In 2018, Clamors to Fix, Reform, or Make Kids Safe WITHIN Family Courts STILL (Abusively, Territorially, and Intentionally) Limit Possible Answers by Censoring Terms Admitting Other Historic Evidence — About The Courts (not “Batterers!”) AND Government Itself — while Coaching (even Certifying) Others to Imitate. (Published May 2, 2018)
MULTI-PARAGRAPH SECTION IN THIS COLOR SCHEME (inside the red borders with light-blue background, fine-print) was added during a post reformat, Sept. 9, 2018. Like many parts of the blog (it’s just a blog, not a company website with an on-line store!), I may move them later for either post-publication repentance (i.e., writer’s embarrassment) or more practical reasons (visual access to post contents and the current posts beneath the top (currently six) “Sticky” posts; this it #1 of those 6).
This blog has many points of entry. So much leading commentary is probably not most suitable for Position Front-and-Center (Topmost Sticky Post) but for now the commentary does express where I stand about eight months after restructuring the blog, and does relate to the topmost post on this blog, which expressed where I stood (and still do) about eight and a half years after starting this blog. Main post content shows below this commentary and two multi-paragraph sections inside red boxes.
In case you wondered, it’s a one-person blog. No one else is authorized as administrator, or (except where I’m quoting, which is consistently marked) writes any of the posts or pages. As a one-person blog, certainly it reflects personal stances, but I am heading for a common vocabulary that might transcend some of the worst “polarization” even though it’s obvious these divides exist, and affect policy. I dig still deeper down to rock-bottom realities (as I can) on government entities and accountability for not just their budgets, but also their historic basis balance sheets, and a call to reason whether or not present policy is necessary for the reasons it’s been sold us — typically reducing reliance on welfare (when it comes to the ‘single mother” rhetoric) AND/OR the “psycho/social/behavioral” evidence on what’s best for children as determined by generations of historically (but not exclusively) male child psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists (as that field has developed). FYI, there is still a pervasive “Freud factor” at play in the structure and design of both family courts, and federal social policy which has been there for decades.
Navigation: THIS TOP “STICKY” POST HAS A “READ-MORE” LINK FAIRLY FAR DOWN ON THE PAGE.
Unless you click on the “Read-More” link, FIVE OTHER STICKY POSTS WITH SHORTER INTROs |Individual “Read-more” Links (most of those contain tables-of contents) below it will display after which the sequence of “most recent post on top” begins.
I tend to include more information in an intro section than most blogs in part because the subject matter can be complex and I’m constantly re-minding of the basic elements and commonly accepted accounting and business|government entity vocabulary for categories and labeling such entities. This differs from the typical approach of both business and government entities themselves, on their websites, which instead tend to feature whatever cause is being promoted and of course, how beneficial the entity is towards that cause. I call this accounting-based vs. cause-based literacy and show the latter may conceal the former, but the former is often more important to notice and assess.
Within the post, or browsing posts, liberal use of “scrolling” or “PageDown” function is helpful. Right sidebar always lists the most recent posts, for faster shortcuts to just those last few. “FamilyCourtMatters.org” always brings a person back to my static “front page” (with its massive information below links to the “Current Posts” page).
SHARE THIS POST on...
Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, from ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018)
Full Post Title: Q1, 2018 Posts and “You Are Here,” on my Blog. Meanwhile, WE are Here, Collectively. (Or, From ‘Hewers of Wood + Drawers of Water’ To Functionally and Financially Illiterate** Consumers of Information, Products, and Social Services). (Publ. April 19, 2018) [Case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink ends “-8X8” and this post ends after about 9,600 11,000 words, sections of which may be moved elsewhere to shorten it!] [The “Read-More” link will also, in time, be moved closer to the top, making for a shorter lead-in section.]
**Explained more below in this post, and in a typical post. No apologies for failing to sugar-coat the news. Or for long sentences in the next few indented paragraphs, summarizing my understanding and explaining that comment. With additional “show-and-tell” relating to the rest of this post (and blog).
In my experience, (far) too many people, as for generations most of us have been conditioned, whether or not holding any number of white-collar professional jobs, whether or not possessing sufficient understanding of running a business to handle themselves, whether employee or self-employed, not only lack the functional vocabulary — financial literacy — to even acquire an understanding of the intersection of public and private finances, or on government and taxation itself — but also are so emotionally and financially invested in what works — at least tolerably — for themselves — they do not really want to (will not to the point of continually “cannot”) understand something different, that is, a different assessment. Indicators and symptoms that something odd, that an ongoing, major economic “black hole of non-accountability” exists are thus sidelined, dismissed, and/or ignored, as are people who may broach the topic and point to it. These fainter, less “in your face” indicators in some ways could be called “the canaries in the coal mines.” i.e., ignore at your own risk.
I have of course stood in the “too many people” category above until shocked out of it (in the context of family court), but unlike some, that shock didn’t eradicate all my curiosity, or my healthy respect for the value of ongoing observation and assessment of current surroundings as survival traits (which I also know are best utilized BEFORE in “fight-or-flight” mode).
The literacy and information (including functional vocabulary and its use) on certain economic matters and the operations of government as it is versus as it is portrayed to the public is where “first come + mutually organized = first served” and the rest of the population will be allocated to useful, functional positions within society* as organized by those more aware of just what public resources actually exist [1], and how to access them for private profit [2]. *That these positions may not look exactly like what they did centuries ago doesn’t mean they’re still not symbolically “Hewers of water and drawers of wood.”
[1] Key to understanding this is whether the public has been told the truth regarding the bottom line of (particularly) the federal government, and based on that, the legitimacy of all systems of taxation portrayed as beneficial and necessary for example, to balance that budget. Bottom lines whether of both government and private sectors are expressed not just in terms of annual or bi-annual budgets — but of financial statements. AUDITED ones. Looking at a single entity or just a few entities within a field (OR at public only or private only) is inadequate because public and private constantly interact with each other. Both sectors frequently change names, consolidate, spin off or (for government departments) set up new offices within existing departments, etc.
[2] There’s far less competition in fields mutually controlled by those who pioneered them.
(Example: See blog search phrase: Harvard/Bain/Bridgspan (as a business model) and click on the “Why Bother to Unravel” post [2.1] (its concluding paras) on that search result (2nd search result after this post).’ I concocted that phrase during a drill-down involving all three. I had discovered “Bridgespan” as a subcontractor on another foundation’s tax returns. My fabricated phrase refers generally to commandeering the profits in NONprofit consulting, and as a NONprofit, which takes collaboration with others also so inclined. Notice “Bain” is associated with well-known public figure from Massachusetts (who also ran for President not too long ago).[3, with two associated images] Notice that an elite, private university (in that aspect, HBS — Harvard Business School) is integral part of the phrase, as it is of that model. Better yet, spell “Bridgespan” correctly in the search and read (scroll down towards the bottom for that section) what I published last year (March 30, 2017): Omidyar Entities: The Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan Consulting Model (Transform and Help Run — or own — Distressed Assets, LIKE U.S. PUBLIC SCHOOLS), Rebranded, on Steroids, and Gone Global).
[2.1] Full title and image from top of “Why Bother to Unravel” post (publ. June 16, 2018):
“Why Bother to Unravel…“Link provided nearby or see blog “Archives” for 6/16/2018. Bottom section of this post also summarizes key concerns in a few paragraphs, regarding social service delivery in the private sector, and the tax-exempt sector in general (from an accountability standpoint — not from a “service-delivery” standpoint).
[3] Bain Execs Spent Nearly $5M on Romney’s White House Run, Records Show (Anne Faris-Rosen in Center for Public Integrity, 2/7/2012 (let’s call this “about six years ago.) Mitt Romney and John Kerry both referenced, in the article, but the image (excerpt shown here) mentions Bain Capital LLC and Bain & Co., the latter being a consulting company. Note the timeframes and that Bain & Co. formed in 1984, a decade which is ON my radar below as to LBOs and major Tax Reform, and within the following decade (1986-1996) and with (Tax Reform Act of 1986) organizing personnel and nonprofits in common, welfare reform, which brings up right up to “the elephant in the room” when discussing why family courts are so conflict-ridden and economically, socially and psychologically devastating for so many. Romney, it says below, had continuing passive income after the fourteen years he spent at Bain & Co. Note Bain & Co. LLC also did those leveraged buyouts which (for some of the bought-out companies’ employees) resulted in job loss through the heavy (i.e., “leveraged” with debt) burden the resulting setup provided.
Image #2 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge
Image #1 of 2, excerpted from Bain Execs Spend Nearly $5M on Romney White House Runs (2/7/2012 in Center for Public Integrity)”Click image to enlarge
Along the way (and on most posts on this blog), you’ll see that I continue to name and profile (economically) many organizations directly associated with and set up to affect custody proceedings, child support decision-making, and of course, defining what is and (especially) is not “domestic violence” or “child abuse” and is better described instead as, “high-conflict.” Most of these address how to problem-solve any assessed condition — typically through more trainings (some qualified under CEU or for lawyers CLE credits), certifications, and guidelines for those in the (existing and as we speak, more being created) professions involved. MOST of which will be supported, up front, or once in operation long-term, by public funds.
This time (not most times) the image is the link to article. Click to access. It’s a short read — Please Do! (from Atlanta Business Chronicle originally).
McKinsey & Company copies Bain (2014)
This section/illustration may be moved (or may not) later! I added to it where McKinsey, already a global consulting company (for decades) connects also to the US-based National Governors’ Association., and the significance of the NGA among other similar associations in setting policies which obviously will affect US citizens due to size, scope and major corporations involved. //LGH.
While I’m on “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan (The Bridgespan Group)” — it’s no secret that Bridgespan was a spinoff of Bain and involves consulting for nonprofits with positive spin on the social impact (benefits of course are featured) of doing so. On basic Google search again, among plenty of results on the first page, one is Nonprofit Quarterly reporting that the big consulting firm (multi-national) McKinsey & Co. (which I featured as a “Corporate Fellow” to “National Governors Association Center for Best Practices,” a pay-to-play status), reported in March 2015 that it has copied the model and spun off its own nonprofit. Click nearby image to read more (see esp. para.3), however this next quote from it specifically acknowledges the “Bain’s Bridgespan” model being circulated — obviously among powerful corporations whose profits, otherwise, would be taxed — considerably — if they weren’t moving revenues from nonprofit to nonprofit for better “social impact” and to help economic mobility of retail-level entry workers (!), and if you explore this example further, that’s exactly what they’re talking about. Someone has to work for all the corporations who have so many profits they have to pour excess into tax-exempt foundations. If you read further (on this post) for example, on the background of people like Grover Norquist (active in pushing for Tax Reform Act of 1986, and after that, “Contract with America” which so dramatically (but in the “background operating systems”) impacted judicial decision-making in America’s (meaning here, the USA’s) family courts.
McKinsey & Co. Starts its own version of Bain’s Bridgespan Rick Cohen, March 27, 2015 in Nonprofit Quarterly.
…Some portion of McKinsey’s thinking on nonprofits is contained in the McKinsey on Society website, where there are essays and research summaries addressing topics such as how poor school systems can become good school systems and, not surprisingly, extolling the potential of social impact bonds. In other words, as a global management consulting firm, McKinsey has had a nonprofit practice carried out by some of its 19,000 staff in over 100 offices in 61 countries.
This looks a little like Bain & Company’s creation of the Bridgespan Group in 1999. Bridgespan started out strongly with a $1 million grant from Bain plus several loaned staff. Like McKinsey, Bain & Company is a wealthy parent for its nonprofit consulting spinoff, with sales of around $2.1 billion.
The Chronicle of Philanthropy suggests that the McKinsey Social Initiative will start life with a $70 million capital infusion from McKinsey & Company plus access to 25 of its consultants to work on MSI projects and advice from 10 McKinsey partners …
Well, I just looked up the Form 990s and found it’s already (since 2014 origins) changed its name AND its website, and the one linked to on the 2015 report (which is neither) isn’t what the 2016 tax return shows (latest year shown on a separate database — NONE are shown on the website) (EIN# is 471073442).
Just a sampler: Shows change of name w/in 2 yrs of startup, two concurrent websites with different names, and a very small board addressing “solutions to pressing global problems.”
Note: Flipping the handling of a basic tax return — while changing website AND entity names, which do not correlate, and often while withholding either half the financial documents (i.e., if there are both tax returns and financial statements) or the most recently filed ones, and the like, appears to be common practice in the sector, no less so from the larger tax-exempt foundations than from smaller ones.. For what is now called not “McKinsey Social Initiative” but “Generation: You, Employed” — if I even started to explain what I’ve seen in just 15 minutes looking for key information about the organization/s being represented through only two websites and three yrs of tax returns, I believe readers would go no further on this post for the craziness — missing information, inconsistent information, and especially if unfamiliar with basic Forms 990, what I’m noticing on those black-&-white (until I annotated them) tax returns. So it’s been sidelined (for now). However (hint) there seems to be more than on 501©3 involved; because one is described in fine print as “private operating foundation” (which produces 990PFs) and the one I just looked at is public (which has as link above shows, a plain Form 990.). However know that the former “McKinseySocialInitiative.org” doesn’t redirect to “Generationinitiative.org” but to “McKinsey.org” which, eventually (not at the top) mentions a “Generation.org” (not “GenerationINITIATIVE.org”), hoping perhaps, that readers won’t get down to the very, very bottom of “McKinsey.org” website and notice, as I (from habit) did.
McKinsey.org is an incubator for new solutions to social issues. It works by applying McKinsey’s capabilities and by partnering with leaders from the private-, public- and social-sectors.
McKinsey.org is a 501(c)(3) private operating foundation.
-
- Squint hard, the bottom of “McKinsey.org”
-
- Registered in NY, variously,1956, 1966, 1995, 2011?, 2013, & 2017 (not in order shown)
-
- McKinsey.COM (the for-profit global consulting firm) timeline gives it credit for founding “Generation” with emphasis on global reach.
-
- McKinsey.com, 1990s
-
- McKinsey.com 1980s, note >half partners from OUTside the U.S.
“McKinsey.org” is a private operating foundation WHERE? (see five-image gallery above; click on any image to enlarge, navigate using the arrows directly to the others) In which country? IF in the USA, in which state (or territory, or is it D.C.)?
(annotated excerpt from 10/1/2012 Big 7 Pension Guidelines (a 2pp release)
(I see from the image url that I posted this around July 3, 2017)
Notice the last image, bottom states that since “two years after the early 1980s” (thanks for a specific year), the majority of partners are from outside the U.S. What does that mean when it’s a major contributor as consultant, among other corporations with U.S. toeholds, to USA-focused “instrumentalities of government” such as the National Governors’ Association (searchable on this blog; I’ve posted on it) and its accompanying nonprofit the NGC “Center for Best Practices” and that (as I recall, but should be fact-checked) a coalition of similar organizations (to NGA) call themselves “the Big Seven” as to pursuing their interests before U.S. Congress?
-
NGA Corp. Fellows (vs. “Partners”) program accessed 4-20-2018 says it started 30 yrs earlier in 1988
NGA Corporate Fellows described under link to “Corporate Partners” (accessed 4/20/2018) (what $20,000 a year can buy in terms of access). Shows that this program started in 1988….
- DEFINITELY not advertised at first, second, or even third level but there is a list of “partners.” Since I first blogged it, the list has been separated, I supposed on a sliding scale: Platinum, Gold, Silver and Bronze. The Silver list is long, but McKinsey & Co. is still on it. Samples in next image gallery
I’m ON “McKinsey.org” and there are no links to financials at least accessible clearly from top margin or bottom margin of the website, so casual readers might not bother to look up either tax return, or even recognize that at least two different nonprofits (judging by the one I found so far, EIN#471073442, Generation: You Employed, Inc., which at least in 2016 was not a “private operating foundation” or called “McKinsey.org”) which both must file separate returns (being nonprofit and not religious or otherwise exempt from doing so as would be: a church, a mosque, a synagogue, or (for more, see IRS.gov and figure it out!) and if large enough or so required, audited financial statements, too. I look forward to posting on the dilemma presented, when I can… Meanwhile website “McKinsey.COM” is careful to take credit for “Generation” which it allegedly founded in 2014 (and probably did, but not under that name, and obviously “Generation” is not the same as a US nonprofit named “Generation: You, Employed, Inc.” and it’s clear that both “Generation” and McKinsey & Company are, and have been for many decades, globally oriented. )
End of “McKinsey & Company copies Bain 2014” section.
(Representing one part of this post title “WE are Here, Collectively” subject matter).
In an ideal world, which no blog-only platform attempting to present information like this can be, the next section would be near the top. The balance between informations spread too thinly between many posts, and spread too thick on single posts I see from many website is met in typically two different ways — oversimplify and withhold most critical information, and/or show what is displayed in bill-board, or on-line news style (i.e., present the reader with a grid of photos and catchy titles, typically “news” on the organization, and let them click somewhere on the grid, which through narrative story-telling should keep readers properly distracted from going after the financials, corporate identification, any available tax returns, and ownership, not to mention when tax returns are available, note which related organizations indicate further size of the current organization’s empire, reach, or scope of activities (referring especially to any “Schedule R” (Forms 990 after 2008) showing related entities by type. Before 2008, they are reported, but less obviously on tax returns. THOSE should be identified first.
As I’ve made clear above, McKinsey & Company AND the website “McKinsey.org” (claiming private operating foundation status) AND the website “Generation.org” make that near-impossible. I did check the IRS exempt organizations select check list for anything “McKinsey” and found only two results, as well as CharitiesNYS.com and on the latter came up empty — which doesn’t meant it’s not somewhere else in the US, a needle in a 50-plus(50-state) haystack — or possibly not in that haystack.
This post and two nearby related ones took over a month to write, revise, reconsider, and allocate sections of information between them, as designed to: (a) provide an informal Table of Contents updated through Q1 posts which would last beyond their listings on “Last Few [10] Posts menu on right sidebar, and a few navigation and blog viewing issues, and, more importantly (b) prioritize and decide what/how much to report on current investigations (newer organizations on my radar, newer insights on organizations historically on it), and finally (c ) come up with an appropriate title.
Although the extensive “You Are Here” part (a) comes first for visual consistency with other TOC posts, the guts, the main substance of this post (b) in different sections — such as , comes after it. I’ve excerpted the start of that second part here. When you see this text in this format, you are in that section:
~|~|~|~|~|~
Increasingly the most common denominator of population demographic (and a specialty niche, too!) is, predictably under this system “Low-Income.” (Images from San Francisco-based nonprofit) $358M Gross Assets “Low Income Investment (formerly “Housing”) Fund.” Fifteen years ago (2001) it had only $78M assets but now it has $358M, with barely a “blip” in either assets or revenues during the 2008 [real estate, mortgage-default, foreclosure-producing with global consequences] bust.
“You Are Here” On This Blog
You are now looking at a fifth “sticky” post supplementing three informal Table of Contents update ones already published in March and a much more formal and comprehensive one published in January 2017, called “2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes from 2016” — all of which are pinned as posts to the top of the blog before one can browse actual current posts… as {described in the olive-colored background sections and accompanying images of previous posts (on any color background) below}.
With this post and the 2017 TOC one imaged nearby that makes five (and a sixth is in process mid-April, 2018) “sticky” posts which will remain at the top of “Current Posts (Most Recent on Top)” page.
These are here not only for Table of Contents updates, but also to emphasize key themes, using currently evolving (rapidly!) community development and other “replicable” projects affecting the national bottom line and the status of anything approaching justice and representative government, in the USA and elsewhere.
Understanding the public/private collaborations both separately and as acting collectively: how they operate, what the uniform control tactics and agenda are and have been; how, often, financial statements or (as it applies) IRS tax returns viewable by the public are obscured, not posted accurately, completely or sometimes at all when legally required; the size and complexity of private nonprofit networks influencing public institutions (that is, government!) has never been more critical. This will continue being critical unless some counterbalances surface — and the public starts resisting conditioned indoctrination to pick only ONE side of any pre-framed cause, and then argue it using ONLY limited vocabulary (rhetoric) instead of teaching ourselves the same language of “control of assets and dispersal of accountability for them” being used upon us.
2018 is not time to continue consuming, following and believing false statements (implicit or explicit) or a prepared menu of who to believe, based on historic population demographic, geographic (Urban/suburban/rural) religious, racial, gender or political divides.
This, as I anticipate publishing it mid-April, 2018, might be the top or next-to-top post on my “Current Posts: Most Recent On Top” Page. (To clarify, “top” here refers to position on the blog main page, as stacked atop ongoing posts, most of them arranged by date published, not to popularity). If so, know that I published it after about a month on the “back burner.” The next few images represent writing between then, in fact between January 1, 2018, and now. This page is my promised “extra” to three “Informal TOC” posts, one per month for Q4 2017 but each one published in March 2018, as shown in the nearby (annotated) image. Access them easily on “Current Posts: Most Recent on Top” (=First link under the Go-To Widget), below this post. All posts have a “Read-more” abbreviation link to segregate a post lead-in text, for better browsing if a person chooses to browse by scrolling, swiping, or paging-down that static “Current Posts” page.
(Post March 19, 2018: The long title refers to Robin Hood Foundation.)
Shows posts March 30, 2018 (just announces a New Page — see nearby image for details) and April 7, 2018 (one I’d thought was published two yrs ago. Discovering the oversight on attempting to reference it on Twitter I quickly posted it.
Three posts from late Feb. – early March, 2018
Opening text from 3/28/2018 new page.Click Image & Read!
After these posts, and as images copied today (April 11, 2018) from my blog sidebar under “Last Few [10] LGH Posts” where they still show (but won’t for much longer if I keep posting), you can see more recent posts. Some moved into publication recently had been held “pending” over the winter holidays. They deal with ongoing organizations which typify themes I’m exploring.
.
.
.
Are you a first time visitor? Then realize that “2017 continues themes from 2016…Tables of Contents” may be a better place to start: full post title: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
FamilyCourtMatters’ Jan. 2018 four published posts. Image’d be titles-only but I added colorful comments on the subject matter of each post.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Seven Posts from December, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 14, 2018)
You are reading:Seven Posts from DECEMBER, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 14, 2018)(with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8MD”).
This post is about 7,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month in 2017 only), near the top of this blog. I’m repeating the olive-background section reminding new readers where to start the blog or to find Tables of Contents covering a larger time span — and in more condensed (titles-only) form — near the top of each Q4 2017 (Oct., Nov. and this one, Dec. 2017) sticky post listing that month’s published titles (with some intro text to each). If you’ve read one of them you can skip past the next post’s section in that color; December’s here is two paragraphs (olive-background segments) longer than the other two.
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
2017 Dates shown in this post:December 3, 14, 15, 17, 21, 23, and 24.
This post provides access in full post titles with links in, in this format,
Image (links shown not active, of “7 Dec 2017 Post titles by LGH@FamilyCourtMatters (see Pg+Post~>2018Mar14)
and access to a page with the list in that format and with descriptive texts (quasi-“abstracts” actually just copied from the post intro, or other summary parts within a post — hence its’ an INformal TOC update) and, for this month I also posted screenprints (4 images) from my blog dashboard which simply lists them –but being images, they are not interactive (clickable to get to the post).
Again, the extended abstracts to accompany these post titles (informal TOC) are published on a new page, which I’ve been working on separately from this one. It is far longer. Its full title and link:7 Posts from December 2017 (Intro, Links, + Extended Post ‘Abstracts’ + Images @March 14, 2018) This page has a short-link with case-sensitive ending “-8NJ” and is published at 22.5K words long. New pages also display automatically on the menu “Vital Info/Chrono-Alpha Links” on the right blog sidebar. Unless I move them to the top, they show at the bottom of that menu (list of links).
Look for a block of bright yellow highlit titles (with dates in red) below on this post or the above related page. It’s found in that format, i.e., with active links, in both places.
Note “Community Quarterback” element of Purpose Built Communities model.. (click image to enlarge; repeated in slideshow gallery below, on my 3/14/2018 “Seven Posts from Dec. 2017” post)
#1 of 2, East Bay Times June 23 2017, Grand jury calls for audit of popular youth violence prevention nonprofit
Keeping the longer abstracts separate, length here permits me to retain my preliminary section on “Purpose Built Communities” (imported from Georgia to California, and occasioning a civil grand jury to be assembled when the “usually a newly created nonprofit,” “community quarterback” (a key element to selling Purpose Built Model locally anywhere — see nearby two images, also slideshow-style image gallery further below — which as applied to a certain census tract (“Castlemont” neighborhood) in Oakland, California, turned out to be functioning as a fiscal agent of another, fund misappropriation and co-mingling was discovered, along with unpaid debts (from mis-use of public funds) to the California? Department of Education over an immediately failing charter school, part of the formula for neighborhood transformation which local leadership had swallowed, whole, apparently (see second image with building photo & East Bay Times logo).
What the local press didn’t report on, really, was how deeply this model connects to influential nonprofits and coordinated public/private “partnerships” (I use quotes because the relationship may not always meet the legal definition of a “partnership” although there’s no doubt about the coordination, which is being featured as the positive good in the model) — whether Public Health Institute (of Oakland), PolicyLink (also of Oakland), through common board leadership, and of the nonprofit leadership, typically (found both here, and I eventually discovered more of it in Atlanta also), i.e., someone formerly a local civil servant or leading a major agency (such as the Atlanta Housing Authority) then heads off to a community transformation nonprofit — which will call upon funding streams from the government entity.
Similar to how HHS personnel then began working for nonprofits which called down HHS funding for marriage/fatherhood promotion in the late 1990s, early 2000s, which this blog originally documented (for years) in major detail.
As with HHS, the same practice could apply in HUD, with a difference that now “place-based philanthropy” wishes people to be in public supported housing (under private ownership), receiving public health and human services (under private ownership through nonprofits) AND attending public-funded (based on per-student $$, typically “charter”) schools (under private ownership through nonprofit. With (trackable in both Georgia and this California example) board membership of the several nonprofits in common. Thus while the general intent is to root and ground residents in public institution-funded: housing, social services, and schools (and private/nonprofit after-school, pre-school etc.) and local wage-based income, the controlling factors are corporations NOT based on wages, but primarily on contributions, and involving complex menu of related entities.
While the people working and living in such communities MUST reside there for it to work (for capitalized debt to be repaid, I suppose) those intent on replicating the model seem to have no problem flying around the country for conferences to spread the community transformation/”holistic model” gospel. A better word, from what can see (business/financial profiling) might be “WHOLEistic” — the intent to gain WHOLE control of a community AND its residents, call it locally representative, while withholding from the observing public (and probably many of those involved) both the financial records, and the down-sides to this model, long-term and short-term. But, as blighted communities (in Atlanta, involving a deterioriated public housing project and crime-ridden area called “Little Vietnam”) were the “base-line” any improvement would seem to be just terrific, whatever the long-term cost and option for any other form of personal freedoms or survival is sacrificed in the process.
Drew Charter School (EIN# 582528098), part of East Lake neighborhood, Atlanta, Georgia, and on which the Purpose Built Communities (and “Schools”) model is based. Form 990, FY2008, Pt. VIIB, Independent Contractors paid over a certain amount. Janitorial more recently has been outsourced to an Alabama corporation. Edison Learning to over $1M and managed the school that year.
Drew Charter School, EIN# 582528098, Form 990 FY2008, Pt. VIII Revenues (Lines 1-4 only) showing primary source is government grants ($9.5M out of $10M).
Edison Learning (™) screenshot under the heading shown. See also their “Turnaround Schools, Charters” section which features the East Lake (“Drew”) charter school FIRST. Not referenced on the brief description (with no links to more info on it on the site) is how very many other forces, foundations (plural) and LLCs were involved, as well as public housing funds, and personal control (through board directorship) maintained by project developers maintained throughout.
Drew Charter School in Atlanta (for example) FY2008 tax return <== shows $9.5M of government grants out of a $10M total revenues (per Page 1, Pt. I) with (that year) just two primary subcontractors, one of them paid over $1.1M and it’s a for-profit? software-based Edison Learning, Inc. in New York for “Management of School.”
There’s an Edison Learning Center, Inc. (formed only in 2005) and “Academy, LLC” (formed only in 2017) in New Jersey (a Corporate Division website with notably opaque — unless you pay for more information — public records), and none through basic search for “All” (vs. “Active” only) at New York Corporate and Business Entity Database. However, notice its disclaimer (click through or hover cursor over link to see) that this database does NOT include assumed names by businesses, corporations, or other entities which might file at the county level instead.
Meanwhile the Edison Learning(™) website reference (with a NJ address) also shows a UK division, and references partnerships across the US, the UK, and Africa in order to “shape a world” and enable students to “impact a global society.” Naturally, a high focus on using software, and on training professionals in the ‘whole-school’ model.
How “community” and “local” is that, then?
In other words, portraying the Oakland example as a “rogue operation” of a great model, is mis-leading. Another interpretation and presentation is in order. That’s why I took the time to look and to incorporate this example (representing more current research) into a post intended to be near or at the very top of this blog. Expect major transferable skills from viewing and coming to an understanding of the backdrop of this model, and if it’s new territory, of the nature of nonprofits, from the perspective of having a closer look at the books, that is, those available for free (except your time) on-line. [The above few paragraphs is a 3/16/2018 update//LGH]
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018)
You are reading: Eight Posts from November, 2017 (Informal TOC Update@ March 9, 2018) (with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-8KE”). This post is about 10,000 words and will remain, being a Table of Contents (for a single month), near the top of this blog.
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
2017 Dates shown in this post: November 5, 18 (with links to a new page Nov. 11), 21, 22, 23, 24, 28 and 29.
Formats follows what’s seen in the first listing below — Dates are in red, followed by post titles (with links to them) highlit in bright yellow, followed by opening or summary texts (copied & pasted, not re-written, these are not formal “abstracts”) in light-green backgrounds inside dark green lines. Some of the opening text sections contain images and subsections to give a flavor of each post.
Here’s a list of titles only. Below, a list of titles (in the same format) with the surrounding (summary) texts inbetween. This added to conform better to the December, 2017 post and for reader convenience. Also, in doing this I noticed that in the main post (titles + “surrounding texts” section) the title for Nov. 28 had omitted; its surrounding (summary) text mistakenly had been credited to November 24. This has now been corrected adding it here, and switching the 11/24 duplicate with the 11/28 title applicable to its surrounding abstract.
That title references some significant “fatherhood” organizations in Baltimore and in South Carolina (and NY) and is a relevant read focused on an original main topic of this blog. 4/12/2018…//LGH.
NOVEMBER 5, 2017: Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published Nov. 5)
NOVEMBER 18 (referencing also a Nov. 11 new page): About MRFP, Inc. (NAAG/NASCO’s “Single Portal Initiative” for MultiState Registration and Filing by Charities — except, apparently, for MRFP, Inc, NAAG, and NASCO). Also See my New Page (publ. 11/11/17) on SimpleCharityRegistration.com [This post Publ. 11/18/2017](shortlink here ends “-7X8”).
NOVEMBER 21: Six Posts (at least) in the Pipeline, Pre-Thanksgiving 2017 (looking back, looking forward…), Yet I See I’d Outlined Nearly the Same Basics One Year Ago (Nov. 2016) [Published 11/21/2017]. (short-link ends “-7ZH”).
NOVEMBER 22: Post Footnotes for “Before WHO’s HiAP… A Closer Look at ICLEI-Local Gov’ts for Sustainability…” post, starting with “NYT Activists Fight Green Projects” (short-link ending “-7T1” started Nov. 2, 2017, published Nov. 22.)
NOVEMBER 23: Happening NOW: Locally and within the USA, Matching Nonprofits to Legal Entities and Tracking Them Remains at Best (for Most) a Messy, Expensive and Unreliable Process, but Internationally — More Streamlined, Monitored, and Standardized for Faster, Easier, and More Profitable Trade. See FSF, FSB (G20-formed, 2009), LEI Legal Entity Identifier [global database + system], GLEIF (Swiss Foundation), LOUs (who issue LEIs) and ‘KYC’ (Know Your Customer) [Publ. Nov. 23, 2017]. (case-sensitive short-link ending “-7To”; moved here Nov. 3, 2017, publ. Thanksgiving Day). (About 8,000 words with some post-publication revisions).
NOVEMBER 24: Changing (the) World, Changing (the) Words: Sovereignty, Circumscribing Sovereignty versus Global ‘Citizenship’ (the Unmentionable: then who is the Global ‘Sovereign’?). (case-sensitive short-link ends “-7MB” started Oct. 14, 2017, published Nov. 24),
NOVEMBER 28: Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare and others) and On-line Mass Solicitation, DAF-collecting Companies (like JustGive.org) so Fond of Funky, “Failed-to-File” 501©3s — like Wisconsin’s barely-still-there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Its Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?. (shortlink ends “-7So” and length is about 10,000 words). Started Oct. 29, published Nov. 28
NOVEMBER 29: The Dark Sides (Bottom Lines) of Web-based Donor-Advised Funding: Donor Disclaimers, Buyouts, Emigration (JustGive [US]–>JustGiving [UK]). And Interesting Related Ops (IronPlanet: ZOPB Highway ByPass J.V.) and Bank Bailouts. [A July 26, 2016 section repost]. (shortlink ends “-83s” and length is just under 7,000 words).
Surrounding texts aren’t abstracts, but summarize content, and usually from the very top of a post. Click any title to access it. Titles are obviously in bold font and highlight bright yellow..).
~ ~ | | THIS BEGINS THE EIGHT POSTS & THEIR OPENING TEXT || ~ ~
NOVEMBER 5, 2017: Before WHO’s HiAP there was UN’s Agenda 21; As Usual, Internationally-Networked Nonprofits such as ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability USA, Inc.** ~ (1991ff, MA legal domicile; first HQ in Boston, then Berkeley, then Oakland, and lately Denver) ~ Help Spread the Latest Version of the Global Gospel. (with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7N2,” post started 10/14/2017 as one of two spin-off posts from my “HiAP” one; being published Nov. 5)
Post abstract/opening shown in this background-color, marked inside green lines (box): Other post abstracts for November 2017 informal Table of Contents update here follow the same color scheme, to distinguish them from post titles. … Some of these “abstracts” are long enough to include sub-sections, which might be in different color schemes. On-location (actual posts) rarely will follow the same color schemes; this [light-green inside dark green lines] color scheme is just an added visual marker for purposes of this post. Look for the yellow-highlit post titles.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update @ March 6, 2018).
First published March 6, updated March 16, 2018 with this intro from insight (“hindsight”) gained while producing subsequent, similar posts:
The format on the “Table of Contents” page is cumbersome to produce and explain; this is a “quick-and-dirty, copy-and-paste” compilation. Well, not exactly quick to produce… but being at least restricted to a single month here, quicker than updating the complex inter-relationships between list, post image, underlying post page printed to pdf for viewing (etc.) as shown on the “2017 Table of Contents” (which incorporates other, earlier tables in multiple forms, with different viewing options).
Life, common sense (and blogging, not to mention years of producing documents in variety of business settings each with its different software and corresponding limits or character traits, including certain flaws) also tells me that any set-up so complicated is probably not the best one, especially for a lone blogger without administrative staff, paid or volunteer. It’s inefficient and any error at one level could be reproduced at others. A blog, and specifically a WordPress blog here, is no different. It’s great for certain purposes; for others, not so much.
Realizing this, I hadn’t worked on the Table of Contents for some months while continuing to work hard on writing posts and pages on current content, some of it directly responsive to current headlines and developing, ongoing social and economic policy situations I felt should be flagged in the public interest.
Title: Eight Posts Published in October, 2017 (Informal TOC Update) @ March 6, 2018. (shortlink ends “-8Kh”). This post is only about 3,150 words.
Two similar posts, like this one also marked “sticky” for November and December,* 2017 (*holds access to another new page with more extended “abstracts” (post excerpts, summaries) for December 2017 only) were published subsequently this month and now display above this one on the main content area (“Current Posts, Most Recent on Top”).
Together with the main Table of Contents “2017 [TOC] continues themes from 2016” post, link shown immediately below, that makes four separate ones held in the top position on the blog
Scrolling continuously downwards below them, one gets to the otherwise continuous display of new writing (posts) below — like those written in 2018 and I assume (if one scrolls enough) far earlier in 2017, if you’re into scrolling rather than reading tables of contents… Meanwhile, on the sidebar, a “most recent posts” widget is a shortcut to exactly what its title implies: only the most recent, limited by number. To reach any beyond that limited number (so far) for 2018, continue scrolling downward on the main content area (or, take your chances but minus any titles: just pick a date on the calendar (Archives) widget at top right of blog).
Explained in next section with an unusual (for this blog) olive-background, white-font color scheme. If you’ve read this on posts November 2017, December 2017, it’s the same: verbatim, an exact copy (December’s intro as THE top post is a bit longer).
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the [“2017 continues themes from 2016…“] post and browse at least the last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017‘s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed [on that “2017 continues themes from 2016…” post].
OCTOBER, 2017: I PUBLISHED EIGHT POSTS — On Oct. 3, 7, 9, 20, 22, 24 and 26
ALL OCT. 2017 POSTS ARE LISTED WITHIN THIS MAROON-BORDERED BOX (on this post), EACH WITH SOME DESCRIPTIVE TEXT COPIED ALONG WITH THE TITLE …(AND IN REVERSE CHRONO ORDER, SO DON’T LOOK FOR A COHERENT NARRATIVE BETWEEN ALL OF THEM).
Look for the MONTH + DATE HEADINGS, followed by post titles highlit in bright yellow. Post titles highlit in yellow are active links: click any one to go to that post. I’ve placed a “Read More” separator after the first listing for October 26, 2017. The others are easily found on the post — just look for that yellow!
Many of these posts also have extensive tags as well identifying their their themes, which also might help show related posts in a “tags” search, or entering the same search string in the plain “Search” function would accomplish the same thing. I write long titles deliberately so browsing them may expose continuing and basic themes on the blog, over time.
OCTOBER 26: “Health as an Asset” “Thought Leadership” and the Chatham House Rule:** A Section Unearthed from My “Smoking Control/Tobacco Litigation” Post and Reposted Here, in light of Current Congressional Events, and in light of Senator Flake’s (2014) Commentary Before the CFR citing to 9/11 and the Iraq War Commended (?) for Unifying the United States. [case-sensitive short-link ending “-7QH.” Re-posted (bottom half) and written (top half) Oct. 25-26, 2017].[Published Oct. 26, 2017]
**Terms taken from 2010-2011 Conferences Among ABIS* (the Academy of Business In Society), RUTGERS (“The State University of New Jersey”), and the Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust.
“Minor details” The only home (USA) base in that list (despite Johnson & Johnson HQ being in NJ, its “Corporate Citizenship” trust formed in 2007 isn’t a U.S. entity and in fact is focused on the “EMEA” region: Europe, the Middle East and Africa)## would then be Rutgers, the public-supported “State University of New Jersey.”[The Johnson & Johnson Corporate Citizenship Trust isn’t a U.S. charity].
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; and (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. [First published Jan. 9 2017, last updated 9/30/2017]
(Rev. 09/24/2017 (format/appearance changes, adding TOC entries since March 2017) ~ | ~ (FYI, on Jan. 27, 2018, I just “unstuck” ALL other posts except this one. This post is also readily available through a New Home Page which lists the Top Ten Posts (this being one of them because it’s a Table of Contents. The “unsticking” process is to move current posts closer to the top of the blog. Let me know (comments field) if this works better for you. Thanks,//LGH).
FYI — at the bottom of this post is also some information on the $89M Assets (FY2014) nonprofit called “CENIC” (Corporation Network for Education Initiatives in California). (Here’s Tax Return for FY2015). I talk about it here also as a bit of “show and tell” for some processes I use repeatedly in the blog, whether on family-court-connected corporations, federal grants, or lookups of tax returns.
Blog Preview (Some comments added March 2018 — seven numbered paragraphs — but I may take them out later. I’m feeling conversational today….) After that, a section (in this background-color) on my state’s (California) provider of high-speed, multi-function internet for those fortunate enough to be involved in certain types of universities or institutions within the state (and for which we all pay, indirectly through those funded institutions, increasing “membership fees/assessments”). The times we live in….
1. This blog is not typical journalism, anecdotal reporting with references to the standard “expert,” the standard “injured parties” for a story line and some promotion of whatever advocacy group or foundation might be associated with fixing the problem. I believe the situations we face run much deeper (and higher up the decision-making ladder), and I believe that the journalism reporting symptoms, while important, is a major distraction from comprehending and observing over time (in transition) reporting systems — and developing a functional vocabulary (as opposed to the one in standard use for “PR” reasons).
2. Beyond “system failures” (or successes!) of varying types, I found it necessary to start looking more at the macro level of how government and the philanthropic (nonprofit) sectors interact, and report themselves, as contrasted (often) with what their economic footprints tell over time. In the USA, there’s a public sector, and a private sector. The word “public” by implication means a government entity and as such, its revenues are NOT taxed, although as an employer it will pay taxes for its employees. The word “private” means that which is NOT a government entity, for which different reporting rules apply.
3. When within the private sector there is the major tax-exempt portion, and the blending of leadership (for example, on boards of directors) or revolving doors (government service // nonprofits in sequence –or simultaneously) that action itself, given only government — not private corporations — can tax people, the power bloc is consolidated. As typically consolidated, what next to do but talk about how to help “low-income” families or people — while taking advantage of the same through tax-exemption and — some of these foundations or nonprofits — unbelievably high salaries for some of the leadership, and major profits for the subcontractors.
4. A major difference between them is where any rights exist, and alternatives when those rights are violated. I’ve looked at thousands of websites and organizations (and tax returns) over the years, and it doesn’t take too long to start recognizing which websites advertise big, and report small (fail to show their financials), or which may look like they’ve been around forever — but it turns out, they were incubated elsewhere, flew (sometimes “under the radar”) as far as reporting their existence through normal means, then are suddenly “spun off” as their own entities (with great graphics and colorful logos, complex websites sometimes). Patterns emerge.
5. I told you in the blog motto, this is “Uncommon Analysis,” but it’s not “unnecessary” analysis!
6. Over the years, I would’ve appreciated more personal conversations along these lines — there have been some — but when faced whether to hang out with people who prefer anecdotal reporting with a sprinkling of “financial facts,” and those willing to look seriously evaluate where financial facts are to be found — and where they are NOT being found but should be — I’ll choose the latter, who also appear to be fewer.
7. This process is also subject to personal limits and the necessity periodically to deal with events stemming from the original matters surrounding (speaking personally) the reporting of domestic violence and seeking legal intervention to stop it. As I recall, I originally started blogging when it seemed that endless comments on others blogs buried information, delivering it in short burst only, across multiple threads. When I found many people just re-posting others’ work which was being fed to them –and among advocacy groups for any cause, that can be risky (or, just plain distracting)….. The other thing I remember as starting it was watching websites — and my hard-worked, researched, linked, and “public-interest” comments — go down suddenly. The blog serves to preserve at least much of the information.
This tan-background section on “CENIC” added during post review early March, 2018. Below it, I show the Tables of Contents and explain how to access them (a variety of ways).
I discovered CENIC as an organization when it showed up as a visitor to this blog. Its existence highlights who funds the increased capacity for high-speed internet and institutional connectivity between universities, school systems (in this case), and a few other places — connectivity that we benefit from indirectly, but in general cannot personally access as citizens so much as can the faculty and enrolled students or researchers at the various institutions. (List of “BIIG” Associates and steps to full connection, where “BIIG” stands for “Broadband Infrastructure Improvement Grant” (from California Dept. of Education) for access to a certain kind of network. The main concern behind this seems to have been the ability to provide “computer-based assessments” everywhere. CENIC.org website also has a “Connection Tracker,” by categories. Here are those categories:
See also BIIG.k12HSN.org (BIIG 2.0) for more description of the network. The improvement was targeted to both schools and districts.; reference is to 2015-2016
It was organized in 1997 (says the tax return) and its main revenues are not from government contributions, but from “program service revenues” — however these are labeled “membership fees/dues” which would in essence be contributions — and generally coming from educational (public) institutions, which (say the tax return, and CENIC’s schedule of revenues and assets over time) they only increase year after year. Looking at the details of the tax returns helps show where the weight of expenses and revenues is, and related entities, whether taxable or not. Here, one of the largest expenses for CENIC is “Circuit Leases” ($20M/year one year), while its two kinds of activities, one made a significant profit (nearly $12M — roughly) and the other, a loss. The profit comes from the membership dues.
This next “…@Sep28,2017, 3pp)…” link is to a printout (for CENIC, taken in 2017 Sept) from the California Department of Justice, Office of Attorney General “Registry of Charitable Trusts” — a resource I use a lot (along with a few other main sites to look up tax returns, or double-check tax-exempt status with the IRS) on this blog. I’m placing it here for familiarity, in general what such a “Details” printout would look like, and some things it reveals about any organization. The printout also contains active links to “Related Documents.” By looking here at its “Founding Documents” one can see that certain universities and research institutions were original “Charter members” but considered affiliates — not “members.” (The Corporation has no “members” it says).
Charitable registries at the state level should become familiar. So should Secretaries of State (or as appropriate, other places) “Business Entities Search” sites at the state level. Each state is different, but so much can be learned there- – including the state of those databases in the first place and how they are organized. “Business entities” have to have a legal domicile — which should be located. If nonprofit and required to file, their files should be looked up (i.e., search for the EIN# then go to a database such as “990finder” and look it up). For government entities — look under the filing entity’s “Comptroller” or “Financial Reports” somewhere and, as much as possible, locate and start reading their “CAFRs”* to discover what, really, are the collective holdings of any such entity — as opposed to the budgets only.
(*A searchable term on this blog will tell much about CAFRs and link to plenty of others who lay it out well too).
Please take a look! To get there, you may need to click once on the link, and a second time, on the “page icon” which displays there under my blog title and the image title:
CENIC (Corp for Educ Netwk Initiatives in Calif) Calif DOJ-OAG-RCT Details (@Sep28 2017, 3pp) CalEntity# C2031925, EIN#943289022, first funded only in 1997? <==OAG DETAILS page differs from these images from a single-year Form 990. Shows entity growth over the years, and some of its filing habits (in “Related Documents” section) Check it out!
Click Image to Enlarge — this is CENIC’s explanation for its Gov’t funding (not in compliance with requirements of the simple one-page form). They did send in the FYE 2016 report, but “forgot” the $300 fee, says a letter at the California OAG’s website. (image repeated below with a better caption. Anything not in black and white is my commentary…)
CENIC website CalREN coverage + Backbone maps SShots, Overview (Calif) courtesy “Intermapper” (Image 3 of #3) here.
I believe there are parallel types of organizations in many other states. Stated purpose: “To Establish an Advanced Network Infrastructure for the Expanding Needs of Education and Research, for University Faculty and Students.” It operates “CalREN2.”
After looking at its tax returns, charitable filings at the State level, and realizing how (a) late and (b) evasive it was on certain information required to be reported (i.e., specific contact names where there’s government grants) — “back then,” despite appreciating (not that I ahve access to!) the need for “multi-functional network” of the highest speed and calibre for educational (K-20) and certain research institutions, I expressed my, well, disgust, in the annotations to a part of its RRF. (Also shown at the bottom of this post).
For 2017 Link to this post for this year: 2017 Table of Contents Continues Themes From 2016. See TOC for: (1) 2017 now thru March Sept. 21; (2) 2016 All; (3) Sept. 2012 – June 2014, Reverse Chrono, and (4) See Also More Info Below. (case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink-ends 5qZ, first published Jan. 9, 2017, second half of post title and substantial updates added in late September, 2017). About 9,800 words.
The Table for 2017 (with the last three of 2016 for continuity of a certain theme) is near the bottom of this page. It is current through September, October 8, 2017. You will see the header to 2016 with 3 rows, the header for 2017 and 53 54 rows followed by some more blanks. That’s one of several ways to access posts for 2017. It looks like this (notice the last entry pictured represents the post you’re looking at, “Row 3” for 2017):
Click to enlarge. Excerpt from Jan. 9, 2017 post explaining TOC navigation. If you don’t want to mess with uploaded pdfs or anything complex, find this part of the post and browse at least last three posts of 2016 and all of 2017’s posts. Other years (and links to them) are also discussed below.
Meanwhile, the “10 most recent posts” section on right sidebar is helpful for 2017, or if you’re handy with scroll or page-down functions (but not recommended on cell phone) go to the top of this blog (just: “FamilyCourtMatters.org“), scroll down below this lone “sticky” post with its abbreviated lead-in (i.e., text preceding the “Read More….” link), realizing that lower down = earlier posts.
As the title indicates, the Tables (plural) of Contents (“TOC”) are in three sections: <> 2017 through March, <> 2016 (all of it), and <>Sept., 2012 – June, 2014. Post title also signals that besides the tables of contents, this post has <> more info below.
The next three links pull up those three TOC for better browsing in a form whereby any post displayed on that table can be reached by clicking on its name after clicking on the link to bring up the pdf. The next inset box is just in case a little vocabulary might further help navigate what follows.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
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)
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 Italians, Irish, Puerto 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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
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!<~~]
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)
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)..
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.edu “Program 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 »
SHARE THIS POST on...
LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO! AND IF A NONPROFIT IS NAMED in the NEWS, OR EVEN HINTED AT IN THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP!
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 »
SHARE THIS POST on...
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]
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.
-
- GOOD VENTURES (Form 990Finder Search results = 12, (two w composite Assets almost 1 Billion by Moskovitz|Cari Tuna combo) ~~Searched 8/4/2018
-
- GoodVentures’org website (incl About, Governance GV + Governance (990), GVFndtn (990PF)
-
- Good Ventures: 1 name, 3 diff’t entities. Notice Divesh Makan on both boards
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 foundations — remember, 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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Two Plaintiffs’ Counsel Nonprofits for Class Action Lawsuit (℅ Center for Investigative Reporting article) [Published July 31, 2018].
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.
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.
SHARE THIS POST on...
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].
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.
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..]
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 »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Inside AFCC Stanley Cohen Distinguished Awardees’ Conference Circuits, or, “Good GRIEF, Marsha Kline Pruett!” [Written March 4, 2016, publ. about 2 yrs. later]
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
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
