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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘1994 “A Call for Collaboration” (Edleson & Schechter) ~>2000 GreenBook Initiative ~>2008 Family Court Enhancement Project ~>2017??? (“Safe Child” protocol?)

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? |How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022 from Draft Post Feb. 6]

with one comment

THIS POST

Is the USA Bipolar, Schizo, ADHD, Or Just Playing Us? | How Federal Gov’t both LOVEs and HATES Women [2,000 words evicted Mar.30, 2022]** short-link ends “”-e4t”

** began as a major section on my Feb. 6, 2022 and STILL in draft (March 30, 2022) post called:

NSPC — ‘Coalition’ Meaning What? Rebranding the Same Themes with, Generally, the Same Entities While Channeling (vs. Exposing) AFCC Lingo and Ignoring USA’s ‘We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds? [Post begun Feb. 6, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dxg”)

(Evicted from that post not for its content but for weight limits on any one post.  The part highlit yellow is now this post.


From time to time, I sense the need to mention a few self-contradicting, ongoing legislative realities.

Funding realities go with the legislative and at times are perhaps the drivers (have you visited the US DOJ or the US HHS recently? can YOU track that funding?) but here I’m referencing specific Acts of Congress.

Sections in this post:

  • USA allegedly LOVES and CARES ABOUT women because..
  • USA (more covertly) HATES women because …
  • Meanwhile, in Family Courts… the bottom line…

I’ve bifurcated the “LOVE” and “HATE” evidences (federal funding programs) which, taken together, weigh the balance, I say, in “hate” through absence of honesty and forthrightness within the former about the latter. (Passive/aggressve, much?)  I think the net effect is, Hates more than Loves women — but then again, I am one. Maybe I’m biased in favor of my lack of a Y chromosome… and because having children and being a mother — even with an abuser — was still a fantastic experience I wouldn’t trade in for anything.

The message here: any policy can be heralded as great  so long as it’s known by “stakeholders” (i.e., those who get the laws passed) that the back doors, the exit strategies to actually making any policy matter are retained.

Family courts, a still-recent phenomenon in the USA, happen to be one of the major back doors, the “safety valve” from actually stopping domestic violence, violence and criminal behavior against women because they are women.  Through their existence many people (correctly) perceive, they can and will continue to get away with it, from chronic and debilitating (but legally still low-level up through felony levels leading predictably, or sometimes not so predictably, to murder. The same goes with child abuse.  It’s simply a matter of changing venues (referrals, diversions) and in the new venues, old behaviors get “new words” to describe them.  Felonies are no longer felonies — but new categorizes of felonies can be created to replace.  The basic “transfer” process.

Meanwhile, privatization of government services continues, all conflict is GOOD conflict if you’re in the business of resolving family (or any other kind) of conflict for pay, or in the coaching industry (pay to play trainings, certified facilitators, and divorce coaching of desperate? parents by formerly desperate — until they signed on for the divorce-coaching field and quit fighting it — parents)  and oh so many people are really into that business. Pay for and sit through the trainings, get screened MAYBE by provider, set up the most basic website under some creative name, and link to the trainer’s website for more trainings.  In case you think that’s a reference to “One Mom’s Battle” business model (not that it’s anywhere close to the first of this type), it was.

It’s late in the day, I want a post out (and the other post shorter; it has a heavier payload). For what it’s worth, this post is just basic statement —  something to think about.

Below the next horizontal line is “as-written” (for me, spontaneously) nearly two months ago, except that I quickly added several tags. If clicked they’d lead to more in-depth summaries on the blog of either VAWA, CAPTA, FVPSA or The Greenbook Initiative (its timeline matters), etc.  The tags here don’t mean I’ve handled all those issues in this short post, but those are related issues…//LGH 30 March 2022.


“…USA’s “We Both Love and Hate Women’ Federal Funds” refers to two contradictory policies, both federally funded, starting in different decades.  

Neither side of the equation (love women, but men and fathers are worth more when you get right down to it) cares enough about the public to ensure that people accessing services on the “women” side are properly informed about the funding on the men’s side to defeat or bypass the impact of the funds indicating the country cares about the welfare of even half its own population.

Read the rest of this entry »

@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022].

with one comment

This post saves information and a few links from my Twitter account’s Pinned Tweet, so I can unpin it without losing that quick summary. It’s a short thread, not just one tweet, pinned since {5:33 PM* Jun 25, 2021} (*PST). It lists some basic principles I follow and basic facts (patterns) to be aware of when investigating and evaluating any website, cause, campaign, or advocacy nonprofit associated with the same. My unpinned thread has a few images (screenshots I uploaded at the time, some of them annotated) to illustrate one or another statement on the corresponding Tweet.

This Post’s Title and short-link:

@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dNX”). As revised 3/19/2022, about 7,100 words..

This post underwent some wax and wane after publishing, mostly of material I was exposed to and was processing mentally and emotionally while writing it.  I first expanded (built onto) then moved most of the expansion (dismantled it here) to a new post I am about to publish it today (March 19, 2022).  More details and development of the preview ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence (“ABA-CDSV”) section (in this color scheme, fine print with one large image) is now at the new location.

The other expanded sections were my exhortation to mothers to take back ownership of their stories, and some dignity with it, (if that shoe fits) from those who are, currently, exploiting it for a private agenda, but talking “We, Us, Our” as if all were on the same page.

I exhort us all (but especially embattled mothers who’ve already stood up to domestic violence, or stood up for their children in ways the family courts refused to) to start understanding the consequences of a centrally coordinated “DVRN” representing millions of dollars to nonprofits, strategically omitting the family courts — leaving that field open for (should the public catch on too fast) the “protective parents” groups to team up with existing “domestic violence prevention” coalitions, etc.,  in combination with lawyers, psychologists, and law and psych professors (i.e, mentors) — “Let’s All Fix This Problem Together and Cry Out to (inter)nationalize “Our” Concept of where the problem lies”).

Where people miss it is understanding just how that the thought-leaders’ functional meaning of the word “our” is not the common usage.  In-practice isn’t what you may assume (and we’re supposed to assume) it represent … as if protective mothers with custody cases and the spokes-persons featuring their publicity (headlines) to promote a certain agenda, were indeed all on the same page… The “Exhibit A” women are not — from the inner circle cluster of speakers, conferencers, and court- OR university (law school)-connected professionals  — being given, up front (judging by what the public is fed year after year from the same sources) the full range of choices to analyze problems.  Built-in unproved assumptions are routine; denial and derailment of other interpretations is standard.

How to tell the difference?  Understand who’s been speaking and is speaking, where available to identify, by entity, by category and by what’s NOT being said (year after year) regarding the exact same situations, and ask “why isn’t it?”

More at the next post: its title should be self-explanatory. I will publish this by day-end March 19:

Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)

Next section: about where, +/- March 7, 2022, I needed to take another time-out because of this content and more, further down on the same website.  I had already been looking into and at the ABA Centers  (ABA Center on Children and the Law, here, a different ABA Center).  These “Centers” the ABA calls “entities” however, they aren’t quite that in normal usage.  they are ABA “groups.” 

ABA here means “American Bar Association.”  

I just found the “ABA Commission on Domestic & Sexual Violence “ABA-CDSV”) website link for “seek Technical Assistance” making sure to screen out “Victims/Survivors” by reminding them — that’s NOT what the ABA does —

Commission Members and Staff include national experts in many areas of domestic and sexual violence and the law. The American Bar Association sponsors a number of programs to improve the justice system, but is not able to help people with specific legal problems or cases. The Association is not able to refer you to an attorney. (in bright red):

PLEASE DO NOT SEND REQUESTS FOR LEGAL HELP TO US.

and providing at least a few categories of places to go seek help…in a small box and as if these were actual links.

I posted the ABA CDSV image below March 7-19, but just now moved that image and surrounding sections (my comments on it) to a new post (to be published  March 19, 2022, today). The more narrative/expressive sections of this post were more appropriate to a new one. In moving I of course added some related entity drill-downs for more background information… //LGH.


Survivors seeking information may wish to consult the following:

National Domestic Violence Hotline
Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network (that’s an organization:  RAINN)
ABA Consumers’ Guide to Legal Help
LawHelp.org
Womenslaw.org
State Bar Associations
State Domestic Violence Coalitions
State Sexual Assault Coalitions

This same ABA COMMISSION on DOMESTIC & Sexual Violence didn’t have the decency to even provide a few active links to ANY of those above resources for non-lawyers or those wanting anything other than technical help.  

But at the bottom of its page, a big banner advertises Evidence-based, relationship Conflict Prevention, linking to “StrengthAtHome.org” (more curricula provided by a clinical psychologist (B.A., 1994) Casey Taft, Ph.D., clearly working in the military (i.e., Veteran PTSD), Cognitive-Behavioral Health, and Trauma-Informed fields.  His 46-page resume** is filled with grants credits, presentations, and (well over a dozen) PhD students he’s mentored — presumably some of these helping write the dozens of articles or book chapters (he has just one book to date), and apart from some ‘societies’ I’m aware of, he’s at the UN Consultation Level, on FIVE journals, a peer-reviewer for grants (that must be handy) and I even saw at least one reference to the IVAT I just blogged (again) last week.  

(**downloaded as a document, not a pdf, so some pagination issues might account for the length — but not that many…)

Trauma-Informed is BIG government business; I guess ongoing wars help make it necessary and an endless supply of subject matter for “randomized controlled trials” (on people), for “aggression intervention”


“What about following financials where there aren’t any, really?” except maybe a Crowdfunder?

Another category of websites aren’t those representing (or saying they represent) a specific advocacy group, i.e., business (tax-exempt or not) but personal blogs with posts and “resources” or featuring posts by (family court reform, in this context) references.  That type of blogging is also a powerful tool, even blogs on free domains — a tool for truth, a tool for expression, an appeal regarding personal stories; and a tool for echoing messages others may have processed, but the bloggers (apparently) haven’t.

Free blog domain — that’s how I started. This domain name (FamilyCourtMatters) wasn’t upgraded until 2018 and even now isn’t exactly a sponsored website.  I just pay once annually, not much, for the privilege of calling it “familycourtmatters.org” rather than “FamilyCourtMatters.Wordpress.com” and a few perks. I have a “Donate” button (rarely used: if I’d formed a nonprofit, perhaps that might be different.  I don’t offer tax-deduction privileges to anyone who contributes…). It’s not a collaborative blog — I am the only author, admin, and moderator — for a reason: to protect the message and avoid compromising it.

“What about following financials where there aren’t any, really?” How sort through who’s who?

It’s not too hard to see who’s promoting which “Dear Friends/Our Friends” experts and referring to a close-knit cluster of organizations with an agenda which specifically discourages “following the money” or non-collaborative free speech among the ranks.

Through participating on Twitter, or alerts from people I know from:

<>my own awareness of domestic violence organizations as tax-exempt entities who must (and sometimes even DO) file tax returns, secretary of state registrations and/or charitable registrations in some states and

<>personal awareness of group-email, forums or other ways protective mothers communicate without actually going into the business of advocacy.

<>awareness of who clusters around such mothers, or their now-adult children, typically, where these seemingly open conversations are more guided than they may seem. It’s a form of bonding but not always the best form of prioritizing approaches. I’ve been both exposed to it and had to later report it as a subtle form of coercion/driving an agenda and deterring constructive criticism for the sake of “unity.”

More informal blogs relating a personal, or a relative/friend’s family court disaster (with media uploads if covered in the news) often promoting other websites or advocates — and the array of choices on those blogs usually shows how the the blogger’s response to their own courtroom drama unfurled.

Informal blogs often relate specific case histories; some are named after a child and requesting (another) law be passed named after that child (unfortunately, still far too many!) patterns of points of reference will surface over time.  Sometimes the blogger is also active on other media.  Right now the only other platform I’m active on is Twitter; that is often where I may here of some new, unfamiliar blog or nonprofit.   

When I encounter new ones, as happens, I am going to notice, even where I may not know that state’s family court culture or judges, or that person, who they are deferring to and giving free referrals to:  certain movements were set in place decades ago and aren’t too hard to differentiate IF you have some sound basis (criteria) of comparison. It really doesn’t take me long to see.

See my next post if you don’t yet.  It’s taken this long to decide how much to say, and to digest what I was reading (new information) as it relates to things already known.  

My next post begins by addressing the ABA-CDSV brush-off above, noticing where that ABA Commission does direct its viewers (more “behavioral health” experts running IPV Cognitive Processing Therapy through Boston VA (Veterans Affairs) Healthcare.  Basically, the American Bar Association deferring to the American Psychological Association, with all kinds of subsidiary societies developed (this strand, deciding Freud/psychoanalysis wasn’t the answer — but maybe Pavlov, B.F. Skinner, and other propagators of their “randomized clinical trials” practices — on animals, infants, and/or humans — is the answer to aggression, PTSD, and “stopping violence against women” I suppose, also….  Career curves (and Dr. Casey Taft, above, is still a young-ish man, just got his first Ph.D. in 2001, and has been throughout his career supported by government grants, at public universities, and for this “StrengthAtHome.org” curricula)..

Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)

Following through on these basic principles often helps me decide what to support (or not) regarding the family courts and what to seek to do (or not) about them, and — the most practical part, combined with my gut instinct — when to engage or dis-engage in some conversation on what to do about them.

Sometimes my “gut instinct” is just a minor, unanswered question or stone I’d left unturned and felt I should take a look what was under it in a given interaction. My decision-making isn’t all “brainiac” or some mechanical automaton response. It is a discipline I choose, which I’m conscious of. I have made it a practice to look certain places before I get too far (or too intense) into any on-line interactions.  Curiosity also plays a major role. I stay curious because I still think “activist” on these matters.  No plans to shut up or go away on them.

There are many — countless — interactions for anyone who stays active on-line with a view to changing the status quo and connecting with others who also want to.  Maximizing good use of time, emotional and mental energy, and making (every day!) as many decisions as possible sound decisions helps. It helps with confidence and seems to increase stamina. Sometimes it is the one area where we have some choice and some say: what to do with our own minds, and (where there is any time available) where to invest our time and our thoughts.

We who’ve been through these courts hoping to exit abuse, to get to freedom, but who found the gates closed time and again — or open to us but “without your kids” — always have urgency.  SOME clock is always ticking. I like to reach out to people crossing those bridges after me. I like to engage, but I do not like to waste my time.

Wasting our time by withholding information and substituting information of far less relevance,** as so many advocacy groups have become expert at doing (see below), only delays real change, real help and kicks the can down the road another generation — where it will be even more damaged.  As time goes on, these (corrupt) systems absorb more and more people — creating those invested in protecting them — to fix things and to supervise the fixers, train the trainers, and disseminate the curricula.

**So many posts on this (see the phrase) are scattered across the last five years (minimum) of this blog, I’m not even going to list the last few here. The issue comes up repeatedly. I may dedicate a post, or address it in parts of another post on some different topic.

Reduce time waste by vetting organizations and getting information outside that shown on the websites and in select circles.  My Twitter thread began showing a guide to reading a tax return!  Reading tax returns is a basic skill transferable to any cause, and to life; it’s not psychobabble, and hypothesis: it’s a vocabulary and concepts to go with it.  For the United States, IRS Tax Returns are mandatory unless some entity is exempt from filing (many are, such as churches, synagogues).

When required for tax-exempt organizations they are also required annually and if not filed three years in a row for tax-exempt organizations can be automatically revoked. So if the website is still up and soliciting, others are still endorsing and promoting a certain nonprofit — but the IRS shows (and call their 800# to verify after checking their lists) which has been revoked and not reinstated, or is so small it only files Forms 990-N (revenues under $50,000), you know that a discrepancy between a website and the reality exists.

How many tax returns have I posted on this blog, over the years?…. Some are continuing organizations active all over the fields I blog and we deal with nationally, every day — because families, households, lives, and laws are affected.  Differentiating between large and small and many more qualities, matters.

Each one tells something about an organization and many tell about who else that entity is dealing with, or granting to, or that somethings not shown on the website, is seriously amiss on the filings.  That should and does lead to more questions — and seeking the answers is a great way to learn.

[BLOG REVISIONs: Several paragraphs here when published March 7 have been moved to the bottom my next post, due for publication today, March 19, 2022. Now IT is about 8,000 words, instead of this one…]

My blog and my Tweeting emphasizes setting a basic groundwork (which this pinned Tweet points to) as a common ground, rather than being herded into competing cults, flocks or market niches by eager mentors and overseers.

In the long term, I’ve found that the sooner in any encounter (on-line) I do certain basic checks — even if it’s pretty evident from a website or an individual’s comments, where they’re coming from — the better and that the longer I wait to do them,  generally, the more I regretted wasting my time, afterwards.

I know the top image of a “Guide to IRS Form 990” with its table of contents was hardly a sexy, engaging image, but I put it there to make a point, including what parts of our brain we should engage in this field.  (link: https://t.co/uoDYOKiAVS) Of course I also hoped people would click and read if the form is unfamiliar, but I wasn’t holding my breath to see who would.  

This Post Re-allocates my “Formerly-Pinned Tweet.” in both link and text forms.  

The short thread is a good, basic reminder, but I just got tired of looking at it. I want it out of the way for now, but not to lose its statement entirely.  I’ve delivered it in two forms:  first, text only, and second, as-is (embedded link to the thread). I may include (if I can find them!) separate uploads of some of the images with the text version.

That thread still remains on Twitter — just not pinned to my account profile near the top. It’d be hard to find unpinned, so I’m posting it here and will (try to) add a reference link there.. I add as usual some comments above and below.

This thread is not a radical, earth-shaking set of information: it’s just really basic to what I’m doing on both platforms.  It will radically alter^^ anyone’s viewpoints who begins to understand and apply this to the subject matter of “family courts’ domestic/family violence and reforming any of the above.

^^Except perhaps for a (very!) few women** over the years who have already done and written up (you can’t really “get” it without major attempts to write it up) some deep dives on these financials.  Most do not continue it this long and with this level of detail, as free-access blogs, and pulling together as many types of information on it.  (You know who you are!).  To do this, we cannot be hanging continually with people just unwilling to put in the time, or without the emotional strength to stand apart from a perceived crowd going in a different (strategy for reforming those courts) direction.

(**Men of this character and track record may exist outside my social or on-line circles, but I’ve yet to meet a man willing to explore both the fatherhood and the domestic violence grants series; men don’t seem to come with that willingness or neutrality. I should qualify:  men or fathers with their own cases (custody, divorce, child support, domestic violence accusations, or being subject to it themselves, i.e., battered men.  I have been in touch over the years with several trailing around this movement (journalists, lawyers, and at least one embattled father.  Some have since died (old age or illness).  None wanted to or that I can see took on how the federal grants USA connect to the nonprofits, or the organization “AFCC” in its economic niche (as networked with grantees).

Beyond this I also blog the university centers to promote worldviews A, B, or C in gender, child abuse, fatherhood, domestic violence (etc.) matters. … early child hood education, you name it.  I’ve also looked into who owns the media.

I found this approach (follow the financials, understand some of how others typically hide them, or try to), use that as a standard of measurement, etc.) life-altering in how to view my own experiences and place in society, the world/this country, and in history

Time was then and still is marching on — I’m getting older!

The years of marital violence, the process of getting legal intervention (pro bono), restraining order, family court (fiascoes), trying to prevent “parental” (father’s) kidnapping — failing to do so for lack of comprehending how these things worked — dealing with the aftermath of all that (destruction of work life and social supports) were bad enough, but the self-proclaimed advocacy groups, “thought-leaders” and protective parents (labeling) “coalitions” around “fixing the family courts” to this day still collude to withhold from the public, and especially their own followers and supporters (whose stories are needed to justify and “legitimize” the campaigns) key elements of WHY this was happening: such as, the federal financial incentives spread from top-down to local grantees, and the private judicial organizations managing “coordinated community responses” to domestic violence, the nature of these specialty courts in the first place).

This is not just a passive withholding “(we just didn’t get around to it, sorry, folks.”) but also active where silencing and “excommunicating” anyone whose “story line” differs (and differs typically from our having understood the impact of federally-paid bribes, the infrastructures that enable loopholes in cashflow accountability, and such things)..  They will not link, retweet, talk about, refer, or even argue (as if talking to equals, which we are, as human beings and, in this case, United States citizens) against the contrary point of view.

I have come to understand that my, and other dissident mother “family court gauntlet” and “domestic violence” survivors, whose children were directly or indirectly harmed from having to witness this, and the courts’ “take-down” of their decent, law-biding parent in favor of one who clearly doesn’t respect the law, point of view, while innocent, and legitimate (i.e., we live here, demand financial accountability for federal funds, seek to protect basic government jurisdiction, opposed centralized control of all policies by  specific classes and castes of individuals — often already taking government grants directly or indirectly (i.e., through tax-exempt entities, or even within public or private (operating, guess what, also tax-exempt) universities or colleges — must be a real Achilles heel to what I deduce is not a legitimate agenda##

If there is another explanation for this “exclusionary” behavior, arrogant and self-important to the max (posing as humble and concerned), often by women, I’d like to read about it.

Do YOU have one?  Can YOU dismantle any of the argumentation I’ve posted on this blog across a dozen years, or tell me that what I’ve reported either (1) doesn’t and didn’t exist, or (2) “Maybe” existed, but just didn’t matter?

If this argument can’t be dismantled through logic or proving it to be either false OR irrelevant (or best, both), then why not deal with it other than in cult-like behavior:  pretense (in public) it doesn’t exist and hope it won’t dismantle one’s followers and supporters?

So I’ll describe two approaches (again) and why though I could headline with the first, I’ll reference the first, but lead with the second — and believe that if enough others also considered that option, we might have a justice system instead of being led by coalitions of hypocrites constantly feeding only phrases (‘fixing the family courts, safe parents IN the family courts, protecting kids IN the “custody courts” and more trainings for all involved… and more and more behavioral interventions for “bad” parents. “Pass more laws to order more trainings — we’ll do the trainings…” and so forth..

One is approach (perspective) heavily experiential — but the other way turns the lights on cognitively, as to both the broader the context and more documented, mostly accessible details and in a non-anecdotal, non-hearsay, relevant, and harder-to-challenge way.  The second way is more solid, but my experience definitely fuels the motive to promote this approach, especially for these specific matters and causes.

~ ~ ~

## In our case/my experience, post-DV protection order, which was first quickly diluted and then became unrenewable. I needed that renewal to continue supporting my household, with children… After restraining order was expired, and attempts to renew it (twice) failed, I had to deal with the situation as it was — weekly interactions, mid-week interruptions, and at any time, harassment and interference, stalking (and combined with as much “controlling” behavior — ALMOST — as when we lived together —  word quickly spread  to my clients and rebuilt social support networks (mostly through those clients: I was working in my profession as a classically trained pianist/accompanist/ vocal coach, choir director & private teacher.  In other words, not a nine to five job… more flexible for parenting, but it involved working parts of weekends) that I was under attack and on any given weekend might (and likely would) be either recently traumatized, having to go to court and prepare for it, or having just had to call the police for safety, or up to a certain date) get my children back from a court-ordered visitation with their unrepentant about it batterer/abusive father, etc.

After a certain year, through the triumph of child-stealing over law enforcement willingness to stop it (as it was occurring..), it was established to all involved (him, me, officers, judges, and friends, clients at the time, and bystanders, and my own family line, who had (it turned out later) a close financial interest in that custody-switch and dscrediting me as a person, and of course a mother AND TO OUR CHILDREN)that in no way would those counties (whether district attorney, family courts, or law officers — or the variety of nonprofits) do anything to prevent or undo (correct):

stalking, harassment, or for the children’s sake, to help my “ex,” just one man, their father, gain (“regain” didn’t apply for how little existed to start with) some respect for the law and for existing court orders, after all he’d just gotten away with or, apparently, enough self-respedt to get serious about finding regular employment.  At the time I innocently believed that the child support agency would do its job and that like me, IT too understood the benefit to society (and our kids, and my safety) of having a father working steadily, rather than being free to hauntme while and where I was, in fact working, month in, month out (etc).

All that is long past.  It’s a common experience (too common), but understanding from the economic perspective how that very commonality is then used to avoid solving the most basic problems to me was radically life-altering.  :  low-hanging fruit for involved professionals (courtesy the US Federal government Welfare Reform, etc., and other sources for “violence prevention” (sic), and that I could, as a single human being, investigate the powerful forces at work by just looking up entities and following their financials.

SOME more of course was involved (see this blog for examples!), but for me that was a key turning point from “telling my story” to empathetic ears, to doing my own research and reporting that instead. Unfortunately over many years, I also had to report others supposedly on protective parents (mothers’) and our children’s sides, and acting in their best interests (I’m not talking here, the courts, but a few nonprofits, related professionals who’ve become adept at getting quoted in press soon after any headline — in fact, these not only report, but literally track down, contact, and recruit traumatized mothers to join the cause, offering (basically, false) hope to fix the system.

I am still reporting on the same; my basis for reporting isn’t so much on the morality of these groups, but how following the connections between nonprofits (and of course looking up their financials) puts a clearer light on the “shine-the-light” act. To do ths requires a personal change of priorities.  This hasn’t been fun but it has been empowering and has been a powerful antidote to ignorance dressed up as intelligence. (Truth is like that).

So this formerly “pinned” Twitter thread by making an overt, clear reference to an IRS Form 990 (2020 guide to its parts) and (my thread, not the guide) talking about tricks used to deflect and avoid showing where those “independently audited financial statements” may be on a given organization website is still radical.  It’s not the whole story, but it’s a pretty good signpost!


Truth Fuels Flight, Lies Ensnare. Don’t Hang With, Serve (or Donate to) Tricksters or Their Targets. It’s a New Year — but there is STILL no excuse for abuse.

Twitter Housekeeping (Working on my Account Profile):

If I had better technical skills (or time to acquire them between investigative blogging — that is investigating, and blogging — and recently getting too absorbed on Twitter, responding to current events (in the Family Court Reform fields of course), I by now might have also filled in the blanks on my home page with an image (that image would contain key words).  I think about it daily, though; it’s a matter of lining up what’s required and then choosing my favorite no  doubt sarcastic phrases to jerk the consciences awake.  Mathematically, I don’t expect that would make enough difference to turn the tide of sponsored inane sales pitches on policy reforms, but it’ll make me happy and maybe help a few souls, ideally younger ones, figure just a few more things out.  It would also for me just represent a slightly improved output.  Right now you can see that home Twitter page is incomplete without a background image or photo.

On both this blog (well, my WordPress blogs) and Twitter:

The New Year’s BlueJay Gravatar, much as I like the photo on its own and as a personal symbol, needs to go one of these days also… I love its connotations, but something a little stronger for these times, I think… I’d say Wolverine, but that’s a state animal.  Maybe a short motto in some badge could be condensed to that little circle.

NEXT: Just the text, slightly expanded:

I expanded some abbreviations made to meet Tweet character limits. I only expanded “FS,” once: it stands for means “financial statements,” and for this blog I mean AUDITED financial statements, whether talking about governments or businesses. Such statements should show balances from the start of the filing entity, should also tell (in Note 1 to any such statements) what the filing entities, plural, are, if they read “consolidated” and more.

A link to the actual Twitter thread (with attached media, some of which are my annotated images) is further below.  Horizontal lines separate one Tweet from the next in this text-only version:


~~>>irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i9 Parts (I through XII) & Schedules IRS #Forms990 elements, filing standards, glossary for tax-exempts who must file. Some file #Forms990_PF some do note have to file, some do not or barely, belatedly, comply. My Tweets and [blog] posts often feature charity or private foundation [990PF] filings.


One pattern I’ve noticed repeatedly is that some of the seemingly most-transparent organizations, who do in fact post audited financial statements (the private entity version of gov’t #CAFRs, wh/ we should also become familiar with as citizens), can still: =


/bury them in odd places on a website, like NOT under a menu or link “Financials.”
/post just one year’s worth/mislabel the fiscal year (FYE =/= FY). (Fiscal Year ENDING for Fiscal Year)
/ensure that the Audited F[inancial] S[tatement] links aren’t near the Form 990 links (so easy to put parallel)


/post both AuditedFS & #Forms990, but FS (Note1 should always define) &/or Form990 Schedule R,Part II (“related tax-exempt entities) reveals not all 990s posted.

Verbal clues “Consolidated FS for __” | “__& Affiliates.”

On closer look too much so-called philanthropy =Smoke&Mirrors [this Tweet has images]


Never let elegant,entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags (ex: #keepChildrenSafe) SalesPitches distract from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity & cashflow terms. Those so passionate for system transformation, equity, & latest UN SDGs don’t**

I picked some examples of recent interest, but the same could be said equally of the “faith-based-organization” “familyValues” contingent who believe we should ALL fund specific religious values (new-age or otherwise), AND the war [between] both, via income tax & fees-for-services USA.

[UN SDGs = UN Sustainable Development Goals.  The Twitter thread has an image making clear that reference:  There are 17.  “Justice” is next to last…


** (i.e., “[such people]….don’t let elegant, entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags, [and] Sales Pitches distract (them) from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity and cashflow terms. — so why should we?

All of those entertaining, elegant, things — with Sales Pitches — (I should’ve added “engaging” (interactive websites respond to clicks for more information, or another image in a slideshow — or the images load automatically) combined with sales pitches — are there to distract viewers and readers while the system transformers are busy doing other things, like making more professional connections, running trainings, publishing results, and applying for more government contracts and/or grants (etc.).

These things seem, the overall message seems, aimed at consumers and voters, to reassure us (all) something is being done:

“help is on the way” or, case in point for this subject matter, “Reform  — your saviors — are on the way / The Calvary is coming/wait for your Knights In Shining Armor  to punch a few holes in the “Bad guys/bad theories/ignorant- untrained judges” (The Heroes: multi-disciplinary professionals with expertise in the family courts, child abuse, domestic violence, and handling abusive men (etc.).

(continued below on Footnote “Don’t Let Elegant Entertaining and Engaging Visuals Distract You — These people don’t!” 

Because I have more to say on it…

~ ~ ~Meanwhile, keep going about your business, reproducing, and producing those tax receipts (main source of government revenues) but don’t ask too many questions about how to find out where they are going, or where you might find out such things…

(I know, I know — that sarcasm keeps coming out.  I still say it’s appropriate to the circumstances!)

[SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS, including re: WINGSforJustice.com and its Lundy Bancroft connections, just removed.  It’s what was on my mind above, but needs to be its own post.  There is no lack of background information on this situation; after leaving it up about two weeks here, I decided to take it off and present it more systematically next time…//LGH March 19, 2022]

Here’s my (soon-to-be) formerly pinned post.  Click to see the thread, text content below the images.  Several images also have media attachments which are part of the message here. This thread was probably composed to be pinned (not written and then chosen to pin), as you can see, in June, 2021 — not that long ago (as of today)…

One of the “2 replies” is me — and it’s got four posts with media attached.  Just a short statement of exhortation and observation.

Footnote “Don’t Let Elegant Entertaining and Engaging Visuals Distract You — These people don’t!” (i.e., “[such people]….don’t let elegant, entertaining visuals, logos, hashtags, [and] Sales Pitches distract (them) from the habit of translating what’s SAID into what’s DONE by WHOM, in business entity and cashflow terms. — so why should we?….

And their long-suffering, traumatized but consistently telling their stories “protective mothers” “protective parents” and “aged-out” (turned adult) “courageous kids” (<~~that part definitely applies!):

Thanks for your being our Message’s passionate underscore —  for your supporting role as Survivors Exhibits (at conferences, live or virtual, nationwide  (we, the USA collaborating experts, will handle reporting to other countries), without asking too many question, or developing relations with any of those not-so-forthcoming, not so malleable dissident Moms who disagree with our (collectivist) strategy

of charging windmills,  attacking paper tigers [1], dramatically (while you’re watching) boxing the air (<~atheist alert:  that’s a Bible quote, 1 Corinthians 9:6-7, and the apostle Paul saying that’s what he did NOT do, run “uncertainly” or fight as one boxing air), with volumes of media and academic journal articles and perpetual references to them …

15 Logical Fallacies to Know from “BestSchools.org” for my March 7, 2022 post (short-link ends -dNX) (removing Pinned Tweet to a post)

[1] I’ve probably used the term “paper tigers” wrongly there.  I meant concealing the real operators involved.  For reference, here’s a website listing 15 common logical fallacies. Typing from recall, in this context I see I meant the “Strawman argument.” A paper tiger is weaker than it seems. A strawman is just plain off-target: if you win, “so what?” See nearby image listing them.

Context:  Coaching and supporting (women) who charge after “parental alienation theory” and support professionals who love to debate that, while ignoring the infrastructure, are being USED to fuel this Strawman debate.##

Such people are not throwing their OWN kids under their bus, or own careers, or own access to federal grants (USA, Canada, UK) to study this topic (ad nauseam) and crow about each new acknowledgement of being “heard” on it for their tireless (publications…)… (as if no pay were involved in the same)

On further review of “15 Logical Fallacies to Know” — most fallacies seem common use, among the toolboxes of FamilyCourtReformists. It’s frustrating to see how (apparently) successful they are their handling of many logical fallacies in quick succession in almost any format.


##  I say Strawman “debate” not “argument” because the arguments I keep reading aren’t even logical.  They rely on excessive, inbred citations and piling up media references, mixed liberally with words such as “evidence-based” “empirical” “forensic” or even “clinical” where possible to slip that one in (for behavioral health or psychological fields), but take it apart, as stated, and look for a real argument — and you’ll find, mostly, assumptions.  UNproved ones, UNsubstantiated ones, and behind that more of the same, but over time, stated a little less academically.. and people around the internet (mothers, especially) can be found perpetuating  — literally, quoting — the earlier versions.  ICYMI, I’m referencing especially “58,000 children a year” stated with intense and indignant conviction, passion or even sometimes tears — but determination.

I’ll take the rest of THAT paragraph  a footnote to this footnote:  “## Footnote “Debate, not Argument” (58,000 Children A Year” — STILL!) immediately below this one.

The idea isn’t to actual proving any sound, and logical argument (the idea isn’t actual argument, but to be seen AS if arguing).  The idea is to pushthrough legislation to expand and perpetuate the cycle of trainings — but allow certain individuals to get their hands on more of the resources (and continue building their own reputations) of doing good works by having achieved / accessed to this. Without ever proving that lack of training or “what judges (etc.) believe” is even the problem.

And to do it with apparent “consent of the people” through ongoing logical fallacies amplified and multiplied over time.  I’ve seen it in action for years. The best I can do is point it out, in action, and point to tools I have used to cut through the layers of propaganda and (hopefully) deflate some of the hot air involved.

The aligned professionals — basically across two major fields:  law (includes most jduges and justices’ backgrounds) — and the mental/behavioral health fields whose labels begin with  “psych-” (about three come to mind immediately) + I should add, the “social science” fields must be laughing, booking hotels and writing off their deductible-expenses ways to becoming the next principal-investigators on (or subcontractors for)  the next NIJ or DOJ/OVW or VOCA (Victims of Crime Act) federal grantsto expound upon their or their aligned colleagues (pick a side of parental alienation:  Pro? or Con?)own (leaky, fault-ridden) foundations of impressive verbiage and impressive people who quote (or, debate — which also lends credibility to status) it… such a lifestyle it is…

My problem is, I’m just not impressed.  Sound arguments, honesty (ethics) and argument does impress me, as well as people who expect women to respond to that — not just warm shoulders and an empathetic ear, while being given dumbed-down versions of the truth appropriate for somewhere below adolescent level (but vocabulary sounding as though it were more mature)…

With the heavy loads we’ve been lifting all these years

and being hauled through different courts and institutions just for saying NO to abuse

 we deserve better.  We should demand that “better” of ANYone, any website or any individual, that wants our stories

And we should demand it of each other too. No short-cuts getting to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

It’s OK to be wrong, and to have been found believing what’s simply not true, or supportable.

But it’s not OK to stay hang out there and fail to confront the lies and liars, having been found in that condition.

We who’ve been through severe abuse personally, involving our own bodies and/or our children’s ought to “stick together” but we do not owe ANYONE to stick with those who’ve left truth by the wayside, who respect “experts” more than their own common sense and innate intelligence which kept them alive (apparently) so far. I don’t hang with that (except to point it out — then GET out — any more than I now attend any traditional church being desperate for fellowship and what may look like companionship and social support.  … Not that I was raised in the church, but my marriage involved a Christian (so-called) man who was “OK” with assault and battery (and what is now called “coercive control” but is really just classic domestic violence in all its manifestations).  So no, I do NOT have to “collaborate” with that.

That’s one of the strategic “lies” perpetuated from the start of a decision to form a “Mother’s Movement,” which has been documented in writing in several places, and I will get to (soon) as a deliberate distraction from the money trail and providing traumatized mothers (or those who want to help them) with basic tools to evaluate and follow a money trail, in this country (USA) or any other.

But I’m referring especially to the USA. //LGH

~ ~ ~

## Footnote “Debate, not Argument” (58,000 Children A Year” — STILL!)I just heard it today in a 15-minute video by a mother from Michigan (originally, as to the custody case), forming a new nonprofit, and the presentation framed before and after by Lundy Bancroft.  Not only did this woman NOT protect her children (lost in family court), get jailed once and threatened with more jail (over child support payments), refused to motion for reunification with her children (that seems to happen, from casual observing — not anything formal on my part — more often with already identified abusive parents), but she a few years later was — in a strange case which had some fleeting reference to “domestic violence” but doesn’t really seem to be such  — murdered, in an apartment with a man she’d taken home from a bar (nearly 2:00 am) in Newport Beach, California — and was discovered, shot to death with this other man — in a locked apartment, April, 2019.  I was listening to a tape only (though date wasn’t shown) what seems to have been very late 2016 or very early 2017.  Her ex was a conservative Christian pastor….  VERY disturbing to hear (in more than one video) this woman get set up to fail, or having already failed, made a further fool of and exploited to entrap even more women with that quote!

I’ve added several tags not directly discussed above, but which (if clicked on) lead to posts which discuss principles it refers to. (all except the first few have some version of the “family” or the letters “Fam” in them.

~ ~ ~ To go back to the top, click on this Title:

@LetUsGetHonest Pinned Tweet (thread) with IRS Form 990 explanation and more, Moved Here [Mar. 7, 2022]. (short-link ends “-dNX”).

~ ~ ~ To go to my next post (assuming I have now published it):*

Moms New to #FamilyCourtReformists’ Lobby (Safe Child, Safe Parent, Broken Family Courts, Flawed Practices — and Please Welcome Our Nice, Empathetic, DV-Expert Men) Should Consider Their Script Carefully. [Mar. 11, 2022]. (case-sensitive short-link ends “-dQh”)

*(Some tags here may now apply more to there)..

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

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

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

%d bloggers like this: