ridden places (USA, Mexico, or on other continents) — also resembling the Boston Consulting Group, as I call it, “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan” philosophy (see recent post with that phrase in it) of being the first or among the first in some new field and so able to define the terms and dominate it, as well as employ the “LBO” (Leveraged Buy-Out) practice on public institutions (by getting on the decision-making groups — for a private corporation it’d be board of directors; but for public institutions, it would require having councils to steer those “public/private collaborations” (or if more official, “partnerships”)  —  please review some of my earlier posts (2016) on the International Institute for Peace at Rutgers (http://iip.rutgers.edu), which lists the Whitaker Peace & Development Initiative (or similar title) in Southern California associated with it.  Notice the language.
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

April 17, 2017 at 11:45 am

martinplaut

Journalist specialising in the Horn of Africa and Southern Africa

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.

Red Herring Alert

There's something fishy going on!

The American Spring Network

News. by the people, for the people. The #1 source for independent investigative journalism in the Show-Me State, serving Missouri since 2011.

Family Court Injustice

It Takes "Just Us" to Fight Family Court Injustice

The Espresso Stalinist

Wake Up to the Smell of Class Struggle ☭

Spiritual Side of Domestic Violence

Finally! The Truth About Domestic Violence and The Church

%d bloggers like this: