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

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

Archive for the ‘1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)’ Category

Replicable Models like ~Purpose Built Communities~ Already Have Their (public/private-sponsored) positive PR, but what are the Aftershocks of “Shaking Up Your City” and What, Really, is OUR Bedrock Bottom Line? (started March 14, 2018, edited for about a month, published Sept. 8, 2018)

leave a comment »

You are now reading Replicable Models like ~Purpose Built Communities~ Already Have Their (public/private-sponsored) positive PR, but what are the Aftershocks of “Shaking Up Your City” and What, Really, is OUR Bedrock Bottom Line? (started March 14, 2018, edited for about a month; published Sept. 8, 2018) (shortlink ends “-8OV” and the middle digit is a capital “o”, not the symbol for “zero”) About 7,200 words, some of which are in the impromptu “EndNotes” added because of the long delay in publishing.  

I am coming back in April later to add a fifth (this) and possibly sixth “sticky” post alerting the public again to Place-Based Philanthropy (so-called), and the concentration of multiple federal funding streams onto projects which, ultimately, will be owned by private parties, and profit the private parties, while such parties typically have less need for acquiring more and more real estate (and profits to go with it) than for finding more tax-exempt ways to keep up appearances, retain control of projects and keep down corporate taxes.

Previously, this information was mostly introductory to several posts supplementing my original table of contents, which should be reviewed for the “Purpose-Built Communities” information and related-entity drill-downs already done.


Among the various problems of projects which blend…

  • housing
  • education PreK-12: charter schools, pre-schools, after-school care
  • violence prevention programming (i.e., more nonprofits)
  • etc.

…under common, or collectively coordinated ownership and control is that this ALSO institutes yet another means (infrastructure, technology) to control (subjugate) not just the projects, but also the people who live in them and whose children must still attend school in commonly-controlled settings.

Some of my readers may be old enough to remember the term “projects” as a (properly) disparaging term for housing projects (high-rises, apartment complexes) were those who couldn’t afford to live anywhere more safely, lived there, and were exposed to (and/or their young people pulled into) gangs, drugs, and non-white-collar criminal activity for which the young men of color, particularly, would end up in jail or dead, whether or not this situation connected at higher levels with so-called ‘white-collar’ financial or other crimes higher up.

The “Purpose-Built Community” model hails from Atlanta, Georgia area, sprang from, a certain “East Lake” housing project colloquially called “little Viet Nam.”

Probably every major urban city in the US could name its own infamous projects that people had to continue living in and dealing with. In Chicago, on the “Near North” side not far from affluent “the Gold Coast” there was an infamous “Cabrini Green” (“the End of Cabrini-Green” photo essay in TIME).See also “Cabrini-Green” entry in Enclyclopedia of Chicago page with one photo (and some links) whose copyrights and qualifiers are almost longer than the article, or I’d show it here. Its concise history relevant to the context; I hope viewers will take a few minutes to read it. I can safely quote just a bit, however (any emphases added, but not the links):

…Formerly “Swede Town” and then “Little Hell,” the site of the Cabrini-Green public housing complex was notorious in the early twentieth century for its inhabitants’ poverty and dilapidated building…The original population of Cabrini-Green reflected the area’s prior ethnic mix; poor ItaliansIrishPuerto Ricans, and African Americans lived among the war workers and veterans. Racial segregation overtook Cabrini-Green by the early 1960s.

The large new apartments and large swaths of recreation space failed to mend the area’s poverty. The difficulty blacks had finding better, affordable housing gave Cabrini-Green a permanent population. CHA failed to budget money to repair buildings and maintain landscaping as they deteriorated. Cabrini-Green’s reputation for crime and gangs rivaled Little Hell’s. …

Increasing real-estate values in the late twentieth century led housing officials to propose replacement of the complex with mixed-income housing. Residents argued however that such a move would displace them permanently, completing the slum removal effort begun with the building of Cabrini Homes half a century earlier.

And from the Time photo-essay link above:

Bid for Rebirth (next-to-last photo caption from the “End of Cabrini Green” photo-essay in “Time”, above).
Despite the trouble, many residents fought the Chicago Housing Authority‘s push to demolish thousands of units. The city agreed that some buildings would remain, while new units were built. A tenant group sued to prevent themselves from becoming homeless. The CHA enacted a Plan for Transformation in 2000, which included demolishing all of its public housing and replacing it with mixed income units and relocating tenants.

Read the rest of this entry »

Incredible how Gullible We’ve Been. For Example: Where is ANY USDOJ Grants Awarded Database? Why won’t the USDOJ Even Divulge Actual Grant Numbers on its token LISTS (not Database) of Grantees? [Started mid-Aug. 2016<~~ Published Aug. 31, 2018!<~~]

leave a comment »

Incredible how Gullible We’ve Been.  For Example: Where is ANY USDOJ Grants Awarded Database? Why won’t the USDOJ Even Divulge Actual Grant Numbers on its token LISTS (not Database) of Grantees? [Started mid-Aug. 2016<~~ Published Aug. 31, 2018!<~~] [<== case-sensitive shortlink to this post ends “-4cx”; can click and copy the url (web address)]  Currently this post is about 10,300 words (that is, when I’m “about” done with it).

Someone has to point this out sooner or later… Regarding the USDOJ lack of a database, it was fast and short post. I’m just pointing it out, raising the topic with an example or two, not fully expounding it. (written Aug. 2016)

Quick intro (written Aug. 2018):  Yes, this post was in draft for just over two years., Aug. 2016-Aug. 2018!  I’m not quite sure why (I do remember writing it); possibly other things on the mind, or I thought I’d already published it.. Between then and now, we had, obviously (to all, especially in the USA) another Presidential election and for sure, another President.. Some of this post may read differently from the perspective of the Trump Administration and mainstream media’s portrayal of the same.  (See the post I just published, however)….

You are viewing an image of a section of this 8/31/2018-published post below. For the active links, go to actual section. Images (screen shots like this) do not contain active links. For more on this topic, read similar-themed posts from Summer 2016 or (use Search function) search “David Mitrany” or “Bypassing sovereignty” “functionalism” “RIIA” (or any other distinctive term in the above image).  I quoted this article in several posts.  Family Law is another category in which targeted “functionalism” attempts to bypass both state (USA) and national (USA/Canada/Australia/UK (i.e. Commonwealth in particular) borders.  For example, look at the board of directors countries + positions, (judge, magistrate), affiliations (i.e., especially within the USA, in what major cities, at centers within which universities, courts or law schools) degrees (J.D., Psy.D., Ed.D, PhD (often in psychiatry, psychology, or social work, i.e., “M.S.W.”) of “AFCC“, and of their Editors of the FamilyCourtReview (at AFCC website/their link to FCR broken; it’s a bit hard to locate at Hofstra U. as the page has moved, but~~>)(at Hofstra University School of Law website) over the years for an indicator of which countries are supposed to internationally align standards (including preserving, in general, patriarchy, privatizing operations (also a religious theme), and keeping targeted population (not necessarily the involved professionals — judges, psychologists, family lawyers, etc. — women / mothers in their key roles (as breeders, not leaders..) throughout society, basing this, however, upon claims from the (gov’t and private-supported) “Social Science R&D” sectors.  

The next three images show, not necessarily displayed in this order: (1) a part of my Admin dashboard (as blog administrator) confirming that the post hadn’t been touched again recently until, well, today (8-31-2018);  (2) post labels, “tags” (this time, that I’d already added previously); and (3) a short excerpt from the text below (written 2016)..

FYI, the part which pertains most to the title as above (about the DOJ database) is actually closer towards the bottom of this post.  What’s between is certainly still relevant, and I think written well enough to just publish it primarily “as-is.”  Please do remember, however, it was written under a different President and Administration; no question things have changed rapidly since then. Also, FYI, I still am not particularly “enamored” of either political party; mostly because of what I know about Welfare Reform and what feminist (so-called) leadership has failed to report about it, and what that ignorance has cost my children (now in their twenties), myself, and our relationship with each other (and as it turned out, with their father also in our situation)…. Just about everything but my physical life..

Below this line is “2016” text and workmanship, unedited before publishing the last day of August. I admit part of the motivation being, as I’ve not been as productive posting this month, to get one more entry on that calendar. The other is, I think it’s worth reading….//LGH.. Comments remain open…


The situation exemplifies how the public continues to be lulled to sleep, most likely by mainstream media, especially in Presidential election years or surrounding the War on Terrorism in which U.S. Citizens who don’t “straighten up and fly right” enough, or, case in point the CCHS.GWU.eduProgram on Extremism“** U.S. citizens who perhaps are flying too far “right-wing,” the policy seems to be up and running that we are potential terrorists in our on “homeland.”  This cannot be just about “violence” — look at the first sentence which references issues related to violent AND non-violent extremism:

The Program on Extremism at George Washington University’s Center for Cyber & Homeland Security provides analysis on issues related to violent and non-violent extremism. The Program spearheads innovative and thoughtful academic inquiry, producing empirical work that strengthens extremism research as a distinct field of study. The Program aims to develop pragmatic policy solutions that resonate with policymakers, civic leaders, and the general public.

[all emphases mine//LGH]

In that second sentence, I think they are trying a little too hard on the self-characterizations.  In this post I looked at and (on reading it) decided to  take on one of the “occasional papers” as to how empiric, innovative, or thoughtful this sample at least, actually is.

But you can also see the clear statement that the Program’s goal is stated as “supporting extremism research as a distinct field of study.”

Here’s a similar but not identical statement at a “Network” supported by a US university on expanding a previously set up “field of study” — different subject matter, process still similar.   CCHS.GWU.edu it says was started up in 2015 (if I recall it right), and the following university-based (but involving personnel and professionals off-site and out-of-state, collaboratively) started it seems in 2014.  Both centers are working on previously established fields and seeking to further expand and solidify the research — including on evaluation of practices -of the created fields.  Look at the language:

We seek to:

  • Promote the evaluation of ______  programs.
  • Expand the number of researchers and practitioners collaborating to evaluate these programs.
  • Disseminate information that leads to effective _____  practice and evaluation research.

Click here to see what word fills in the blanks and here to see the recipients of the first round of $350,000 of grants to just four organizations in pursuit of this goal. These grants will flow through a university, probably from HHS, and probably hard to track from grantee to sub-grantee, all within the USA.   Click here to see Round Two recipients (five projects).  I recognize several of the names and have already posted on at least three of them.

Notice: no description lists where to follow-up, individual grant amounts, or (it would have to be from the university most likely) grant numbers.   The money, however, on the overall website is acknowledged to be supported by specific federal agency grant (USA). And they have an RFP for more grant applications, plus webinars on how to get them:

Eligible applicants include:
  • Researchers, _______ practitioners or researcher-practitioner teams.
  • Researchers and practitioners from underrepresented racial, ethnic and cultural groups are encouraged to apply.
  • Early career investigators with requisite evaluation skills are also welcome to apply.

I have some recent, relevant, and disturbing (but not really out of character already demonstrated so far) finds on that network, ready on a different post.  From my familiarity with how professionals talk in that field (and tactics) I recognized similar talk on the “Program on Extremism” one. This talk, and the rapid proliferation and dissemination of it electronically, from respected (several university-based) sources plus a well-developed, restricted (financially)-access database, is occurring right now, while “most Americans” (as it says) are not really aware of the center, the research, or the databases helping rapidly proliferate and disseminate it. “Most Americans,” in fact, are the targets to be screened.   That’s why I’m blogging it.

Both fields are extremely broad-based and deal potentially with life-and death matters (one, on a more massive scale, but the other, overall, on an ongoing though usually individual, or small-group fatalities when the occur) scale.  Both fields seem to set up their networks in similar fashion, and BOTH deal significantly with the justice system, that is, courts, prisons, law enforcement, and when to arrest or when to release.

Both also deal with privatization of government functions and a focus on consulting experts in the, as I say, created fields, “Extremism — violent and nonviolent” — and (again, click here to identify what field) under “Technical Assistance and Training,” this is the process:

The _____ seeks to improve the capacity of researchers and practitioners to conduct rigorous evaluation of _____ programs. To build research capacity, we will provide a variety of technical assistance including one-on-one consulting services, mentoring and peer support as well as web-based communication platforms and resources

There are so many similarities to what I’m showing below including the trademarked (or below, subscription-basis) web-based platforms.
Read the rest of this entry »

LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO! AND IF A NONPROFIT IS NAMED in the NEWS, OR EVEN HINTED AT IN THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP!

leave a comment »

Post Title:  LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO! AND IF A NONPROFIT IS NAMED in the NEWS, OR EVEN HINTED AT IN THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP! (Short-link ends “-99m.”)  Post started July 16, 2018… July 31, 2018, I was on-line and on-blog again for the first time in a week, picking up three posts in the pipeline (in draft status). Further work on this draft Aug. 21… published August 29, 2018, updated post-publication* same-day and Aug. 30.

  • *(Added a short section on Weithorn & Ehrmann Family Foundation + charitable tax specialist lawyer Stanley S. Weithorn (1924-2015) to complete brief drill-downs on Tides.org supporting foundations as recorded on Tides Organizations’ consolidated annual financial statements YE2014-2015)
  • The post is now about 8,300 words including all image captions and (as I recall) just one table. It has plenty of pictures, but if you know the routine, typically those are screen shots of tax returns or other fine print from quotations of websites or new articles, sometimes annotated.

Before getting into it, know that this post was last edited, as of Aug. 21, three weeks ago (Aug. 1) including some additions.   Since Aug. 21, I was (besides being busy) deciding whether to split it in half, leaving just one substantial “drill-down” in each half. It’s one post which may feel like it has two or three distinct sections.

Some of my additions take time to clarify differences between my geological point of reference for “Drill-Down” versus a related but different point of reference (usage), computers: websites designed to lead readers into pre-fabricated drill-downs for the purpose of, generally, sales, or selling a concept for which public funds may be required.

Geological drillings are often but not exclusively for the ultimate purpose of profit (whether for mineral, oil, gas, or water). I use the phrase #DotheDrillDown often on Twitter thinking of the material , geological term, and want to clarify that when I say “DoTheDrillDown” it’s not for people to “click and read what I’ve prepared for you to read so you won’t have to work for the information” but for people to develop the habit of exploring themselves – personally engage with –  certain untapped reservoirs of valuable information from disparate (seemingly unrelated) sources — and let what’s found there speak to them about the surrounding contexts and connections.

And to become more aware of when they are being coached what not to think about by people and groups whose purposes, “brands” (public image) and agenda depend heavily on most of the masses  never having a cognitive curiosity about the importance of accounting: following the money, and where the dots ought to connect from one entity’s balance sheet to another, but the path to follow that connection is littered with broken and missing links.

Know also that this post has substantial but not only overlapping material from a post published August 4, Budgets Aren’t Balance Sheets! and other Basic (USA)Facts about Billionaires’ Philanthropic Behaviors, Such as of 2014-retired Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer + His Wife Connie [July, 2018] (short-link ends “-982”).  Started mid-July, published Aug. 4, 2018, at about 9,000 words (tags added later).  

“Substantial overlapping material” means mostly about the Silicon Valley Community Fund, its organizers and just some of their related organizations and organizations’ grantees, or as I call it on Twitter, “#FamousFaceBookFounders and their LLCs.” A more complete report would mean drill-down on 16 or 17 “related organizations,” more of the subcontractors besides ICONIQ Capital, and so forth.  I’ve done far more than is posted here.

Vocabulary “Drill” – same words, different applications.

In saying “drill-down,” I’m using a geological idea, but as in geology, things are also moving sideways.. there’s a flow; no single core sample tells the whole story.  Descriptions from the field of geology, including Indiana Geological & Water Survey (“IGS”), show basic concepts I’ve borrowed.

When it comes to data far below the surface,  first there’s the digging it out, then there’s the recording, if that information is to be at all useful. This differs from (I just saw) another common usage, meaning “pre-pared” for public consumption computer viewing, i.e., Business-Intelligence (“BI”) usage.

Geological and water surveys of course (say some of the excerpts below, on the IGS images) now use computers and electronics to record the measurements after physically drilling.  Unfortunately, for the types of things I record and (as possible) measure on this blog, I know of no software program or automated process of taking readings.

However, I have made it, through habit, and almost “automatic” routine check as a human being, remembering which items to look for, and keeping my eyes out for any “anomalies” (using correlation) and other peripheral information on an entity or on its leadership (board, or executive officers’) which might help increase a historical perception of its change, and the field’s changes, over time.

Google search results, “Drill-Down, geology” were far fewer than those referring to computers, without the word “geology.” Here’s one from AustralianMinesAtlas.gov.au…

I believe this was from the Cambridge Dictionary… “many websites have some form of hyperlink navigation as you drill down…”

Both involve getting to more in-depth information than the surface, but a key difference is one is not a guided tour.

I’m saying, we have to break new ground, it seems, in connecting disparate sources of information to obtain, mentally and at least SOME of it retained in our memory, a landscape involving financial concepts as tied to the public use (and accountability for) our tax receipts, and translate the PR, the degree of spin (whether from public or private, or both together entities) into a vocabulary which cuts across the divide enough to compare — similar, different.  Big, or small.  Characteristics of the corporations and (by association) those running them, etc.

https://igws.indiana.edu/OilGas/drilling.cfm

Vocab Drill Down (Geo) from IndianaU (Bloomington) IGS (two images only) ~~~ SShots 2018Aug22 Wed @2.07.19 PM

References: All illustrations except those of the old drilling rig, the cross section, and the road cut are from:Baker, Ron; 1979; A Primer of Oilwell Drilling; The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

Vocab Drill Down (Geo, see LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO post) from IndianaU (Bloomington) IGS (two images only) 2018Aug22 Wed @2.09.03 PM


This “drill-down” process (speaking of applying the geological concepts to searching for information in key places, taking core samples and then recording the measurements somehow) differs from the “BI” (Business Intelligence) concept of “Drill-Down and Drill Through(<==please read the short description; a link at bottom of the page also leads to a clickable, alpha, vocabulary list; it’s a “BI Encyclopedia”) which refers to preparing the data & (I guess) “html” to direct the reader to such information at the easy click of a mouse — as a well-designed website might.

When I say “Drill Down,” I am talking about, as a consumer / outsider of information, takes more effort — it is locating and looking down, in more details, the relevant information that the websites often do NOT provide in drill-down or drill-through format either. I’m saying, learn to see what’s NOT been offered at the surface level, and take notes if/why it might not have been.  See what’s not there but likely to exist and can be tracked elsewhere.  Observe misdirection and distraction from the bedrock reality, for historic folds and fault lines (changes over time), for characteristics of that rock (bottom-line best description of the entity or entities operating in synche), and correct course in a search for understanding WHO IS IT?  as — trust me — often will be necessary!  

The BI web design Drill Down/Drill-Through purpose is driving revenues, or selling a cause.

Mine is, public-interest awareness of (across-the-board) both government and tax-exempt entities (so often working hand in hand with governments) frame their respective causes. The backdrop of audited financial statements + 990s (if found) + legal domicile registrations AND the organization’s various websites helps translate the truer activities.  The more personal effort into at least looking! the more patterns of a gap between presentation and reality surfaces.

[End of Vocabulary “Drill” section.  Next:]


From my handwritten notes last week, “Tides Orgs” list several supporting organizations.

“Supporting” vs. “Related” organizations. How it seems to work… who they are.

For example, not identical, but after looking closer, I noticed some similarities in between the Tides Organizations’ “supporting”  and SVCF’s “Related” organizations.  The “Tides Organizations” are also [mostly*] from Northern California (San Francisco Bay Area, not Silicon Valley — although these are less than a half day’s drive from each other).  [*One in NY.]

“Tides.org” represents several different organizations laterally (find and view their comprehensive audited financial statements (they are on the website), or for a taste of how presented, follow me on recent Twitter threads on #R4G (RightsForGirls.org, which is a fiscally sponsored project).

  • Beauchamp Charities
  • Rouhana Family Foundation
  • Harding Rock Fund
  • One Pacific Coast Foundation
  • The Underdog Fund
  • Weithorn & Ehrmann Families Fund.

Here’s where in the (Years ending Dec. 2014 & 2015) Tides Consolidated Financial Statements I found that.

Note: In reading any Financial Statements, always look at both the financial statements themselves (the pages mostly tables (columns + labeled rows) of numbers with totals of each column & section) see Table of Contents for specific name each statement is to take and what it shows) and for more insight on WHO is the organization and what those numbers represent, “Notes to The Financial Statements.”  The notes often explain things less than clear on the organization’s website and sometimes not even on their tax returns. This is even more important for government Comprehensive Audited Financial Reports or “CAFRs”…read the accompanying Notes too! (Look under Comptroller’s Offices for government entities, or just search for them on the website, or in general, naming the entity)…

This image is from Note 1 to Tides Organizations Consolidated Statements YE 2014 and 2015...

What “Tides Organizations” means for purposes of these financial statements is also shown on Note 1 (but not on this post).  Note, the statements are of consolidated operations, which would of course differ from what’s seen on individual Tides entity (I think there are about five of them) Forms 990.

“Tides Consolidated Statemts YsE Dec 2014, 2015 (shows supporting orgs + its Entities + some financials)|SHOW THIS!~~ SShots 2018Aug22 Wed..”

 

I had no idea (Before any drill-downs, that is) who the above organizations are, or what are their assets, but am looking now, repeating the list, but adding EIN#s if found, website if found, and whether or not the website connects people to that info and for some of them, a few images or other “specs” giving the general flavor of each.


Correction or Clarification (8/30): What the Financial Statements called “Supporting” organization, a tax return identifies under “Related”. There are many Tides Organizations, but I chose to look at “Tides Foundation” Form 990 because the supporting ones I’d already viewed cited that as the one they were “supporting.”  Notice the increasing total balances for Tides Foundation over just three years.  Most of that is simply increased donations.

Below that, see its Schedule D (FY 2014 chosen) showing how many Donor-Advised and (second column) “Other” Funds, and how much is held in or distributed from each type.

Form 990s results for Tides Foundation, EIN# 51-0198509, Total Assets shown FYs 2014-2015 showing major increase. (No column headers shown only because I used a name-search not EIN# search to locate it; other results inbetween these and the top of the table//LGH)

(174pp shown above for FY 2014 includes page after page of fine-print, basically illegible “grantees” which is unnecessary and is a statement of intent NOT to encourage closer scrutiny.  “Who gives a damn?” is the mentality…  The grants, over $100M worth, are also arranged in descending order by amount (not alpha) and probably have repetitions, i.e., if two grants of different amounts to the same organization, the entries would not be near each other.  ….
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 29, 2018 at 1:35 pm

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

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

Budgets Aren’t Balance Sheets! and other Basic (USA)Facts about Billionaires’ Philanthropic Behaviors, Such as of 2014-retired Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer + His Wife Connie [Aug. 4, 2018]

leave a comment »

I started to weave some of this information into a different post, anticipating writing further on it.

However, after about a days’ hunt for two (STILL not found yet) EIN#s connected with the famous philanthropists mentioned in the title, and after reading the tax returns / shabby filing habits of one of the no doubt much smaller ones also associated (referring to the Los Angeles Clippers Foundation — Steven Ballmer also owns the Los Angeles Clippers), I felt it better to sequester this topic onto its own post.

Too bad, because, understood better, it adds weight to the original argument — most headlines involved nonprofits at SOME level, and we’d be better off as a whole, when they come up, to look them up!

Anyhow:  My post title:

Budgets Aren’t Balance Sheets! and other Basic (USA)Facts about Billionaires’ Philanthropic Behaviors, Such as of 2014-retired Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer + His Wife Connie [July, 2018] (short-link ends “-982”).  Started mid-July, published Aug. 4, 2018, at about 9,000 words (tags added later).  It comes from the middle of Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nonprofits for Class Action Lawsuit (℅ Center for Investigative Reporting article) (Short-link ends “-95X,” published 7/31/2018).

CLICK IMAGE TO READ!  Good Ventures (Public, ℅ SVCF) Form 990, FY2016 Sched L acknowledging ICONIQ Capital’s “Interested Person” status through 35% owner, Divesh Makan (viewed 8/4/2018)

The post title could also reference, and I do include for comparison, two other philanthropic couples, both with close ties to Facebook and a multi-billion-dollar Silicon Valley Community Foundation (“SVCF”) formed by merger to reach $1 billion assets only in 2006.

Besides Zuckerberg’s apparent direct involvement in (funding) SVCF and with Iconiq Capital’s Divesh Makan (discussed below) from before Facebook went public, these two couples also headed two of SVCF’s many “related tax-exempt organizations” formed since 2006 (samples below).  However, the Chan-Zuckerberg related organization dissolved itself in 2016 into multiple other “CZI” branded LLCs (Delaware entities) while more “CZI” branded nonprofits were then started up (again, shown below).

CLICK IMAGE TO READ! Good Ventures (Public, ℅ SVCF) Form 990, FY2016 Sched O showing entwined relationships (viewed 8/4/2018)

So husband-and wife couples Priscilla Chan & Mark Zuckerberg (Startup: Education + the more recent Chan Zuckerberg Initiative) and Dustin Moskovitz & Cari Tuna, have overlapping mutual foundation interests. Zuckerberg and Moskovitz were Facebook co-founders, and one major mutual foundation in common is the Silicon Valley Community Foundation in Santa Clara County, (SF Bay Area) California.

Moskovitz & Tuna’s variety of “Good Ventures” entities (one public (<==EIN#452757586, 2016 tax return), one private (<==EIN#461008520, 2015 tax return) foundation and an LLC) collectively report (2016) over $1B Assets (the LLC’s assets are unknown; LLCs don’t have to reveal their financials to the public). (Next 3-image gallery shows: 1) Total combined gross Assets from these two “Good Ventures” foundations (along with some others) in table form, and 2), 3) self-disclosure on multiple entities from the organization’s website.

GoodVentures.com the website was (still is, generally) initially confusing until I looked up the referenced organizations financials. That website doesn’t overtly feature “SVCF” but instead “GiveWell” and “Open Philanthropy Project,” which (like Startup: Education — and Good Ventures) seems to keep changing its format and, correspondingly, its reporting requirements, using one sound-byte (or trademark) for multiple organizations.  GiveWell it also turns out is a trade name (‘dba’) not an entity name.

The public “Good Ventures” foundation (℅ SVCF) has only 3 officers:  Cari Tuna, Dustin Moskovitz, and Divesh Makan, and the (highly paid) board / officers of related SVCF (as of tax return 2016).

There are investment managers in common among these various foundations and LLCs (ICONIQ Capital, Apercen Partners, Square Seven Management**) showing up: as “℅” on the addresses; as well-paid independent subcontractors (Form 990 Pt. VIIB); and/or as “(Form 990 Sched L) Interested-Person Transactions,” or (as in Good Ventures example imaged above) as might be reported on a tax return under Schedule O, “Supplemental Information”). … For the LLCs, searchable in California at BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov, they show up as either listed “managers” and/or at the same street address + Suite#s entity addresses.

(**Square Seven Management LLC it says is managed by Iconiq Capital LLC, a Delaware Entity)

These networked billionaires work through networked foundations and similarly named LLCs to: move the money, pool the assets, and use common investment managers often, who invest alongside them and are paid fees and percentages of “AUM,” assets under management (presumably).

Who knows, perhaps that’s what ‘APERCEN” in “Apercen Partners” refers to – “A percen(t).”  (Just kidding…)

Investopedia 2/28/2016 article (Mark P. Cussen), “Are AUM Fees a Thing of the Past?” (Click image to enlarge or click through for article).

Search “AUM fees” for several results.  Here’s an interesting and quick-read one from March 28, 2018: “Why AUM-Based Fees Don’t Meet Fiduciary Standards” by Bert Whitehead of “Cambridge, Connection, Inc.  “Advisor Perspectives.”  Another from Guideline.com (What is an AUM Fee?), and from Investopedia that they may be going out of fashion: Are AUM Fees a Thing of the Past? by By Mark P. Cussen, CFP®, CMFC, AFC | February 12, 2016.  Notice these are all written by financial advisors of one kind or another, see all the initials after that last author (and nearby image)

 

The networked billionaires then advertise their own work on websites which post, typically, no identification (or minimal and not the most recent by far) of tax returns for specific foundations, or evidence of any LLC filings, or audited financial statements. Where would those audited financial statements be found?  While sometimes the California OAG may post audited financial reports under individual foundation’s “Details” page, for these (I’m reporting on herein) it doesn’t seem to.

The spider-like nature (multiple related organizations, with separate identities but apparently common SVCF management) and behavior of SVCF blurs the IRS’ definition (when movement of money is shown) of “supporting organization” (the “support” seems to be going in the opposite direction) and the concept of actual independent entities, when the independent entities simply delegate administration and management to the controlling one (here, SVCF), paying its board and/or employees handsomely for the fees, and retaining (both supporting and supported, i.e. SVCF, organizations) most assets while granting out (for several of these SVCF-managed related organizations) millions of dollars more in a given year than is taken in — some “budget” — knowing that their rich benefactors will either cough up some more, or close it down as part of an obviously pre-determined exit strategy.

Overall it seems to be more about the investments held by and funds moving between multiple nonprofits under common management (including some of the boards) than about the advertised projects.  Another reason I say, watch the Balance Sheets as much as if not more than the Budget.

Also complicating comparisons among multiple entities, even of public with private ones under common management or ownership:

Differences between public (990s) and private (990PF) filings (unofficial, deduced just through observation)…making cross-comparisons from the same wealth source harder for the average person, although the purpose of by law (Internal Revenue Code) making them public at all, one would think, is for the average person, “the public,” — not just potential donors — to understand how entities with tax-exempt privilege are in fact operating and what they are doing with that privileged status.

My comments refer to IRS Forms 990 since substantial revisions in 2008 only. I have spent more time looking at the more recent forms, although I often do go back before 2008 for specific entities.

  • PUBLIC 990-filing foundations have to categorize types of investments on their balance sheets (Part X, since the IRS Form 2008ff) and provide more detail on Schedule “D” to Part X for any amounts for Other Investments or “Other Assets,” but do not have to name which exact corporate/public-traded or other investments are held.   
  • Public foundations also in their grantmaking are to supply EIN#s for grantees
  • Public foundations by IRS form have to segregate domestic and foreign grants on different schedules (Schedule I, Schedule F) 
  • PRIVATE 990PF-filing foundationsremember, Good Ventures has one of each both formed about 2012 it says — do list how many shares of exactly which investments, and grouped by type, but do not (as I understand it/I may be wrong about that) have to categorize them on the tax return’s balance sheet statements as to type.  
  • PRIVATE (990PF-filing foundations) in listing their grants do not have to separate domestic (USA) and foreign (non-USA) grants — and some of these are granting out millions with very long lists.  They also are not required to provide EIN#s for any grantee, making fact-checking or follow-up harder; especially when grantees can and do tend to change their names, or if the name & address recorded on the 990PF do not match reality.
  • The PROBLEM: Together, this makes obtaining an overall view on any single enterprises’ (or individuals’) financial impact on specific projects. The information is dispersed, and it’s recorded in different reporting formats even when the money may be coming from the same source (i.e., same extraordinary personal wealth).
  • Movement / re-branding of business entities over time:
    • The project & organization “Open Philanthropy” at “GiveWell” (to which GoodVentures and others have been contributing) then morphed into “Open Philanthropy” (so far, I’ve located three types of entities:  LLC, 501©3 — barely funded — and 501©4 — startup funding about $55M!!). Some details below, see also list of “tags” for this post which name several of the entities.
    • GiveWell and Open Philanthropy bring up two more names (both young(ish) men, not a “couple”), Holden Karnofsky & Elie Hassenfeld, as well as the hedge fund investment management firm (Bridgewater Associates) where they met and came from.  More on this below the next aqua-highlit paragraph and “Open Philanthropy Action Fund” tax return table.
      • Not shown this post, but I’ve looked at several (at least five) of the largest donors GiveWell has been recommending and looked up their tax returns since this post was published Aug. 4, 2018.  I also did a chrono review of GiveWell (“The Clear Fund’s) tax returns as far back as 990finder provides. I wouldn’t give any of them a “C+” on transparency or reporting, and some (Imperial College Foundation, Atlanta GA) an “F” (just moving money to a well-endowed UK London,UK college).
      • Among the grantees, Harvard grads are “everywhere,” particularly at Evidence Action, which has a well-stated relationship with GiveWell as a sponsor, also with organization’s I’d run across and blogged separately associated with behavioral modification studies on the poor in developing countries. J-PAL and IPA (Innovations for Poverty Action). Search Alix Petersen Zwane for more insight.
      • Around 2011/2012, Cari Tuna shows up on the Board and GiveWell’s entity address goes cross-country (NY to SF), and funds start pouring in.
      • As I have said several times, “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan” investment model in action.
    • Startup Education (of SVCF) morphed into Chan Zuckerberg (or “CZI”) initiatives, and so forth.  Several details (in image gallery format and described) below. See also list of “tags” for this post which name several of them.
The various websites always advertise how philanthropic and altruistic the causes are while, typically not showing the real picture behind the money movement, dispersal, and in general, obfuscation.

Personally, I find it hypocritical and stunningly arrogant. Failure to disclose their own financials while collaborating with their own social niches to channel grants to nonprofits which then lecture the public at large about better management of public institutions [health, education, criminal justice, housing, civil rights, immigration, racial equity — you name it] and how to “improve” them in this fashion and through these strategies.  Look at enough tax returns and related websites, and the background picture comes into clearer focus.

It is the tax returns (and, where available, AUDITED financial statements, plus name-change records at the Secretary of State (or corresponding state-level business filing databases; in California it’s the Secretary of State, others, may be Dept. of Revenue or of Corporations), and not the literal self-descriptions in words and (of course) appealing, empathy-insiring photos which provide the better interpretation of what the organizations are doing. Even site-visits or personal acquaintance (i.e., experiential impressions) cannot override the vitality of financials in comprehending WHAT — at this level of sponsored projects, nonprofits, and grant-making foundations etc. — the rich have in mind for the poor, as opposed to for themselves.  
Do this while you can, because indicators are that some of these privately controlled foundations (or their projects) are spinning off into LLCs.  One example shown in detail below (SVCF’s Startup: Education into Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative LLC); likewise the Good Ventures’ featured “Open Philanthropy Project” and promotion of (another couple’s 2007-formed) “GiveWell” foundation (See GoodVentures.com or the 3-image gallery above to note) has spun off into, not its own, transparent, tax-return filing (for public information) 501©3, but instead another LLC.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 4, 2018 at 2:22 pm

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

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

Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nonprofits for Class Action Lawsuit (℅ Center for Investigative Reporting article) [Published July 31, 2018].

leave a comment »

TITLE (may change, the link won’t): Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nonprofits for Class Action Lawsuit (℅ Center for Investigative Reporting article) short-link ends “-95X”.  Post started about June 24, 2018, expected publication was July 15th, actual (due to break in on-line work by blogger), July 31st.  Currently over 12,000 words (which may or may not be adjusted later) and without tags. This blogger has been busy elsewhere for a few weeks…


I am taking the occasion of sustained media (print, digital, TV) focus on a certain situation to emphasize the importance of looking up nonprofits — their websites, and their business, charitable and tax filings, where possible —  involved in headline news.  I’m constantly consciousness-raising about just how many headlines involve nonprofits, typically several at a time. The current sustained media attention on the certain situation provides me yet another opportunity to show how easily active pursuit of nonprofits’ identities and accounts (tax returns, etc.) sheds light on that landscape and the larger one. I’ve picked just one article from one source, a nonprofit ‘Center for Investigative Reporting” featuring a lawsuit referencing two more nonprofits, but each of them is related to yet more. Within a few minutes of starting the lookup on one of the two, it became quickly clear that two existed under similar, but not identical business names, and a “switcheroo” of the names had occurred.

The other one has been around since the late 1970s; its formation coincides (follows not long after) the formation of other nonprofits (and the establishment of certain federal offices and bureaus, following passage of a federal act) focused on Juvenile Justice about the same time. (see the OJJDP funding, about, and legislation pages).

Readers are intended and through reporting conditioned to focus on the causes, not the communicators, but being habitually oblivious to the communicators is a form of blindness. Through looking closer, an individual decision, just take the mental blinders off.

Looking up nonprofits takes some time (it gets easier with practice), but as basic, pro-active self-education fast-tracks anyone into reasonably objective** useful, relevant information unlikely to be included in standard journalism covering the issues and who holds which positions on those issues. This understanding I believe is a better bargaining point to change public policy where it’s routinely violating people’s rights and getting people injured, killed or financially enslaved. It also shows deeper underlying issues and a more specific, concrete and (if used consistently to compare) language to discuss them with. Acquiring it develops highly transferable skills (of observation, analysis, independence of thought) in anyone who starts and continues down this path.

(** How reasonably objective” depends on the accuracy of government-provided data and/or databases for those filings and at times, private databases (obtaining their information from IRS forms but hosted on their own websites) run by groups such as I discussed in my last post (June 6, 2018)… Like Foundation Center, the Urban Institute, Guidestar, and a few others.  Some government sites seem to contract out these databases to private operators, but that still doesn’t remove responsibility for accuracy of the data).

Without this understanding, people advocating, often rallying or marching, for systems change are not even talking about as much as the chronic rights-violators already know and have normalized and rationalized about their own operations.  People can too easily be divided into factions and are unable to resist or restrain ever-expanding corruption and protect ourselves from its effects, no matter how much that word is tossed around. Understanding the nonprofit sector is a bedrock understanding to the relationship of the individuals governed to their own government (and I’m talking primarily the USA).

Please! become conscious, actively aware, in general, and pursue AND talk openly about specifics when following ANY cause or headlines, of the nonprofit sector as a sector and how it’s managed, runs, evolves, expands, and campaigns.

In this blog you’ve seen me do it starting in 2009 with just a few nonprofits and federal grants to them administered through the HHS — the US Department of Health and Human Services. Characteristic handling of these specific (healthy marriage/ responsible fatherhood and access visitation) grants became clear near the start of this exploration and is still evident. To this day, irresponsibility and lack of ethics seems to be the core, “desirable” qualities in those receiving the largest grants, which reflects back on Congresses and White House administrations dominated by both political parties, and it also reflects back on us as the governed, the citizens, “the people” for not having figured it out and focused on it earlier.


It also reflects on the characters of leadership of the corresponding associated nonprofits arrayed pro/con or “proud of collaborating” around issues used to justify funding both sides of any key issue.  Why weren’t they exploring and exposing the ethics of, for example, “coordinated community response” domestic violence organizations, or of Family Values, Protect-The-Children recipients, faith-based or secular — and/or the missing, faulty and basically dysfunctional grants databases at United States Department of Justice.  Too selfish? Dissociative? Too passive?  Too dependent upon the paychecks to criticize the “hands that feed them”?  Brainwashed?

Coming intentionally face-to-face with this type of information I’ve found adds another layer of understanding which accumulates depth rapidly. The longer one looks, more levels of the understanding.   The process of getting in front of that information is a transferable skill which leads to more independent thinking and less confusion.

The same amount of time invested over months, or years, into “current news” without ever coming face to face, personally exposed to, the format and appearance (not to mention contents) of financial statements, tax returns, corporate filings (or lack thereof) means  perception of who and what one is reading about is guaranteed to be shallower for most people — including white-collar professionals and specialists in certain fields!  It’s a matter of descriptive language, points of reference (perspectives), scope and evaluation.


One of the first areas of “less confusion” that should surface is whether or the nonprofit sector as a sector — especially a major subset of the “biggest, richest and most noble” so-called philanthropic players in this sector, typically associated with even larger corporate empires [wealth] — is really warring with itself (mostly along political lines) or is instead and by definition collaborating with government (a different sector) in warring against individual wage-earners, citizens, and people holding legal rights in (in this illustration), the United States of America.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

July 31, 2018 at 10:07 pm

The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018].

leave a comment »

Post title:  The Availability and Reliability of On-Line Databases (Private or Public) is a Major  Obstacle to Accountability | Footnotes to “Censorship by Omission” Page [Publ. June 3, 2018]. It has a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-8ZF” and, for a change, is short.

Well (after another day’s work…), not including its own “footnotes.”  Total as published now is actually 8,515 words.  It’ll be short again if I split it in half later.  Main extensions — commentary on two billion-dollar trusts outside the USA, one in London, the other in Kuwait, with annotated images from them.  The Wellcome Trust (London) and the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (Kuwait).  The “Wellcome Trust” for decades (1955 – 1993) had as part of its pharmaceutical enterprise, Burroughs Wellcome Fund (at Research Triangle Park, NC) and obviously intricately connected to US biomedical and other research, and NIH sponsorship to go with it, as well as with board members on some of the largest tax-exempt entities (which I search in this blog, sorting by “Total Assets”) IN the USA as well.  So, I think those last-day additions are worthwhile…

https://wellcome.ac.uk (“We want to improve health for everyone by helping great ideas thrive.”)  ArabFund.org is a regional financial institution and “embodiment of joint Arab action” (agreement established 1968).

…Achieving Arab integration and consolidating cooperation among the Member countries is the main objective of the Arab Fund. Priority is therefore given to financing joint Arab projects of particular importance and specifically to those projects that increase the interdependence of Arab countries. Hence the emphasis on contributing to projects involving the interconnection of electrical power, transportation and communications. The Arab Fund also pays close attention to social development and reducing poverty by financing projects covering health care, education, drinking water, rural development, and social welfare.


The Arab Fund, being an Arab institution, is focused on Arab issues and concerns. In this regard it pays special attention to the least developed Arab countries such as providing support to the Palestinian people in the occupied territories through financing a program of projects in different sectors. It provides grants to support educational institutions, universities and professional and social associations. The Arab Fund has also supported a number of Arab countries in countering the effects of natural disasters and wars…

Click to enlarge or visit website. For example, “History of Wellcome” with key terms relating to drug development in the USA, and various suffixes (Ltd, Foundation, Trust, plc) associated with it over time. Also visit their Board of Governors

Click to enlarge, or visit website. See also nearby quote (FamilyCourtMatters, published June 6, 2018)

This post goes with a certain Page which matches the top post on this blog dealing with the topic of historic censorship of major issues affecting family courts — censorship specifically by organizations, professionals, and self-described initiatives or movements to fix or reform them.

Next image just shows where on the originating page it came from. As you can see I switched the parts of the title (placing “Footnotes to…” after “The Availability and Reliability of…”).

[This image is simply to locate where on originating Page my “The Availability of.. | Footnotes” post fits in..]

I feel I should further qualify the use of “censorship” in the underlying Page’s title.  There’s a difference between leaders and followers… but followers in the current scenario can’t afford to be passive on their own learning curve and should “look before they leap,” including before going public with their stories in association with specific groups with a specific agenda they may not know about.  … In other words, followers, rebloggers, re-tweeters, free-sociomedia activists who are also litigants with shocking or devastating custody cases, don’t be exploited for the drama by others. Know where you stand in the mix, and that your testimony, your experiences should not be publicized as part of a package deal which may or may not be the best “deal” (reform agenda) available.

IT SEEMS (“FYI”) Most (self-appointed) family court reform leaders, whether individual professionals, or leaders of organizations featuring individual professionals active within the family courts, are not, in fact, members of the classes they advocate for.  Because that’s obvious, this leadership needs to maintain a “stable” of mothers, fathers, and/or aged-out kids to tell moving personal narratives, around which each organization’s particular agenda and sound-bytes for system change can be promoted.

The emotionally moving, tragic or disturbing anecdotal, individual-case stories (true or not) are the “hook.” Those telling on them already have been hooked and in effect function as bait — worms wriggling to catch larger fish (systems change for faster-flowing funding streams).

The “protective-parent” “arguing against parental alienation” tactics (a subset of the larger whole) family-court-reform leaders (especially as associated with nonprofits, conferences, or some, even law school clinics) tend to be publicists, practicing (expert witness or other) psychologists, or lawyers, or even ex-judges sometimes involved professionally in the field.   Individual mothers, especially, with custody-fiasco stories should resist being exploited by anyone for press coverage status and hoping that enough of it will produce effective improvements.

The family courts and family law (and/or “fixing” or reforming it) IS a field which MUST be better understood than it has been portrayed in “the press.”  (Whether on-line or print media).  There are economic considerations.  There are court-connected-corporation considerations too, which the average court-reform leadership on a nonprofit board is generally not too eager to encourage investigation into…  Such investigations (even simple “drill-downs” like I’ve been doing year after year) tend to uncover sponsors, backers, and alliances which sometimes reveal conflicts of interest and shed an entirely different light on the agenda (ultimate purposes).  Investigations also may reveal how very small (size of nonprofit) some of the most vocal promoters are, that is, assuming the tax returns are telling the truth.

Individual parents involved in the courts who remain unaware of these issue because no one raised them, and their on-line or other searches haven’t caused a “stumbling across them” yet, cannot be said to have engaged in censorship.  Then again, individuals’ “take-it-on-faith” and “accept-our-interpretation” without considering alternatives (the religious mindset, in a sense) is just unwise.  Following leaders without basic background-checks of AT LEAST (where a nonprofit is involved) the leaders’ nonprofit’s  self-descriptions as given to the IRS and any required Secretary of State (etc.) filings is minimum responsible behavior, even if one is oppressed and distressed by the present ongoing crises or emergencies a typical family law case may involve.

It’s also appropriate to look (I do this!) at friends-of-friends nonprofits speaking the same language.

The originating Page for this Post is:

My purpose here is just to raise certain issues and a few — certainly not comprehensive — examples of them.

When you see the above page title and sentence again, that’s where this post started.  Before then, I talk about the relevance of this topic, with some examples.

From common on-line discussions among concerned parents and in conversing with people concerned about justice and the family courts, or domestic violence, child abuse involving themselves and their children, over the years I’ve sensed, with just a few exceptions, little consciousness or awareness of the nonprofit sector AS a sector, or its mutual collaborations and governmental collaborations to direct our lives.  Names of individual entities will show up discussed along with their “causes” but few bring up objective discussions about the tax-exempt sector by definition affecting government.

This lack of sunlight facilitates private, unregulated and unmonitored development of alliances throughout the system or the presentation of “warring factions” when in fact the major divide seems to be less political persuasion, than functional niche on the public/private partnerships food chain.

I.e., in a quest for justice, if substantial cash flow is simply uncategorized and unseen, you can “forget it!” Justice, that is. That’s why I include more reminders here that as a whole, the “tax-exempt” sector is a historic and significantly powerful business sector, not just a few organizations with their respective causes.

I ran a printout of FY2015 Forms 990 and sorted them by assets (most billions to about 8.5 billion “Total Assets”).  Top results (Image #1 of 4 taken) included:  Harvard ($73B, billion dollars), Stanford and Yale and Princeton (in that order) and two “Bill and Melinda Gates” entities which, if combined, would’ve been the top of the list.  However, Harvard Management Private Equity Corp. (or so labeled) at $14B also shows up…  Second image:  MIT, Columbia, and so forth (Two thumbnail images shown here; larger ones and the other two, below, with captions).

Notice which types of entities are the largest shown (of those search results displayed). They fall into certain categories which tend to either include institutional endowments of universities, health corporations (benefit, i.e., pension, administrators), insurance companies (people pay up front), credit unions, and probably one donor-advised foundation (I think).  I was surprised that at $12 billion assets, even Ford Foundation wasn’t the largest. This tells us by TYPE of 990 or 990PF, 990-O filer, and generally speaking, where some of the largest (nonprofit only that is) assets are held — excluding of course ALL government entities, which by definition are not even on this database. Government entities are “on” there in the background — supporting scholarships to the universities, distributions for healthcare, federal grants to medical research institutions (etc.) as a sponsor (source of revenue TO nonprofits) and (did you know this?) also as ongoing direct recipients from nonprofits also. But because it’s a directory of charitable trusts (private-sector) naturally no names of government entities will show up as themselves. If you want to see one place they’re both shown together, look for “Bentley 500” (top assets infrastructure owners of the world.  But, that’s only “hard assets.”  I’ve posted it on this blog several times..)

The Forms 990 show this — direct grants to various government agencies to promote, pilot, or evaluate chosen projects. “How the heck” would these ever be consistently tracked?
Read the rest of this entry »

Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later]

leave a comment »

Post Title: Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later] case-sensitive short-link ends -37M, ca. 8,100 words.

Many years ago, among some mothers blogging their custody challenges and family court fiascoes, the phrase was being circulated “Do You Know Your AFCC?” or “How Well Do You Know Your AFCC?”

(Badass Mamas, some of us were called.  Thank you “RandiJames.com”).

Well this post is “How Well Do You Know Your AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Research Awardees?” …. a natural progression as I looked, incidentally to the “Dumpster-Diving in the Credibility Gap” of Batterer Typology verbiage among clinical forensic psychologists, some of who had clear connections also with each other and to AFCC.

Looking at the awardee list systematically and noting who has which associations to which universities, or corporations — and each other — will only educate you about the role of this organization, and about the power of networking.  Some “lights should go on” as to WHO you are dealing with, and WHO is running key institutions affecting family law.

2015 – Barbara A. Babb
2014 – Rachel Birnbaum
2013 – Judy Cashmore and Patrick Parkinson
2012 – Amy Holtzworth-Munroe
2011 – Jennifer McIntosh
2010 – Constance R. Ahrons
2009 – Judith Wallerstein
2008 – Nicholas Bala (Professor of Law, Queens University, Ontario Canada.  Degree also from Harvard) (see “Prevnet” and a bio at “AttorneyGeneral.Jus.gov.ON.CA“)##
2007 – Sanford Braver, Irwin Sandler, Sharlene Wolchik
2006 – J. Herbie DiFonzo, Mary E. O’Connell
2005 – Janet Walker (<==AFCC 2005 conference in Seattle shows Walker as past-AFCC President and from “Newcastle on Tyne, England”) (check out the brochure!)
2004 – Marsha Kline Pruett
2003 – Paul Amato
2002 – Robert Emery  (Professor Psychology, UVirginia & Director “Center for Children Families & the Law)  [BA, Brown University in 1974, PhD SUNY-Stonybrook, 1982, “father of five children” (no wife mentioned).
2001 – JoAnne Pedro-Carroll
2000 – Janet Johnston
1999 – Charlene Depner
1998 – Jessica Pearson and Nancy Thoennes
1997 – Joan B. Kelly

(Image added during May, 2018, update, from “PREVnet” link, above.  PREV is an acronym, and Prevnet is an “Inc.” (it says Canadian charity, however I didn’t know that Canadian companies could end with an “Inc.”  Notice the unusual qualification of law degrees from both a Canadian and a United States (Harvard!) university! I also notice (“Donate”) button that it’s collecting through a different Canadian organization and, as usual “building a field” (image detail) on healthy teen relationships:

Nicholas Bala at PREVNET (imaged added May, 2018)

Click image to enlarge.

Click image to enlarge.

 

 

## (Fn from quote) Nicholas Bala bio blurb — just a fragment, you may recognize some familiar themes in this one — only for Canada:

Prof. Bala is a member of the National Judicial Institute Program Planning Committees for Child Witnesses and High Conflict Parental Separations and is editor of the N. J. I. Electronic Benchbook on Child Witness. He is the principal investigator of an interdisciplinary research project on child witnesses funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada.

Prof. Bala’s research on legal issues related to child abuse, youth justice, family violence and family law is extensive and in those areas, he has served as a consultant for the governments of Canada, Ontario and the Yukon and for aboriginal organizations. He was the lead researcher in a report on the Ontario Child Abuse Register (1987-88) and was a member of a research team reviewing the Ontario Office of Child and Family Service Advocacy (2004). He was a consultant to the Special Advisor on Child Sexual Abuse to the Minister of Health and Welfare Canada (1989-90). He also provided advice to Justice Robbins (Ontario, 2000) for his report on child sexual abuse in schools

Nicholas Bala weighing in on “parental alienation” — 2011 article from the “Nuffield Foundation” (address London):

Parental Alienation and the voices of children in family proceedings

22 July 2011

In a relatively small portion of all separation and divorce cases, children reject a parent. How and why does this happen? How do the courts respond to these cases, which are characterised by high levels of conflict between parents, and what should they do? What can we learn from the experience of other jurisdictions such as Canada and the US?

These were some of the questions addressed in a seminar hosted by the Foundation on 13 July and led by Professor Nicholas Bala from Queen’s University in Canada.

  • (lonesome- looking photo of child from behind , captioned:  “How can courts better respond to high conflict cases and contact disputes?”)

The seminar started with a discussion of the controversial concept of ‘parental alienation.’ While rejecting the view that it is a ‘syndrome,’ Professor Bala recognizes the value of identifying cases where the hostile attitude of one parent results in a child having negative views of the other that are a reflection not of the child’s own experience, and resulting in unjustified rejection of that parent. This approach requires courts and professionals to distinguish cases where a child is justifiably rejecting a parent, for example due to abuse or neglect, from cases of alienation

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

May 24, 2018 at 9:53 am

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

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

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: