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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

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

leave a comment »

NGA: National Governors’ Association.

PRWORA: Personal Right to Work and Opportunity Reconciliation Act (Welfare Reform, 1996).

Below, “ECS” is “Education Commission for the States” (a private entity with public officers, and an interesting background), which I discovered had been promoted by the NGA (then National Governors’ Conference?) 

ACT, Inc. and ACT Foundation, Inc. (The latter just dissolved FY2016, I found out), based in Iowa (and internationally) is a huge tax-exempt operations involves testing for college entrances and help with “work and life” preparation.  It’s got global operations.  

“NFI” in this context stands for “National Fatherhood Initiative” but I just moved a chunk of that section onto a new post May 20, 2020.  (link provided in context, below).  Through here is a Page Update 20 May, 2020.//LGH.

This PAGE is:

2017 April introduction to this 2016 Sept-drafted page is in this background-color.  What existed before (as of Sept. 2016) is white-background, different font (Georgia) and with maroon border. Being basically in two large parts, it totals about 14,000 words. I am tweaking it some January 22, 2020, without much change of content, just looking to post some excerpts to sociomedia rather than re-invent the wheel on my own “time and dime.” //LGH

This introduction was written fresh off a recent post,  Challenge Fund Circuitry (Anyone ELSE want to look up $52M worth of Challenge Grants from Annenberg Foundation Year 2001?),(<~that’s a link.  Publ. April 26, 2017, short-link ends “-6Dd”) which by referencing the Education Commission for the States (“ECS”) brought up again the topic of the National Governors’ Association.

Links to what I’m talking about may be found on that post and weren’t added in much detail for purposes of this preview.

The purpose of the Annenberg Challenge I’ve had on my radar recently, under the general theme of public/private partnerships aimed at reforming the (entire) public school system in the U.S.A., ends up on closer review of the ECS itself, as being remarkably close to its stated purpose, which you can see in some excerpted, annotated images on this intro section, below.

There is a light-blue-background extended section (pre-existing on this post) dealing with a Corporate Fellow [“ACT”] to the National Governor’s Association; I probably picked it out simply because it was a foundation, and it was very larger (over ½ billion assets).  You will see its tax returns and its related foundation showing over $25M total assets right next to it.

Also please scroll down to the very bottom and read again the list of the Corporate Fellows to the NGA for an overview (it is of course its own snapshot in time depending on when it was taken).

I admit this preview’s tone is somewhat dis-illusioned (not that I had many illusions going in) from recent, vicarious witnessing of what’s being done to the public school system and how, in addition to what was already done to the family court system with, in the case of the NGA, at least one significant player in common.

I don’t expect perfection, but I still have been shocked at the level of “in-your-face” financial discrepancies (not to mention financial information “M.I.A.” regarding million-dollar reported transactions for the public benefit).

Other than this blog and local people (and some on-line) I discuss these writings and subject matter with, I am also dis-illusioned about jumpstarting a serious conversation about this when it seems the population has been neatly divided and groomed to fight political parties – left OR right; or religion, or something OTHER than public accountability for public funds, and insisting on accountability for what level of influence is wielded by the “MIA” transactions which seem commonplace in the private, nonprofit sector contracting with, or getting grants from OR giving grants TO public systems.

It’s hard to have active, informed conversations on material which has been so censored over the years that discussing it sounds like a form of treason, and “threatens” (in my opinion, mis-placed) faith in most public institutions to self-correct, or to free themselves from private, UNdue influence on in which direction to correct when conflict surfaces. I’ve already witnessed over  about eight years what censorship in the family court advocacy realm has done, including TO three generations of my own family line, not to mention to the overall sense of safety and credibility for anyone approaching the courts.

This ALMOST 10,000 word page was completed, with its detail, in 9/2016 (probably moved from a TOC page at that…). Leaving most of it alone, but unpublished yet, I have in Q42016 and Q1 and now Q2 2017 been researching and blogging more extensively on Public School Reform networks — big ones, founded by billion-dollar or half-billion-dollar foundations (or some of both) — many of them I noticed also starting these networks in the 1980s and 1990s. Part of the LBO (Leveraged Buy Out) crowd figuring out it was time to invest in education, and the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan combo (with “Harvard” representing primarily Harvard Business School) also figuring out that the new area for venture capital was consulting for and managing the investments (i.e., assets!) of public/private partnerships, spearheading change in public institutions etc.  (See recent posts for those terms).

I have been looking also at the role played by the publication/communications/high-tech corporations (and their spinoff foundations) in this whole picture. (“Freedom of the Press on the Auction Block” post) For example, in particular, the 1990s Annenberg Foundation $500M Challenge to Reform Public School Education, as modeled after certain networked nonprofits associated with not just Harvard (Graduate School of Education) as to some of the professionals, but especially Brown University.

The primary early source of Annenberg Foundation wealth was in the publishing field (particularly the sale of “Triangle Publications”).  Many are still unaware of just how dominated this field is, and what directions it’s been moving in this century — away from anything less than major-media-owned outlets.  This can be explored by following some of the companies and some of the public television stations also.

On April 26, 2017, (that is, yesterday!) I published a 20,000-word “Challenge Fund Circuitry”* post on some of the recipients of the grants (donors, intermediary organizations formed for the purpose or pre-existing) and made a mental note on the “Education Commission for the States (<==history page; click links on it to read further details) as a key spokesperson or influence chosen by Walter H. Annenberg (then in his mid-80s) and appointed friends, such as Vartan Gregorian (who was also Dean at Brown University for a while).  *Post title:  Challenge Fund Circuitry (Anyone ELSE want to look up $52M worth of Challenge Grants from Annenberg Foundation Year 2001?)

What I’m getting to here is that the ECS (Education Commission for the States) was formed in 1967, by a COMPACT and to, as a nonprofit (but, chaired each year by a Governor), implement the “Compact,” as originally heavily promoted by James Conant Bryant at, guess where — Harvard. (At this time, I don’t think Harvard had yet even admitted women)… from ECS “History” page (main link):

In the mid-1960s James Bryant Conant, an educator, scientist and diplomat who served as the president of Harvard University from 1933 to 1953, put forth the idea of an interstate compact on education policy. His 1964 book Shaping Education Policy was written when the GI Bill, the National Defense Education Act, Great Society legislation and other initiatives had greatly enlarged the federal role in education. In the book Conant called for a kind of counterbalance — a mechanism for improving and strengthening education policy and policymaking at the state level. Such a mechanism, he said, would:

  • Give voice to the diverse interests, needs, and traditions of states.
  • Enable them to cooperate and communicate with one another.
  • Promote their working together to focus national attention on the pressing education issues of the day.

In early 1965, John W. Gardner, president of the Carnegie Corporation of New York, teamed up with Terry Sanford, who had recently left the governorship of North Carolina, to transform Conant’s idea into reality. Over the next two years, under Sanford’s leadership, the Compact for Education was drafted, endorsed by representatives of all 50 states and approved by Congress.

The operating arm of the compact — the Education Commission of the States — opened its headquarters in Denver in 1967, with former Cincinnati school superintendent Wendell H. Pierce serving as its first executive director.

**I made all my comments (annotated) below BEFORE, deciding to look for a link to this famous personality, running across a 1964 review (by a woman) in the Harvard Crimson of his 1964 book referenced above, “Shaping Education Policy” [or, as saved to pdf in case the issue gets archived] which admits a “grave moral defect” he omitted in his earlier (1957) book “The American High School.”  Notice one of the first civil rights acts in the country occurred in 1957; Dr. Conant, despite having run HARVARD for 20 years prior to this, hadn’t weighed in on segregated schools yet, but somewhere between 1957 and 1964 (see yet another civil rights act… a Presidential assassination, and prominent civil rights leaders emerging) he has a sudden awakening as to the problems of segregation in the nation’s public schools.

Unbelievable, at least in hindsight.

She also (in my opinion) “nails it” that he is wistfully wishing we could get around that pesky Constitution and organize ourselves more like the great English or French (i.e., European) countries — more centralized and streamlined.  Speaking from a position of privilege, he’s recommending an antidote to the privileged elite in the public school systems across the country??  Yep, apparently! NY and California were supposedly great models (read the whole book review).

…In fact, I see that starting in 1955, Conant was (per “history.state.gov”) stretching back to John Quincy Adams of Ministers, Envoys or (for this man, May 14, 1955–February 19, 1957) “Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary” — to Germany! (Conant lived 1893-1978..)

HarvardCrimsn 1964 Bk Review of Conant’s Shaping Educatl Policy’ admits he forgot the segregatn issue in his 1957 book (!) SShot 2017-04-28 at 2.41PM (<–click to read annotated image)

This is “classic” private university/big-bucks philanthropy (Carnegie  Corporation) /current and/or former highly-placed public officials (a former governor, a former public school district superintendent) agreeing to form a privately controlled nonprofit in association with a sort of treaty (compaq) they’ve made with each other — not with U.S. Citizens. It’s yet another public/private “partnership.” The Compact describes specific purpose to respond to recently increased federal funds for education by professionalizing, connecting to political leadership at the state level with the purpose of transmitting good ideas across state lines, regionally and nationwide.  [link: http://www.ecs.org/ec-content/uploads/Compact-for-Education-Dec1965.pdf for a “clean copy” and the rest of it].

1 of 3 annotated images (Click IMAGE read “ECS The Compact for Educatn Dec 1965 (intro, top) “

2 of 3, Click IMAGE to read “ECS The Compact for Educatn Dec 1965 (intro, bottom, signed Terry Sanford,@DukeU, Dec 1965)”

3 of 3, click IMAGE to read “ECS 1965 Compact (history link) The Idea (James B Conant)” (a comment which wouldn’t fit on the page also in main text, nearby)


[My comment for 3rd of 3 annotated images here re: Dr. James B. Conant’s great Idea and protest of the “jumbled mess” and tangled mess he’s proposing to straighten up — consider the turmoil of the times, and the challenge to the public schools as a mechanism for continued racism and sexism within the system, which conceivably might ALSO have led people to continue considering why there is one public system and a separate but unequal private system nationwide, not only for their children (K-12) but ALSO for their young adults in the private vs. public college university systems also, of which you can guess which sector Harvard (in the 1960s) represented!]

Consider the times (1960s, Civil Rights movement AND Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964, assassination of JFK (and more to come) and — of all things! — women continuing to seek admission to elite, east-coast (primarily) universities from which the nation’s leaders were clearly to be drawn, with parallel private women’s college such that future generations might have good breeding (i.e., “well-bred”) stock for their young men, with wealth marrying wealth, while the nation’s WORKERS would be educated through the public, compulsory school systems which made sure NOT to reproduce the (British) style of mentoring and forming lifelong business associations, etc.

While sold as representing the states vs. an overbearing federal government, ECS has ended up insteaad nationalizing the schools, and a point of reference for subsequent school reformers (as the Annenberg Challenge selection of the ECS as a primary advisor or leader — see my post which describes and provides links — who want system reform to also be national, but this time selling it under “community” representation at the local (school district) level. Hardly surprising that a key Annenberg Challenge (to the Public Schools) person also involved previously with high-profile private universities (Brown, Univ. of Pennsylvania) Vartan Gregorian, went from Dean of Brown to Chair of the Carnegie Corporation.

It caught my attention that a prime distribution and promotion for this concept of the ECS was through the National Governors’ Association (NGA). So, “Fatherhood Initiatives” aren’t all they’ve been promoting over the years.  From the ECS website, link to a narration (sort of intro) to “The Compact”:

…In May, 1965, Governor Sanford called a meeting of representatives of all organizations and associations related to education plus representatives of the National Governors’ Conference to seek their advice “on the best method and organizational structure for bringing together the political and educational leadership of the several states for the purpose of studying, planning, suggesting and promoting sounder objectives and goals for the improvement of education in America.” 5 They met in Washington and the consensus was that the ideas should be developed.

As a result of the Washington meeting, a Special Planning Committee met in the spring and summer of 1965 to develop tentative proposals for forming the Compact. It consisted of representatives of the Governors’ Conference Committee on Human Resources; the American Council on Education; the Association of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges; the Council of Chief State School Officers; the National School Boards Association; the National Association of State Boards of Education; the American Association of School Administrators; and a few advisors, such as John Ivey of the Michigan State University Department of Education, Mitchell Wendell of the Council of State Governments and Alan Pifer of the Carnegie Corporation as well as Governor Sanford and his staff.

When we have ASSOCIATIONS representing public officials with decision-making, that is, discretionary, administrative if not officially “policy-making” authority over SIGNIFICANT public funds — which school districts nationwide have.

(NOTE:  their BUDGETs don’t reflect all their assets; their CAFRs (Comprehensive [accrual, not just “for the year”] Annual Financial Reports, independently audited with transmittal letters on exactly WHAT was audited and what was not) come a lot closer to telling just how much assets (gross and net), which may be why they are so rarely published, promoted, or advertised, although it seems they must at least be produced and made available to people who, mysteriously given the collective SILENCE on them, still, know enough to ask (or hunt) for them and the tenacity, audacity and discretionary leisure time (!!) to wade through them and start to comprehend just how misleading is the front-edge reporting on budget deficits.  ALL accounting statements for any entity (with or without its component units, enterprise (proprietary) funds, fiduciary funds, etc.) are relative and should be understood in the larger context in which they operate.

Collective ignorance and under-reporting of the CAFRS like under-reporting of organizations such as the NGA and others like it is NOT in the public interest except in the eyes of those who stand to profit from it better WITH this ignorance than without it. Keep reading ….

The more I look at the school reform networks, particularly as facilitated by the Annenberg Foundation and coordinated nationwide across multiple similar–but-not identically-named nonprofits, some set up regionally to cover the whole country, and especially as I read

(a) as close to original sources (tax returns I mean) and (b) some of the trail of scandals involved (for example, a Chicago Public Schools CEO being actually convicted of a felony (entered a plea-agreement with federal authorities to 1 after being indicted for 20) involving a $20M no-bid contract for (principal or superintendant) training by SUPES academy, in which the successor organization to “Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Inc.) (which successor organization is “Chicago Public Education Fund” or CPEF (still active) had also invested,

…the more loopholes and lack of internal AND external balances and controls surface.  For example, in a single $6.68M grant alleged to have been donated in a certain year to Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Inc. (that year was FY2001 for the Annenberg Foundation, and could’ve been either last half of FY2000 or first of FY2001 for the Chicago Annenberg Challenge) — the donee organization’s books are NOT showing receipt of at least $6.1M funds.

Continuing on to the successor organization (“CPEF” for short) for the same, the same basic year (year 2000) a Schedule B of “Excess Contributions” TO the CPEF seems to be missing 5 out of 6 pages OF Excess contributions. BUT, if one totals the amounts shown on just p.5 (the only page out of 6 referenced on the header for Schedule B), that amount is over $200K higher than acknowledged by CPEF that year.  What’s more, a weird address for the $995K alleged to have been received FROM the Annenberg Foundation BY the CPEF (Chicago Public Education Fund, started only in 1999 and designated successor of Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which dissolved itself by 2002) of a street address in Evanston, IL (rich suburb of Chicago proper and home to Northwestern University) now is shown at Community Learning Partnership, which, it doesn’t take too long to figure out, is as interested in basic progressive agenda around community organization as in reading and writing and math, or even decent public schools in Chicago.   [See my post for the details!]

This is starting to look far more like a deliberate facilitation of easy money-laundering, racketeering, and system to enable politically-connected bribery & kickbacks to and by public officials. In other words, in plain English, almost no matter where one looks, it looks C.O.R.R.U.P.T. …. if this were NY, I’d say it looks like “the Mob” is back, but as a good part of it is Chicago, perhaps I should say “The Machine.”

It’s not all 100% progressive at the “Annenberg Challenge,” though — if it were, it couldn’t be promoted as bipartisan or even a pretense.  Accommodation has been made for (politically “under the influence”) Republicans too, which also shows up in that post, and related pages I’m about to publish to go with it, as relates to the State of Tennessee and involvement Senator Lamar’s attempt (while governor) to entirely privatize the prison system with non other than Corrections Corporation of America, of dubious reputation for many reasons, then and since, including inmate deaths, assaults, escapes, neglect, and in general, conflict of interest.

When it comes to the education part, as now-Senator Lamar was under G.W. Bush (i.e., President Bush, senior) administration, early 1990s, the U.S. Secretary of Education, a chosen model for public education reform (by Walter Annenberg and I gather his advisors), David T. Kearns, of New American Schools (“NAS”) which later merged into the (also huge) AIR for Behavioral Research (of which it was also characterized as a supporting organization).  I detail a good part of this on the recent post “Challenge Fund Circuitry,” and posted multiple screenprints of earlier versions of “New American Schools (and related entity) activity at the very bottom.

David Kearns had served as (assistant?) Deputy Secretary of Education at the same time under now (since 2003) Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, whose recent accomplishment as a Senate committee chair, per one source (quoted is ensuring the confirmation of very Republican Besty DeVos as Secretary of Education this past season, 2017.

It’s in general bad news, and it’s becoming an alternate and NON-representative form of government, at this point, I have to say intentionally.  IF you understand this, WHAT would you do about it?

In passing by this page (which should’ve been published earlier, but wasn’t), I’m leaving it as is except on reviewing a fine-print section, giving ONE example of a “NGA” Corporate fellow, “Act, Inc.” and Act Foundation which are — large organizations — I reviewed those two entities again and have decided to add several (about 15 or so) screenprints from the tax returns showing just how HUGE and how GLOBAL these are.

I question why such entities should be allowed to operate tax-exempt, given how when they get enough that might disqualify them from tax-exempt status, they tend (this one certainly did) to simply take, this example, ¼ million dollars (that’s $25,000,000) and set up a separate related entity (which is how ACT, Inc. got started in 2010), continue paying vast salaries to their chief officers, and re/distribute revenues, assets, liabilities, expenses across the board. ACT, Inc. also has a host of related entities in other countries (see its Schedule R) and as of FY2013 only shows assets of $530M.

Update from the tables shown below:

ACT Foundation IA 2015 990 43 $33,681,692.00 27-2574917
ACT, Inc. IA 2015 990 70 $527,915,702.00 42-0841485

Along those lines of how to reduce excess taxation even on revenues held by nonprofit institutions or tax-exempt foundations, …..

In 2002, tax returns show, the Annenberg Foundation leadership accepted/took control of $100M EACH funds for the benefit of schools of communication (named “Annenberg”) at two private universities, one in Pennsylvania (U Pennsylvania is a private university, among its 12 schools is Wharton School of Business — and Annenberg School of Communications // Public Policy Center) and USC (Univ. of Southern California). The Annenbergs (via their foundations) had poured money into the schools earlier, but now their investment managers (also for other foundations, it looks like) reap the benefits of controlling the assets, while returning (under terms of the trust) trust income to the respective universities.
I posted on this earlier in April.

At what point ($550M assets? $1 billion? $2 billion) does the word “NON-PROFIT” become meaningless? What is the real profit to the public not operating in or working for this sector (the tax-exempt foundations and their friends in and out of high-level public service, that is to say, government, jobs)? It means “reduced taxes” especially (for Form 990PF filers) on “non-charitable use assets.”

As I speak, a new and as we know, controversial US President, President Donald J. Trump, is getting ready his (?) Administration’s “tax” programs. Check your mainstream media (or even alternate media — they’re pretty mainlined by now anyhow) headlines or discussions, whether print or internet or TV. ARE THEY seriously discussing the impact on household incomes of a vast, unmonitored and essentially out of control set of tax-exempt foundations working together WITH government to screw the public while investing in major promotions to proclaim its the opposite?

Patience in reviewing this material will be rewarded by better understanding, and is recommended.  Thanks for those who have what it takes to consider this information and its significance to the United States of America and liberties which may have been taken for granted during parts of the 1900s, but should not be, now.

BELOW HERE (except my added images for Corporate NGA Fellow “Act, Inc.” and its foundation) is the earlier writing on the NGA.

This page sprang from a reference on an updated Table of Contents (2016) post.The main difference between a blog PAGE and a blog POST is that (unless “stuck” to the top of home page — which that Table of Contents and the longer one, along with 9 other key posts, are — posts march by in chrono order, disappearing into the dusty distance or “Archives” whereas Pages only show up when I say so.  I have many pages, but not ALL published pages, showing on blog’s right sidebar).

I wanted to make a few points, but not in an overly long introduction to the Table of Contents.  No easy task!  Those points are are summarized in the long title.

Do you Know Your NGA?  Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added 9/2016) [<==with a shortlink, courtesy “tinyurl.com” http://tinyurl.com/j697l85 (<~~ the character in red is lower-case “L”) 

[or use the shortlink format from this blog: <==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

This Page is about 9,400 words.  On seeing a certain 1998 document detailing nationwide fatherhood initiatives the NGA was soliciting our governors to push at that time, I looked up one program referenced for California.  The search result led, surprisingly, to a Governor’s “State of the State” (cf. a President’s State of the Union) address.

A continuation Post on this topic shows that, from my personal perspective, I couldn’t have chosen a worse time to leave an abusive, violent, husband, having minor children in the household (making me an immediate single mother) than right after welfare reform. {{That said, staying wasn’t a safe option, either..}} {{In hindsight, I see}} I had taken some women’s rights from the 1970s too much for granted and had moved to California during a conservative Republican Governor’s tenure.

The continuation post title and link are provided again below in context of California.

Then again, once the at-home assault and battery, and other forms of isolation, economic control and coercion and other forms of coercive, occasionally terroristic intimidation begins, there is rarely a good time for anything; you do what is required to survive daily and work towards establishing a way to survive longer-term than daily in which to live a life, and raise children.  I continued seeking help until I found some,  there was no significant “intervention” found (certainly not in religious circles, but nowhere else that I’d found either) until I filed that emergency restraining order with kickout.

Private Connections WITHIN Government via the Corporate (esp. Nonprofit) Sector Increases Speed of Legislative and other Administratively Effective Change, whether good or bad.

In contrast with how long, surprisingly, it took me to connect with someone, or some agency who could connect me to my own legal rights to stop the battering and other forms of abuse, and exercising them, reading some of this material, in hindsight, I’m amazed at the acceleration throughout the 1990s of the “healthy marriage/responsible father” and “single mothers | independent women are bad” (underlying message) as it affected social service programs, particularly anything involving child support, family court, domestic violence orders, custody, divorce, and the type of pro-bono or low-cost legal help available in the civil spheres.  As one individual, it took me years to get the information to get free.  Meanwhile, thanks to national nonprofits formed by civil servants such as state governors, and inter-related centers at universities, the opposition to this was getting bred into the infrastructure, from the Gubernatorial, the federal agency, and (read my FIRST TWO posts of this blog — March 9, 2009 was the first, see “Archives”) Presidential level in the mid-1990s.

Excerpt (will be repeated below),  and where this page began, before the introductions, explanations, and expansions:

While this is a long title, I’m putting the page up quickly, and it’s a short post with primarily just one link to discuss — and not in depth either. But it does point to the function played by an organization I brought up on my verbose “Table of Contents” page.

This page serves to post a pdf I ran across years ago, and which showed me the level of betrayal of open government, representative government, and the public interest of US Citizens, through a private association of state-level executive-branch officials called GOVERNORS.

August 1998 + 18 years = 2016. 

One generation born then just now attained “majority” and became adults. Perhaps we should inform them, and their mothers, and all others, about the NGA and the NGA’s own privately controlled nonprofit activities “back when..”

A National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices “Stateline” communication (August 3, 1998), called

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood:  An Update

One Generation Later seems a good time to remind us of what the NGA was doing, privately, without public fanfare, within two years of 1996s PRWORA and only four years of founding the National Fatherhood Initiative, an HHS grantee started and run in part by former HHS, high-ranking employees (the one cited in this link is Wade Horn), which would naturally give them an insiders’ understanding of what was coming down the road with welfare reform, about those $150 million/year responsible fatherhood/healthy marriage grants, and about the already in place access and visitation grants (which after 1996 were legislated to $10 million/year) designed to increase noncustodial parent contact, which being targeted with the other funding stream against “mother-headed families” would in practice mean, decreasing mother/child contact and parenting time where Daddy was not already resident or in control.

I have written before on the NGA as a type of standardizing, coordinating influence on public policy.  (July 19, 2013, “The List — Where was it Found?”)

This page is less about the NGA (National Governors’ Association) and the NFI (National Fatherhood Initiative) than about one of the causes they coordinated together to push, as referenced in a short publication in 1998 (and, FYI, previously in 1994), with “PRWORA” (welfare reform = government budget major restructuring of the Social Services Act, called the largest change since it was enacted in 1934…) approved by Congress in between, in 1996.

This single theme of “responsible fatherhood” spawned many kinds of programming and (of course) generated ongoing public revenues and multiple programs (with associated nonprofit organizations as well as functions within existing government agencies) ever since, and to this day.

However in this page, I still do talk about both organizations below.  Every citizen should know about this type of organization through which legislation and suggestions for what the Executive Branch Leadership of any state (i.e., Governors, with their cabinets, chief staff members including agency heads which they appoint, and through the power of governmental executive orders at times)  can be forcefully enacted without bothering to run it by the state legislatures.

NGA logo (low-resolution, from Wikipedia site, which explains that it believes this is fair copyright use)

NGA logo (low-resolution, from Wikipedia site, which explains that it believes this is fair copyright use)

However the NGA is one of the oldest of such entities of this type (far older than, for example, the “National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges”) at, per website, 1908 origins.

Mission/About page

Who We Are

Founded in 1908, the National Governors Association (NGA) is the collective voice of the nation’s governors and one of Washington, D.C.’s most respected public policy organizations. Its members are the governors of the 55 states, territories and commonwealths. NGA provides governors and their senior staff members with services that range from representing states on Capitol Hill and before the Administration on key federal issues to developing and implementing innovative solutions to public policy challenges through the NGA Center for Best Practices. NGA also provides management and technical assistance to both new and incumbent governors.

Notice, please, that telling the public (website viewers on the main or “About” pages) what a group does, or giving it a metaphorical description — such as “the collective voice” — or using the vague word “organization” does not reveal its true essence.  This section of most “about” pages is normally public relations, and promotional, no matter for whom.  What we, the public (and taxpayers) OUGHT to be told whenever civil servants, or government entities — or for that matter, government funding — is involved, is exactly what type of entity the website represents:  Government or Private Nonstock Corporation (the main two options), or is the website actually representing some type of center, initiative. or project of one or more public (government) — or private (which includes the 501©3s and other nonprofits) “entity.”

So, the “NGA Center for Best Practices” can be identified — it has an EIN#, a start-date, and it files tax returns (shown below).  It is an “Inc.”

Wikipedia article explains that the NGA (as opposed to its “Center for Best Practices”) developed from the 1907 “Inland Waterways Commission” set up by President Roosevelt during the Progressive area, and in part because of transportation: the railroads weren’t moving product fast enough, but also for management purposes.

So, if you live in a single state, is that governor going to listen to organized citizen ideas, or considerations — or will their ears be tuned to those in other states — and from their Corporate Fellows Program? (Established 80 years later, that is, in 1988).  I have a post about “the List” some years old, and have copied the current list of “Corporate Fellows” in this “public/private partnership” (see also that link) at the bottom of this page.  Many are pharmaceutical, or oil, or computer/electronic related.

However, for just one example of  an NGA “Corporate Fellow,…”

One half-billion-dollar (assets) organization, however, (started in 1960 and acting nonprofit) is simply HUGE.

As one of the main issues every governor deals with, and as this one also has D.C. Lobbyists (its returns say), is it really right they also have privileged access (along with others who can, as corporations, pay for it)?(Background-color light-blue = regarding ACT, Inc. as an example of an NGA Corporate Fellow, and not main page subject matter, although it says a lot about the NGA and its NGA Center for Best Practices as a vehicle for standardizing education (and other policy issues) throughout the country, and — more importantly — for removing the debate, consideration and decision-making processes further away from local representation through Constitutionally established means, i.e., the governors as a whole are to represent the best interests of people living IN their states FIRST, not multi-national, for-profit (or here not-for-profit, but astoundingly profitable nevertheless) corporations FIRST, and then persuade the public to agree what was decided privately, and off-the-legislative record.

Search Again [[NOTICE:  more recent year’s results shown above in the “preview section” /blogger LGH 4-28-2017]]

ACT Foundation IA 2014 990 38 $30,414,072.00 27-2574917
ACT FOUNDATION IA 2013 990 37 $25,852,803.00 27-2574917
Act Foundation IA 2012 990 30 $25,000,000.00 27-2574917
ACT, Inc. IA 2014 990 105 $530,638,419.00 42-0841485
ACT, Inc. IA 2013 990 91 $509,217,424.00 42-0841485
Act, Inc. IA 2012 990 92 $501,993,190.00 42-0841485
ACT policy platforms

ACT has articulated policy recommendations in the form of policy platforms in three areas: K–12 education, postsecondary education, and workforce development. The platforms are an essential part of the ACT mission to help people achieve education and workplace success.

ACT recommendations are informed by its data and research, which reinforce the importance of individuals meeting appropriate achievement benchmarks at every point along the continuum from kindergarten through career. Each of these policy platforms focuses on specific goals, but they are also interrelated components of a unified approach to improving an individual’s success along the continuum.

The supporting foundation above dates to 2010 ($30M), and the other, to 1960 ($530M).  This one doesn’t even take grants — it has program revenues so high, plus it also raised $12M from selling around $300M of its own securities.  Its 3 hours/week Part VIIA (Key personnel) are earning a middle-class income (Between $30 & $60K), the CEO over $800M, and 8 more key personnel somewhere between $300K and $450K (approximate) plus benefits.  The organization is worldwide and obviously quantity is a big source of its revenues, testing both in the education and workforce assessment fields.  ACT, Inc. gave about $3.9M grants out, I saw, but of this $3M was to its own supporting organization (a kind of “reverse-relationship” I guess).  It’s holding at year end over $300 million in public traded securities (Part X Line 11), and $30M in “program-related investments” — which turns out to be in its own supporting organization, above.

They have 129, it says, independent subcontractors, with the largest one having been paid $37M.  The size is simply ridiculous, and all of this PRIVATE, and under the control of a board of (independently voting), only 14 individuals.

ACT, Inc. has “a network of state organizations” and has the country regionalized — into five districts.  I would print the map of the US with its Northwest, Southwest, SouthEast, Midwest, and Northeast sectors — but web technology (its site and my device) doesn’t facilitate this.  I don’t believe they may wish to advertise the plan. Scroll down to see that inset map of the USA.  Reminds me of the existing HHS administrative regions also, formerly the “Federal Security Agency” divisions.

And going this as tax-exempt organization, both of them.

2017 Update — Screenprints from ACT Inc and one or two from ACT Foundation.  I just want to show size, scope and in general, activities.  Most are from a single year’s tax return, link is above. I’m not annotating them, so if the images are too small to read, go locate that section on the related tax return! I hope that the impact will be self-explanatory.  

I may (or may not) come back and print pdfs for individual clearer viewing, but having made these screenprints for my own reference, thought they might be of interest to others also.

(In general this part of the filename identifies the images: “(EIN#420841485 Inc 1960, FY2013 YE Aug31) 530M assets Iowa Corp w Global SchedRs (Educ+Wkforce) SShot 2017Apr27”) See light-blue background section above.  Along the right side of these images, the page narrative continues as if they weren’t there, and doesn’t refer to them:

The Corporate Fellows list of the NGA, or even the NGA, isn’t the main point of this page, but I do want us to be aware of the organizational setup, and how long it’s been in existence.

For a point of reference, here are two tables with links to recent  tax returns for the two organizations mentioned in the Page title (The NGA and NFI) with SOME (not much) discussion below each table:

Search Again

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2014 990 43 $24,025,416.00 23-7391796
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2013 990 43 $21,492,523.00 23-7391796
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices DC 2012 990 41 $20,505,756.00 23-7391796

Definitely recommend becoming aware of this organization and its purposes, and sources of revenue, given that all 50 governors of the states and five US territories, are members, and currently Governors John Hickenlooper, Mike Pence, Pat McCrory and John Kitzhaber, currently Board of Directors.   Also interesting is how they manage to have “0” employees (Part I Summary, and Part VIIA:  Directors Officers Trustees, Key and Highest Paid Employees) Column “D” Is blank — and the pay is from “Related Organizations) and totals $2.2M + benefits) in those other columns.  Yet, On Part I under “Expenses” they record over half their contributions ($15M this year), that is, over $8M was spent on “Salaries.”  Without employees, one has no “salaries.”

The “Related Organization” Paying those salaries and sharing facilities is not the “Center for Best Practices” but FYI the NGA itself, with a different EIN#.  (See Schedule R, on the above returns), shown as:

NGA EIN# per Tax Return (above) is 52-1020381,

but you will not find a tax return for it (feel free to try — I provided the link above), because apparently the NGA is a governmental instrumentality (check website for better definition) and NOT a private nonprofit.

However, as a private nonprofit (governed by the government instrumentality of this NGA), I see that the latest tax return showed $15M of “contributions.”  Of these, Part VIII shows that it’s approximately ⅓ “government grants” (over $5,3M) and two-thirds [private, i.e., non-government], that is, over $9.9M.  Look at Line 1, Part VIII.   Meanwhile, on Schedule R, Part V (transactions with related organizations), I see about $3M total being exchanged under categories m,n, and o.  Unfortunately, which direction the funds were going isn’t clear (to me, that is):

  • m Performance of services or membership or fundraising solicitations by related organization(s)
  • n Sharing of facilities, equipment, mailing lists, or other assets with related organization(s)
  • o Sharing of paid employees with related organization(s)

And, the NFI (formed first in 1994 and referenced in the subject matter of today’s main pdf):

[UPDATE: THIS “National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc.” SECTION HAS JUST BEEN MOVED / OFF-RAMPED….  You can find it block-copied (but I added a few more recent tax returns) to my new post.  It shortens this Page by about 1,000 words only, unfortunately!]  The EIN# shows in the title:

I have just posted it (and some updates) as a fresh post (of about 5,000 words only) on May 20, 2020.   I’d started the off-ramp Jan. 2020 but only posted it today,. which the new post also explains near the top.  It has a short intro also.

New post (also visible by Month & Year (then, click on that Date) under Blog sidebar’s Calendar (“Archives”) and for a while, on right sidebar “Last Ten Posts” widget)…  Text from original page continues below here.  Thanks for your patience.//LGH 20 May, 2020.

In general (nationwide and as to domestic violence) I can see that there has been a progressive attempt to push “diversionary services” and classifying criminal activity as a social-services problem for prevention and treatment rather than as straight crime with consequences.  No question tax-exempt foundations are often aligned on this trend, particularly (it has come up) Annie E. Casey Foundation and (John D. and Catherine T. ) MacArthur Foundation.  In coordinated, strategized efforts for changing the nation’s (and states’) criminal, justice, and family court systems, a few topics will be targeted, and the network speaks towards those in the coordinated campaigns.
The next three links are FYI, and you can see this push in action.  Because I read so much (possibly too much) on specific topics, all three of the first links have already been explored as to their origins.  For example, the “JJIE” is “Juvenile Justice Information Exchange, the project of The Center for Sustainable Journalism center at Kennsesaw State University, started within the last ten years (2010, 2011 it seems), and featuring a specific professor.
Another link, the url reads “CSGJusticeCenter.org” where “CSG stands for “Council on State Governments.”  The “Council on State Governments” name refers actually to several different nonprofits functioning, in some ways, like the NGA — collaborating privately to determine strategy, then the membership (on the main group, a lot of Senators, Representatives, and some Judges) — selling it “locally,” that is, to the States.
Like the NGA Center for Best Practices, actually being a private tax-exempt corporation (actually, several of them bearing similar name and out of the same street address or PO Box in Lexington, KY) can take private sponsorship — as well as government grants from federal and state level.

Yet another link, with some informational commentary on who or what is the Juvenile Justice Authority in Kansas, the url is labeled “NCJJ.org.”  NCJJ as I discussed in some 2016 posts is a project of the National Council for Family and Juvenile Court Judges (“NCJFCJ”) that this blog often speaks about because it’s played such a prominent role in trying to standardize how the family courts handle domestic violence (and fatherhood) issues, by partnering with key nonprofit entities, through conferencing, and private publications of benchmarks, judges’ guides, “toolkits” and guidelines on how judges should rule, depending on the context.  These nonprofits exchange funds among each other (for example, the NCJFCJ has donated to San Francisco’s Family Violence Prevention Fund (now “Futures without Violence”) while also taking direct public funding from both the USDOJ and the US Department of HHS, as well as private contributions to “problem-solve,”  functioning often as “technical assistance and trainers” (i.e., controllers, basically) for pilot projects intended to go national and become blueprint

The NCJFCJ, meanwhile, has many judges on its board of directors.

While the website features one prominent foundation sponsor, Annie E. Casey seems to have a stake in it, i.e., it’s foundation-sponsored journalism with the goal aligned with funders’ goals — diversionary services for juveniles, in particular:
I’m moving this “offsides” (to another Page) under “Council on State Governments/Justice Center.” I’ll leave the three search results for “Juvenile Justice Authority” (Kansas) without discussing them.  The first search result was from “CSG Justice Center” where “CSG stands for “Council on State Governments.”  It was first organized in 1933 ,and is one of those things we just need to know about….!!

Juvenile Justice Authority (Kansas) Search Results (all emphases added/comments below each box):

(1) Report Outlines Flaws in Kansas’ Juvenile Justice System – CSG Justice Center March 4, 2015, by Tim Carpenter (quoting the Topeka Capital-Journal)

(2) State Profile of Kansas Delinquency Services (produced by the “NCJJ” in Pittsburgh with a “contact” referencing the Kansas Juvenile Justice Authority at the bottom.

I profiled the NCJJ as an NCJFCJ operation, which it is (with NCJFCJ being the nonprofit in Reno) in 2016 posts.  Look at table of contents under the title “The Find” (or “About the Find”) regarding NCJFCJ.  Or, within this blog, search for “E Hunter Hurst III” who ran the NCJJ for years, and was honored in an NCJFCJ memorial on his death in 2012.  … Which conveniently omitted his participation in a major multi-million-dollar, for-profit enterprise specializing in the exact kind of services his work at the NCFJCFJ was pushing for diversion to. It says, in part:


Kansas is a decentralized state, meaning that delinquency services are mostly organized at the local level, with the state providing support for a statewide network of community-based resources and graduated sanctions. Counties typically administer secure detention. The court services divisions of District Courts administer juvenile probation services, including predisposition investigation and probation. The state Juvenile Justice Authority administers commitment programs and con- tracts with local providers for community-based intake assessment, treatment, and aftercare ser- vices


District Court judges commit youth to the custody of the Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA) Commissioner for a determinate period in a juvenile cor- rectional facility as prescribed in the Kansas sentencing matrix, K.S.A. 38- 2369. District Court judges may only depart from the matrix within limits imposed by statute.



Aftercare is called conditional release in Kansas. Conditional release is administered at the local level through the Juvenile Justice Authority’s (JJA) Community Case Management network. The Community Case Management network is funded through JJA grants to local service providers that also pro- vide community-based alternatives to juvenile corrections. The administration of aftercare varies de- pending on the program resources at the community level.

Citation and Juvenile Justice Contact person for this short description:

[[2017 Update — I have blogged on the NCJJ in context of its controlling entity (NCJJ doesn’t appear to be its own separate “entity”) in 2016.  Look for post title “About NCJFCJ” and referencing a “Find.”]]

National Center for Juvenile Justice. 2011. “Kansas.” State Juvenile Justice Profiles. Pittsburgh, PA: NCJJ. Online. Compiled By: Andrew Wachter & Nina Hyland.

Don Chronister
Juvenile Justice Specialist Juvenile Justice Authority
714 Southwest Jackson St. Ste. 300 Topeka, KS 66603
Phone: (785)-296-4213
Fax: (785) 296-1412 dchronister@jja.ks.gov

 As you can see, in the context of congressional protests when Siedlicki was proposing moving the JJA under the SRS, this would upset some of the direction and mechanisms of cash flow to local, nonprofit (most likely) service providers.

(3) A 2013 article in the “JJIE” (Juvenile Justice Information Exchange)  “Kansas Merges Juvenile System and Adult Correctional System” By  | July 9, 2013

This month, a merger of Kansas’s juvenile justice system and adult correctional system goes into effect, with the state’s Juvenile Justice Authority (JJA) officially being incorporated into the Kansas Department of Corrections (KDOC.)

The consolidation is the result of an executive order proposed by Gov. Sam Brownback at the start of the state’s 2013 Legislative session. The merger, which took effect July 1, is strictly administrative; juvenile populations, while now under supervision from the KDOC, will not be combined with any adult correctional populations…..

Under the KDOC, the new division will be called “Juvenile Services,” incorporating all of the state’s juvenile corrections programs and facilities, with acting JJA Commissioner Terri Williams serving as the first Deputy Secretary of the new agency.

….The KDOC estimates the state’s current juvenile population to be approximately 1,500 youths, with around 325 offenders placed at Kansas’s two state-level juvenile facilities. The JJA was established as a cabinet-level agency in 1997, and routinely drew criticism for mismanagement and a lack of sufficient programming.

So we see that two years after an attempt to put JJA (a Cabinet-level agency) under SRS, it was instead moved to the DOC.  Notice it was only set up in 1997 (one year after welfare reform).

See Page “The Juvenile Justice Systems Change Apparatus (the Networked Nonprofits, such as the Council on State Governments Inc. with its “Justice Center”, and the Public AND Private Money behind them):  Who’s been Pushing the Paradigm Shift?” — or a better title if I can think of one meanwhile, leaving a link to it here:

So, getting back to the NFI tax returns:


I have some similar comments on that page regarding the contents of the tax returns, so for now am leaving this text here as  ‘footprint’; section marked by different font and background color:

On the National Fatherhood Initiative tax returns, you can see, generally, that there appears to be a winding down of held assets by Year-ending 2014 (fiscal year 2013 ending in 2014) in at least the last three years.  The fiscal year 2014 (return not found in this search — and I searched September 2016…) would mark twenty years from its founding in 1994.
I’ll wait to say or show more; right now the internet access and this device’s processing speed has been unstable for three days; and showing the pattern is a little complex (would require posting the images from some of the returns as show and tell).  However, apart from WHO is on the leadership of the NFI each year, anyone can see from the top return that it is (1) incomplete (parts of the header — legal domicile, date of formation; from Page 1 Part I “Prior year” column — the “expenses / Salaries” is missing.  The Part VIIA (Key personnel) salary figure is missing also from Part IX (Expenses) where it belongs on Line 5.
Other things are simply not credible (Schedule A pattern of support — contributions drop off dramatically in a certain year, and suddenly they are selling $1M of books and publications?), and certain things which the IRS says should have an explanation, are not explained.  For example, Part IX, Line 11g “Other” when it’s more than 10% of the total functional expenses (which the Year ending 2014 was, as I remember seeing it just now) should be explained in “Schedule O.” Schedule O, referring to that Part IX, Line 11g, says (explains) nothing, but simply labels some numbers “other fees” and doesn’t even bother to include the total.
Earlier returns from this organization, while it was still receiving some government (HHS presumably) grants also involved the subcontractor “ICF International, LLC” (or similar name), which is odd because that organization also received direct HHS grants as a major marriage/fatherhood strategist and clearinghouse provider, etc.   ICF International is a multimillion-dollar FOR-profit, global (multinational) corporation who’s made most of its wealth contracting for and receiving grants from the federal government.  ICF originally stood for “Inner City Fund.”  it’s “History/About” page should be read by anyone concerned about the family courts, because this is a major involved corporation — not setting policy, but carrying it out. It also showed up under “The Greenbook Initiative” (2000-2007 or so), but that’s another subject matter.
In general, viewing those tax returns (and reciting in part above what I remembered from previous times viewing them, over a year ago), there is too much “monkey-business” going on surrounding them, as well as surrounding the  named HHS grants (such as illogical typos in the grant name, and even Principal Investigator (Christopher Brown — how can one mis-spell the name “Christopher”?? or “Fatherhood”?)  over at HHS).  The returns are internally inconsistent and in general, many times, incompletely filled out. Listing in just how many ways would be quite the project.…And yet, this is the same organization promoting itself as a “thought leader” and with whom the NGA (below) produced a piece in 1998 on how governors were properly promoting responsible fatherhood,” in order that the entire nation should jump to attention and march to this tune.
And, some of the board of directors then, and now, were clearly highly positioned within government.  Consider that when reviewing some of the work product, as shown on this page, dating back to 1998!@@@@

While this is a long title, I’m putting the page up quickly, and it’s a short post  with primarily just one link to discuss — and not in depth either. But it does point to the function played by an organization I brought up on my verbose “Table of Contents” page.

This page serves to post a pdf I ran across years ago, and which showed me the level of betrayal of open government, representative government, and the public interest of US Citizens, through a private association of state-level executive-branch officials called GOVERNORS.

August 1998 + 18 years  = 2016.

(One generation born then just now attained “majority” and became adults.  Perhaps we should inform them, and their mothers, about the NGA activities “back when..”)
A National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices “Stateline” communication (August 1998) 

One Generation Later seems a good time to remind us of what the NGA was doing, privately, without public fanfare, within two years of 1996s PRWORA and only four years of founding the National Fatherhood Initiative, an HHS grantees started and run in part by former HHS, high-ranking employees (the one cited in this link is Wade Horn), which would naturally give them an insiders’ understanding of what was coming down the road with welfare reform, about those $150 million/year responsible fatherhood/healthy marriage grants, and about the already in place access and visitation grants (which after 1996 were legislated to $10 million/year) designed to increase noncustodial parent contact, which being combined with the other funding stream for proselytizing (Public Service Announcements, electronic clearinghouses (websites), TV spots, training of social services personnel, Press Releases, White House promotion, and other propaganda) against “mother-headed families” would in practice mean, decreasing mother/child contact and parenting time where Daddy was not already resident or in control.

Since this was now the official new “religion” (but being couched in sociological terms, it was allegedly scientific and not religion posing as science), and with help from a 1995 Executive Order about Fatherhood from then-President Wm. J. Clinton (who set a good example as a father through his ongoing affairs with other women, I must say, as did it seems some other popular previous U.S. Presidents — but let’s not talk about that in the same breath with preaching at OTHER fathers…), we then also saw grants labeled “promoting responsible fatherhood” or similar terms which were not specifically under the assigned funding stream, CFDA 93086, by that title.

A push was on that long ago run fatherhood outreach through Head Start.  Like a verbal magnet for revenues, once in place, “the sky’s the limit” in expansion of what amounts to privatized government services for almost anything.  Where it may have originally been only targeted at a certain demographic, not long after (which 1998 most certainly is — NOT long after), probably to get past Congress more openly, as this example shows, the target demographic was ALL fathers, of ALL ages, not just noncustodial, not just low-income.

Immediate context: I am trying to get out a condensed “Table of Contents” (2016 only) page, and simultaneously bite my tongue, treby leaving the actual TOC close to the  top of my post, for a change.

However, I was reminded of the 0-5 (“First 5”) theme, discovered new developments, and as this theme is pushing programming, which is to say, PUBLIC FUNDING for programming, which is also to say, as whatever the new cause is, no doubt a new set of public/private partnerships have to be instituted and advertised/promoted/rationalized.  That is, in addition to expanding the offerings of existing infrastructure, such as social service providers.

I remembered from my writings over the years, how much fatherhood was pushed through Head Start programming (and/or Early Head Start), which (“coincidentally”) tends to be among the largest already-existing funding streams coming through HHS.   I also have been learning recently, through a center at Cornell University, and a one I’d been aware of for years at Yale (Yale Child Study Center), both run over the years (as to directorships) primarily by men (not to mention that Yale itself had been primarily for men most of its existence), and the relationship of the fields of developmental / “child psychology” to both Head Start and to also the population coming through the family courts which — remarkably — tend to have children.

I remembered, but not precisely, how in 1994 a statewide program targeting young fathers in Arizona had been set up, as well as “Arizona Fathers and Families Coalition” claiming to have dated to 1994 (although it only incorporated in 2004 — which is a whole different story).  In short, I went looking for that.

Some references to it exist in this 1998 publication put out by the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.

Common themes, including starting with low-income, noncustodial parents and suggesting the fathers get involved at birth, and promotion include Head Start programs (how I came to post this today was in reference to the push for putting all (except the children of the elite) the nation’s children into programming BEFORE kindergarten, so they will come to the public schools K-12 monopoly “ready to learn,” or for other reasons), in reading you may notice include declaring a crisis which necessitates suspending normal forms of government and centralizing/coordinating services (by designated emergency cause — here, fatherlessness — based on (whatever….) across the state, and delegating “train-the-trainer” organizations as well.

As PRWORA centralized and reformulated federal aid to the state into “Block grants” to be distributed flexibly, at state discretion (while states who refused to re-structure their own child support systems into SDUs ( Statewide Distribution Units) or otherwise comply, were free to decline federal assistance and handle their impoverished populations themselves.**

**An oversimplification, but still the element of pressure/extortion was involved.  The federal restructured matters under state control.  States were given some time to comply.

Some commentary on this brief promotional piece:

A National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices “Stateline” communication (1998)

Summarizing fatherhood programs across the nation, with help from National Fatherhood Initiative and thanks to Wade Horn. It’s a short pdf with just a few footnotes, and note it was intended for distribution at an upcoming meeting of — the nation’s governors..:

Promoting Responsible Fatherhood: An Update

Committee on Human Resources
Employment and Social Services Policy Studies Division Contacts: Nolan E. Jones, 202/624-5360
David E. Brown, 202/624-5427
August 3, 1998

According to many indicators of child well-being, America’s children fare worse than their counterparts of just a generation ago. The sharp rise in the number of children living in fatherless households is a significant factor influencing child well-being.

Today four out of every ten children in the United States are not living in the same home as their biological father, and nearly half of all children being raised in mother-headed families* are living in poverty.

“Mother-headed families” is an awkward phrase:  Coining sweeping terms to attach to the negative description — but where is the cite to (proof) of either fact, or of how those two facts being connected in a cause:effect relationship?

According to the National Fatherhood Initiative, children with absent fathers are more likely to fail or drop out of school, engage in early sexual activity, develop drug and alcohol problems, and experience or perpetrate violence.*

The “National Fatherhood Initiative,” which this 1998 publication does not say, is a nonprofit formed just two years before welfare reform (in 1994) and to counter, in part, the 1994 passage of the Violence Against Women Act.  Significant originators formerly worked in the Department of HHS and NFI itself has been and was then no doubt also, an HHS grantee.  The funds it wishes to access and direct, would be administered through HHS.

In recent years, the National Fatherhood Initiative and other national organizations** have sought to raise public awareness that fathers make unique and irreplaceable contributions to the lives of their children and that every American needs to encourage and support men to be good and responsible fathers. These efforts have focused on all fathers, including fathers in two-parent families, teen fathers, noncustodial fathers (both divorced and never-married), and single fathers

**This summary doesn’t mention even one other.  Even back in 1998, look at the organized efforts.  I picked this particular reference because it talked about Head Start, and targeting noncustodial fathers for assistance.

This StateLine highlights initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood. Pennsylvania Governor Tom Ridge and Washington Governor Gary Locke, chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Governors’ Association (NGA) Committee on Human Resources, asked all of the nation’s Governors to submit a short description of one initiative to promote responsible fatherhood that they admire. The NGA Center for Best Practices compiled and standardized these descriptions for distribution at the NGA 1998 Winter Meeting, February 21–24, 1998, in Washington, D.C. Additional initiative profiles were requested and submitted in June and July, and the StateLine was updated for distribution at the NGA 1998 Annual Meeting, August 1–4, 1998, in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.


Thirty-nine Governors submitted descriptions of fatherhood initiatives. Most of the initiatives profiled by the states fall into six categories:
services for low-income, noncustodial fathers;
parenting skills training;

public awareness campaigns; state fatherhood commissions; comprehensive funding streams; and premature fatherhood prevention.

…More than half of the states that have applied for federal Welfare-to-Work formula grants plan to target noncustodial fathers of children receiving Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) for employment and training and other related services.

Parenting Skills Training

Several states profiled projects that build the parenting skills of fathers. Connecticut has launched a demonstration project that targets noncustodial fathers of children enrolled in Head Start. Delaware offers parenting education and other services to incarcerated fathers. A Hawaii initiative works with fathers in families identified as at risk for child abuse and neglect. Idaho has developed a parent training curriculum for divorced fathers. New York funded four demonstration projects serving young fathers. North Carolina featured a program serving teen fathers…

Public Awareness Campaigns

To increase public awareness of the critical role of fathers, Arizona, Colorado, and Michigan have partnered with professional sport franchises to spearhead media campaigns that use professional athletes as role models. Arkansas convened a conference that included men wanting to become better fathers among the attendees and included sessions focused on fatherhood. Georgia has enlisted nearly 400 men to serve as spokespersons, mentors, and advocates of better parenting and has publicized the campaign through bus cards, public service announcements in movie theaters, and television, radio, and newspaper interviews. A private organization in Illinois** heightened public awareness by hosting a community leader briefing, conducting a survey on people’s perceptions of fatherhood, training “father skills” trainers, and publishing children’s essays on fatherhood. …

**Why the secrecy — was this perhaps a Jeffrey Leving, Esq. – involved organization? It was apparently a “train-the-trainer” organization.

…South Carolina convened a summit in 1997 to shape a consensus among community leaders and social service providers on the importance of fatherhood. Texas will convene the first annual “Texas Fatherhood Forum: A Statewide Call to Action” in Houston on October 8, 1998. Virginia launched a multipronged campaign that encourages all men to commit themselves to being good fathers, including spending time with their children and becoming more responsible for the health and welfare of their children.

Does this sound like it is particularly aimed at low-income families only?  No… but it WAS aimed at commandeering resources allocated, under welfare reform of 1996, towards “Temporary Assistance for Needy Families,” (TANF) and as you can see, almost immediately expanded for public relations campaigns aimed at ALL families.

State Fatherhood Commissions

Florida and Massachusetts have established commissions focusing on responsible fatherhood. A commission in Florida is addressing the need for a coordinated, statewide effort to increase awareness of the effects of absent fathers on the state’s children and promote responsible fatherhood. Massachusetts’ commission was established in response to the crisis of absent fathers and the need for greater government and community coordination in support of the commonwealth’s families.

Comprehensive Funding Streams

California and Indiana have established new funding streams to establish and support local programs promoting responsible fatherhood. California’s initiative seeks to break the cycle of teen and unwed pregnancies and address the issues of statutory rape and absent fathers across the state.  Indiana has funded fifty-four programs across the state to increase fathers’ involvement with their children, decrease out-of- wedlock pregnancies, improve service accessibility for fathers, improve parenting skills and coparenting relationships, raise the high school graduation rates of teen fathers, and increase paternity establishment and child support.

Indiana by August 1998 had already 54 programs (where is the footnote?).  These programs would be by nature accessing both Access and Visitation funding (administered by HHS) and marriage/fatherhood funding most likely (much more, and administered by HHS also), plus probably help from private sources also.  Nonprofits were probably proliferating, lining up, to get these grants, and/or contracts….

Selected Initiatives to Promote Responsible Fatherhood


The Arizona Division of Child Support Enforcement has partnered with the Child Support Coordinating Council and the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League to increase public recognition of the importance of being a responsible father. Governor Jane Dee Hull held a press conference to kick off the campaign, “Fatherhood Can Be Child’s Play.” To promote the campaign, billboards have been posted in the state’s two largest metropolitan areas, Phoenix and Tucson, and posters have been distributed statewide to child support enforcement offices and community-based organizations, such as Head Start programs. The posters and billboards portraying members of the Cardinals with their children read, “Halfback, Fullback, Piggyback” and “No Penalty for Holding.”

The total cost of the project was $39,690; of this amount, the state provided $13,230. Contact: Nancy Mendoza, Division of Child Support Enforcement, Arizona Department of Economic Security, 602/274- 7646.

This is the only summary on the pdf referencing a dollar amount.  The dollar amounts were ongoing, sometimes lost- in-transition (both “undistributable child support” when it comes to welfare reform (PRWORA) restructuring, and — my blog has shown plenty of this — grantees which “take the money and run” (cease to exist as a legitimate corporation or nonprofit), and/or report different amounts on their tax returns than the HHS reports having distributed to them (per database http://TAGGS.hhs.gov), and among some of the major curriculum providers, as I posted this year regarding a nonprofit associated with the Gottmans, in the Pacific Northwest, a post “Dumpster Diving in the Credibility Gap” as I recall.


Governor Mike Huckabee convened the Governor’s Conference on the Family November 1, 1997, to address the need to strengthen Arkansas families. The conference centered on the principles that families are the bedrock on which healthy societies are built and that marriage is the heart of family life. To ensure the future economic, moral, physical, and psychological health of Arkansas’ children and grandchildren, the state must work to preserve this firm foundation. Wade Horn, executive director of the National Fatherhood Initiative, played a key role in the Governor’s conference. He led a general session and two concurrent sessions that focused on fatherhood and the emerging fatherhood movement.


That’s all I’m going to detail for now. Anyone who follows this blog knows that I typically am going to look up the organizations involved and seek out their fiscal filings.  I went into some very fine print of the “NGA” on their website (as it was in the fine print part) to discover their “Center for Best Practices” and how “Corporate Fellows” could, by paying, get a private audience and forum with the governors, all together at their meeting, in a way that many citizens of their own states would find hard to get during the year.  The “NGA” is NOT a nonprofit itself but a government instrumentality; however, their “Center for Best Practices” which shares staff and resources is) and thereby is legit to receive direct contributions.

The National Fatherhood Initiative as a nonprofit is not itself that large (financially), but it has been from the start highly-connected to the  Executive Branch.

The NFI has promoted the setup of a private, and extra-governmental circuitry of nonprofits designed to take, primarily (but not only) HHS funds  — and of course from private foundations behind the same causes — a setup making accountability to the average citizen, even as a full-time, unpaid job, virtually impossible.

We are also granting multiple millions of dollars through this ideology to public relations organizations, such as Public Strategies, Inc. in Oklahoma, or ICF, International, I believe in Virginia now.  In addition, the funding of electronic “clearinghouses” to promote the same, such as fatherhood.gov or healthymarriage.org, themselves specialize in moving information electronically with a view to standardize and promote certain values over others which might be more representative of the general public.

For more information on some of this, go to the organization websites (use of the “Wayback Machine” from “Internet Archive” to see older versions might be helpful), go to http://TAGGS.hhs.gov and notice the strategic mis-spelling of key organization (or key grant) titles in this field.

I encourage you to read the rest of this document, and develop an awareness of this field and the processes by which it is funded and how it represents an increasing privatization of government.  What’s particularly “public” about it is the public’s role in sponsorship through receipts obtained from them quarterly and yearly, decade after decade throughout a work life (for most people), in the form of taxation.

The false propaganda (based on governmental, especially federal governmental BUDGET, not Income-producing Assets) “HAS to” continue that we (the USA) are broke and therefore citizens must continue compromising legal, due process, individual civil rights, and expectation of fair hearing if accused of a crime, and if innocent of a crime, to be left alone and pursue our own lives and goals.

Family court (as well as no-fault divorce) has done more to compromise the prosecution of actual criminals, and facilitate the “criminalizing” instead of dissidents to violations of privacy, right to freedom of association (including to separate from violent spouses), right to have hopes, dreams and plans for their own offspring and pursue them, so long as they are doing this within the constraints of the law, and refraining from harming others, including the children.  Claiming concern about domestic violence on one hand, then failing to categorize it similarly in different venues (criminal, family. civil courts).

What this document reveals is not just using sweeping generalities based on gender and biological function of human beings to place a relative value — higher for males — on their lives and abilities, without regard to behavior or performance.

It also continues to while tossing this hot, volatile, emotional, and religiously-partisan topic to a crowds, pursue private agendas — apart from an informed audience — by means of the conferences and private audiences with state leadership — to divert federal aid away from the people it was intended to help (as to food stamps and welfare) — into, state by state, a statewide-centralized, coordinated set of nonprofit organizations of dubious character, origins, and — overall — unmonitored performance and handling of receipts and further distributions.  This is unfair to the public, parents and non-parents, who are lectured about the good of the system, while being hit with part of the bill for it. It actually sets up a number of artificially constructed “professions” — actually, “practices.”  I’m talking about the term “Fatherhood practitioner.”

Do you Know Your NGA?  Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added 9/2016) [<==with a shortlink, courtesy “tinyurl.com”]

Now there is even a “Fatherhood Research and Practice Network” (FRPN.org) at Temple University, co-lead by a group of “fatherhood practitioner” types and the leadership of the Center for Policy Research (“CPR”) in Denver Colorado, who has been in on this promotional from the earliest years, playing the role of “evaluator” of the programming, despite known conflicts of interest.  (Jessica Pearson of CPR  has long-term connections to the AFCC (see my sidebar 1983 letter showing this), which is influential in family court circles.

According to Liz Richards of “nafcj.net” (on that site, I’m referring to the individual in the Washington, D.C. area, and not another person by the same name in, I believe it was, Minnesota involved with a domestic violence organization), Jessica Pearson was also among the original incorporators of the “CRC” (Children’s Rights Council — website “CRCKIds.org”) which has been acknowledged as a fathers’ rights group for a very long time (google’ Disconnected Dads” document put out by Policy Impact Seminars, I believe it was called) and among the earliest pushers for the “access and visitation grants.”


Checking out some of the California references in this single 1998 document promoting responsible fatherhood, it’s obvious that California’s then-Governor, the Republican Pete Wilson, was “on the same page” with promotion. This became even more evident in one of his State of the State addresses, referencing a certain Director of California Social Services (now she’s in Wisconsin), as associated with a conservative think-tank from California.

In hindsight, I see as myself in 1990 a professional woman about to get first married, then become a mother (unfortunately, to an abusive and physically violent/battering spouse), this was unfortunate timing on my part, not with regard to where I was in life, or personal abilities, but politically for any marriage which potentially might turn out to be abusive, dangerous, i.e., involving domestic violence.   For mothers to leave abusers in this state, politically, the 1990s was a lousy time, and worse (apparently more difficult) than in the 1980s.

However, as we are seeing, the policy was federally (and privately) funded, intended to be at least national (actually, international, but as regards HHS domestic funding categories, I’m talking across the USA) and do this through the vehicles set up to nationalize, standardize and federalize not just revenues, but also legislatures ,what Governors do, and handling of crime, abuse (adult or child), divorce, and many other areas of life which involve the increasingly controlled human residents of the states, whose rights are primarily restricted to the states (unless they have a federal cause of action such as civil rights violation), but whose liabilities are not, and while supporting institutions whose loyalties apparently lies elsewhere than with the public.

Continued (with California focus) on this post:   The Year was 1998, and California Gov. Pete Wilson’s State-of-the-State Address Reveals his Connex to the NGA Post-PRWORA Pro-Fatherhood  Agenda + via Eloise Anderson to Fathers’ Rights Group “Children’s Rights Council” (CRCKids.org)


CORPORATE FELLOWS OF THE NGA (viewed 9/15/2016):  What industries are heavily represented?  Of corporations you may not recognize, which ones (how many) are you going to look up?  There’s no education like self-education….

The righthand column comes from a completely different nonprofit, the Council on State Governments and its “Justice Center” which it says was formed from an Eastern Regional Conference of the national nonprofit, only in 2006.  Below this list, I’ve posted also the Federal Funding Partners (which on the webpage are shown up top) under “past and present” funders.

NGA Center for Best Practices Corporate Fellows.

CSG Justice Center Local and Private Funding Partners**


(**Federal Funders shown at link, not on this table)

3M Company
ACT (more than college admissions testing); see pink-background quote below, or my paragraphs on nearer top of this WordPress Page):

Altria Client Services, Inc.
AmeriHealth Caritas 
American Electric Power
American Water 
Apollo Education Group
Astellas Pharma
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals
Archer Daniels Midland 
Atria Senior Living
Bank of America
Barrick Gold of North America, Inc.
Best Buy Co., Inc.
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Cerner Corporation
Cisco Systems
The Coca-Cola Company
Cognizant Technology Solutions
The College Board
Comcast Corporation
Covanta Energy
CVS Health
Daiichi Sankyo
Darden Restaurants
The Dow Chemical Company
DTE Energy
Duke Energy
Educational Testing Service
ExxonMobil Corporation
Ford Motor Company
Fiat Chrysler Automobiles
General Dynamics Information Technology 
General Electric Company
General Motors
Gilead Sciences, Inc. 
Golden Living
Hallmark Cards, Inc.
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
Hospital Corporation of America
HP Inc.
IBM Corporation
International Paper 
Johnson & Johnson
JPMorgan Chase & Co.
Kaiser Permanente
Marathon Oil
McKinsey & Company
Merck & Co., Inc.
Microsoft Corporation
Molina Healthcare, Inc.
Morgan Stanley
Motorola Solutions
Mylan Inc.
Nestle Waters North America
NIC, Inc.
Norfolk Southern
Northrop Grumman
Novartis Pharmaceuticals USA
Novo Nordisk Inc.
Oracle USA Inc.
Pearson Education
Purdue Pharma
Prime Therapeutics
The Procter & Gamble Company
Prudential Financial
SAS Institute Inc.
SCAN Health Plan
Southern Company
State Farm Insurance
TEVA Pharmaceuticals USA
Time Warner Cable
Toyota Motor North America 
Truven Health Analytics 
Unilever United States
UnitedHealth Group
Union Pacific Railroad
Verizon Communications
Vertex Pharmaceuticals
Walgreen Co.
Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

About “ACT”:

About Us (this link is fine print, bottom right, a little hard to find on their page):

Most people know us for the ACT test, but that’s just one aspect of our work.

It’s a fact that more than 1.8 million graduates have taken the ACT® each year—making us the leading US college admissions testing company. We also serve millions of job seekers, businesses, government agencies, and policymakers around the world.

[Different link] ACT State Organizations (!!) Be a Voice, Make a Difference

Our vision is to eliminate the skills gap by connecting the outcomes of K-12 and postsecondary to career opportunities. Join thousands of education and workforce professionals in all 50 states, plus the District of Columbia, on this quest.

ACT Research and Policy: Including Measures of Student Behavioral Skills in Accountability Systems

Written by Let's Get Honest|She Looks It Up

April 27, 2017 at 8:48 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: