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

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

Posts Tagged ‘AHA – American Humane Association (involved in NQIC-NRF HHS grantee)

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence Considering Its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show. (Started Jan. 23, 2020, Published May 20.)

leave a comment »

Post in transition — see below (extended intro).  This will change back to a shorter post, soon I hope.//LGH.  See current national news events and below.

This Post: For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20). (Case-sensitive, generated short-link ends “-c80,” that final character is a “zero” not capital “O”) (about 5,200 words). Minor copy-editing revisions May 29.

Explanation: Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.
This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then on my home page, Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

This post holds some text I’d compiled in 2016 on a Page (published separately April 27, 2017 but before then a page published Sept. 2016), then moved here as a draft post, with updates, January 23, 2020 and SHORT intro. It had since then remained in draft status. //LGH 20May2020

That Page:

Do you Know Your NGA? Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/ Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

Title probably should’ve read “1996” — not sure why I put in 1998 at the time. PRWORA was passed in 1996.  Certain fatherhood-related, Congressional resolutions, etc. were also passed in 1998 and 1999 while the nation was changing its entire Social Security Act funding (and along with it, distribution methods for child support) in the years after 1996. [//LGH 2020 comment]

Two images (snapshots of a few paragraphs each) from my 2017 Page, next below, give more content.  I also see on review that this page dealt more with the NGA, while today’s post with the NFI.  On seeing substantial overlap (i.e., the ‘NFI’ part I’d obviously planned to transplant here a few months ago), I’m going to remove it from the 2017 page to be replaced with a link here. //LGH 20May2020.

On this blog, remember that shortlinks for pages use a capital “P” as in “http://wp.me/PsBXH-4qs.  By contrast, short-link for this post would be “http://wp.me/psBXH-c80“.  I usually provide just the last three characters as I more often write posts than pages…

For this post, recognizing the acronyms “NFI” (see title) and “NGA” (for ‘National Governors’ Association,’) and “QIC-NRF” (the “Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers” — searchable on this blog, and my post on misleading* terms including “QIC”) would be helpful to know.  

*Why are such terms”mis-leading”?  When it comes to tracking public funds to their private (or other public) grantees or other independent contractors, to the extent this information is supposed to be made available to the public, it’s the ENTITIES that must file and to read what they filed, you must find their names to look them up.  A program (including a non-entity “Center” at some large institution such as a university — or federal/state department) is not an “entity.”  See “example” section, next, but the concept in this paragraph (stemming from the “QIC-NRF” term) continues after the marked section with a few images.

Some business entities are named “Center” “Institute” or “Initiative” (such as the NFI), but the use of those words on a website does not automatically represent a business entity, particularly those within universities.  Sometimes a similarly named nonprofit exists, most times it does not.


Example:  developingchild.harvard.edu (Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child; I blogged a year or two ago, several drill-downs because several organizations were funding it).

It’s so “normal” and good for sales to characterize a project, a collaboration, or a program as if it had real (corporate) personhood when it doesn’t, if you’re in that business or listed positively on their websites.  The basic process is distraction. — reframing any issue.  In this, Harvard’s great reputation is a plus, but thinking about how large Harvard’s endowment already is (one of the largest around) (or how late in its history it and other Ivy Leagues admitted women as undergraduates, or to some of its graduate programs, too), would be a negative, including for the many (also famous) sponsors of this “Center.” In the center (fine print, bottom links) is also a “National Council on the Developing Child” (as opposed to a CENTER on it?).  From its website (<~~link just provided), it self-characterizes as a multi-university collaboration, later (abstract from a “retrospective report“) simply a “group” and the project as translating science for the lay public and policymakers (specific fields of science listed among the members, including psychology alongside neuroscience, immunology, and specific medical fields):

For the past decade, a diverse group of distinguished scientists has worked to translate complex research about early brain development into language that is scientifically accurate, highly credible, understandable to nonscientists, and useful to public decision makers. Across the United States and around the world, in both public and private sectors, the work of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child has helped change the conversation about providing young children with a healthy, safe, and nurturing start in life.”

[Notice the three icons: “Relationship (adult**/child/abacus)” – Brain – Gov’t Building.” The woman in photo is not necessarily a mother, although the child is clearly a toddler.

In very, very fine print at the bottom of the report (as well as on its title page) it’s mentioned that this National Council is in fact an initiative (not its own fiscal entity) of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard, which “Center” isn’t an entity either.  Harvard is.  Think you can find this center’s activities (and private grants supporting them) within Harvard’s overall financial statements? (if available), or on any part of an associated tax return (for Harvard)?

The intent is (basically) to affect early childhood of the nation’s children based on their shared scientific understanding of what makes for “successful” children, and a Core Story (helped by “Frameworks Institute”) of Child Development — AND sponsored by a series of foundations, which I also (after discovering this center) looked up and blogged at least some of the more unique and less well-known ones, the intent is that this collaborative science should rule over and run public policy — based on how distinguished, diversed, and scientifically accurate the funded scientists (esp. Jack Shonkoff) and collected interests represented here.  It’s also part of the continued attempts to blend in the more generalized fields of psychology and education with the more innately respected fields of neurology and medicine, which can be seen by looking more carefully at the people listed on the “retrospective report” in two columns, with “Former” not identified on that page as to what their PhDs were in.

With such intents, corresponding accountability should exist.  The practice of university sponsored “Centers” with collaborating private backers is routine; the practice of providing fiscal accountability to the public (whether it’s a private or public university, often federal grants are involved) is not.   The word “center”is routinely over-used.

In blogging earlier, on this “Developing Child” center (and associated funding foundations I also discovered and posted that a million dollars of grants over just three years went to a fake/non-existent entity which listed the wrong state on the tax return (grantor organization: “Alliance for Early Success”).   A million dollars may not seem like much if you’re Warren Buffet or one of his descendants, or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation (both involved), but to most of us this is not “chump change” — a small amount to be mis-placed.  What it did indicate, however, is an accounting gap.  And I found it by doing something deliberately “dumb.”  One tax return said they granted (repeatedly) to another, so I looked it up, and found a “dead end.”  No such entity. So where did that money go instead? (Off-the-record, most likely).

For the public, when it comes to accounting for where governments’ tax receipts go (the justification for ongoing taxation, right?), what really counts is at the accounting level –and for that, you need an “entity” unless they are dealing with under-the-table cash, trading favors (at what point does this become just “bribes”?) or intangibles.

When websites at universities like Harvard talk big, drop names (LOTS of names, whether of the scientists or the sponsoring entities, also many of them big names, but play “hard to get” about specifics — with home and other pages full of white space [the Harvard Center on the Developing Child], big pictures, icons, repetitions sound-bytes, and more links to more narratives or solicitations (and not links to numbers, and NOT what we need to know for accountability for groups seeking to influence something as nationally funded as “early childhood” (child care, head start, etc.)), that’s a problem, and it also signifies more where it came from

National Fatherhood Initiative EIN# 23-2745783 tax returns FYE 2016-2018 (which is FYs 2015-2017. Where’s tax return for FY2018, then? I’m looking May, 2020) shows about ½ million-dollar increase in (gross) assets.

For people who will actually crack open a tax return and think about its contents, I’ve provided several years of the NFI’s below, but this time did not call attention to the internal inconsistencies (for example, on Form 990 FY2011 (ending Sept. 30, 2012) between its Part VIIA, showing total Trustee/Officer/Director etc. total salary and checks off three “officers”, and where that same figure is supposed to be (but on the year I checked, wasn’t) incorporate) into Part IX, Statement of Expenses, Line 5.  

The amount off was that year’s CEO’s salary: $116K (not including the ex-President Roland Warren’s $135K).  Part IX, Line 5 showed no entry of any amount where this amount should show.

I see (running yet another update on the NFI EIN#) that for FY2016, the only paid officer is Christopher Brown ($172K) and FY2017  ($149K) and that main reported program service revenue is not revenue from actual program services but from sales of over $1M (for both years) which belongs on a different line in the tax return, as indicated when a negative amount for “cost of goods sold” appears (both years) under “Part VIII Revenues, Line 2 (for “program service revenues,” not  where it belonged, under the line-item (IRS form lists) inventory, which line is towards the bottom, Lines 10a (gross) b (cost of goods) and c (net).  

Putting the million dollars (main revenue) of NFI from those years where it belongs, however, would leave “program service revenues” (it seems, properly) blank, and reveal (for anyone who looked that far) that in fact it’s not really providing any program services, but just recording enough grants to be tax-exempt and selling product tax-exempt at over a significant markup (early years showed 100%).

How is that a legitimate tax-exempt purpose? It’s not a grant-maker (primarily), not a service-provider, it’s an entity with a website that sells product, with well-paid officers, and that doesn’t even fill out its own tax returns right.

I also found (then, now, and as ever) its subcontractors being themselves major U.S. Government grantees or participants (ICF International, The Advertising Council) and in general plenty of aspects of this single 501© organization (such as its legal domicile being in Pennsylvania, which I know to be a state that doesn’t require annual, or even frequent, filings of business returns, despite a Maryland address) and it being in the public relations and clearinghouse business overall — for “fatherhood,” of course, ah, …interesting.

Somehow this doesn’t communicate that well on Twitter…or ANY short-form media platform without a wrapt (or captive) audience.  But, I provided at least the links.

(Post title again):

For Political Clout, Big Isn’t Always Best, as the National Fatherhood Initiative, Inc. (1993ff, EIN# 23-2745763) and its Disproportionate Influence for its Small Size and Financially Fuzzy IRS Tax Returns Show (Started Jan. 20, 2020, Published May 20).(short-link ends “-c80”.  Tax returns and some text compiled in 2017 on a Page; moved here with updates, January 23, 2020).

[Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.//LGH 20May2020. First image shows “AFCC” under “ChildWelfare.gov/organizations/….  The Child Welfare Info Gateway has plenty of “father-focused” connections. Protecting children’s mothers and children from dangerous fathers doesn’t seem to figure high on this website’s “To-Do” list]. 

The National Fatherhood Initiative isn’t the largest of the HHS responsible fatherhood grantees around, but its leadership was among the original instigators of that funding.  

Just a reminder:  it’s a private tax-exempt incorporation which must file tax returns.  Using the word “national” is just a name and may or may not relate to how “national” it is.  The part that’s really “national” involved here is the U.S. federal government whose welfare appropriations are national in scope and which runs regional operations, i.e., has regionalized the USA down from 50 states and territories/islands (see Region 9) to just ten regional offices and its own administrative parts, with which local states are encouraged to deal to develop relationships with (especially) tax-exempt private community organizations and state and local jurisdictions. (More at Footnote “HHS Organization in its own words and pictures”)

NFI’s  name continues to come up on federal websites, and when people here are casting around for the name of SOME “fathers’ rights” organization, not having researched from the federal grants angle or any concept of size, age, or position on the networks, this one’s name is easy to remember and may get quoted.

In fact the real “fathers’ rights” entity to be most concerned about, in my opinion, is the U.S. Congress which voted these appropriations into place in the first place.  And elite groups like the National Governors’ Association which think it’s OK to outsource not only the provision of government services to “places where the sun don’t shine” but also the decisions on what services those should be in places where, for most of us, “the sun don’t shine,” i.e., the private roundtables where “pay to play” (or even show up), often remote from the geography governed, is the name of the game.

Recently I was looking at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Children’s Bureau’s information service, “ChildWelfare Information Gateway” where the “NFI” was listed, and I’ve known for years that its influence on a “QIC-NRF” (Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers) listed on the same gateway existed, which I blogged.

As it turned out, the family court-focused association “AFCC” also was listed there (see above annotated image)

And, NFI’s tax returns do show “government grants,” while the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” I know has shown some direct grants to this organization.

So, for this post, on January 23, 2020, I removed a section of National Fatherhood Initiative tax returns and some previous discussion with a view towards re-blogging and for other media platforms, from my PAGE (not post) first published April 27, 2017.  

I hope as a teaching example it may alert people to government privatization and to pay closer attention to nonprofits involved in causes of interest and evaluate them based on their provided (or, if not provided where should be, on that) “financials.” The time invested will be not be wasted!

Again, where this information (below, most of it) used to be:

Do you Know Your NGA?Post-PRWORA, 1998 Stealth, Coordinated Expansion/Diversion of Welfare Funds based on Sociological, Quasi-Religious Ideology on the Ideal Family Structure (the offspring of The 1965 Moynihan Report), Facilitated by (A) At least 39 of the Nation’s Governors and (B) as Coached by Wade Horn ℅ The National Fatherhood Initiative (Page Added Sep. 2016, Published Apr. 27, 2017) [<==with a case-sensitive shortlink ending “-4qs” ]

The “NGA is the “National Governors’ Association” which unlike some “associations” similarly named, isn’t actually a 501©3 nonprofit, but an “instrumentality” of government.  BUT, it owns one, called the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.  

The NGA came to my attention at some point for having promoted a statement, which I could personally attest to, on how domestic violence impacts a person’s ability to self-sustain; i.e., it has economic fall-out ramifications.  

Imagine my surprise to later (at some point in my long commute through the family court system, early 21st century California-style) to discover the same NGA promoting “responsible fatherhood” and state-level, statewide “fatherhood initiatives” as far back as 1994!

So, the above page deals more extensively with the NGA as it’d come across my path again during a time when I was studying national networks of non-profits focused on education reform (both political parties).  The topic came up …. education (as a field) and psychology (as a field) and the family courts (as a forum) are connected.

So are plenty of the major foundations who’ve chosen to “invest” in the same long-term, and whose tax returns too often, in too large numbers (millions of dollars at a time) often showed symptoms of “money missing in action” as, these days, standard practice / business as usual and etc.

Read the rest of this entry »

Swirling Circles of Influence among Networked Nonprofits (Tend to have a Single Vortex)

with 2 comments

NOTE: In 2016 I did more lookups on the “Miami Child Well-Being Court” model. It’s written not published. Hit me with a comment if further interested; see earlier 2016 posts for more info.
It’s definitely no fun conversing with a linear-based blog platform (minus an enforceable stylesheet) to whoever swings by here– on things, Let’s Get Honest, I’m reasonably angry and distressed about, and which I know to be driving the future downhill while calling it uphill.For example, how much more individual family prosperity might be around if these “change agents” were actually themselves open to outside input (like feedback) to the collective impact on the coverage gaps in their collective models?

Or from those who do not think the entire problems of the world actually fit into human neuroscience-based motivational paradigm, nor should they be crammed into that paradigm just because the giant contractor called the USA prioritizes that research.  Are you NUTS???  We’d better stay on top of what THAT’s all about (what’s the endgame…..).

There has to be a truth meter, and there has to be a balancing of this power.  And I’ll tell you what — it’s real hard to negotiate with someone who’s in control of the media, the money, to an extent the courts, and has their collective expert mouths open 24/7 (through the internet, conferencing, etc.).

In truth, this gets down to basically an economic model — and that is the best way to understand it.  Cut the crap — show me the funding, and I’ll tell you what the group’s about, truthfully… and how those who are constantly teaching and programming do not, by and large, walk in the same shoes (or paths) as their clients or the people on the radar to be socially changed… Actually, as most groups don’t talk about their tax returns, it’s up to use to talk about them.  UNBELIEVABLE what you can learn by reading these (assuming they exist…).

But if these weren’t the latest experts (God’s gift to humanity)– then they wouldn’t be “change agents” in the true meaning of the word, would they?  Because to force change implies to use of collective (networked) force and driving public opinion towards a certain solution to a certain problem, as framed by (the change agent).  

Unfortunately, they are copying each other’s models, and starting to clatter and clang to the same general beat.  those who don’t, don’t get grants next year.  Besides, what’s the point of access to all that wealth, if not becoming a change agent?

But what about the human spirit?

And what about meeting and talking with others with the intent to actually hear from and listen to them — and not an ulterior motive of behavior modification.

I hear people’s stories EVERY day (by virtue of being accessible) and many are hair-raising and involve an interaction with the court system, abuse by other family members…

Wikipedia illustration of “Vortex

“Vortex created by the passage of an aircraft wing, revealed by colored smoke”

The Miami Child Well-Being Court Model Concept,** though, has GEARS…  doesn’t sound or look as exciting — it has three interlocking labeled gears and is designed to be replicable.  (Link is from LAW.Harvard.EDU, CAP (Child Advocacy Programs) but apparently this model is spreading rapidly)

(Just dropping the reference; it’ll get posted eventually….)

Link Updates — that’s now a generic link to Harvard’s CAP news.  However, here’s a 2015 link to what it appears this post was referencing, with the gears:  http://cap.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/22_miami-child-well-being-court-model.pdf

That is a 3-pager link explaining the model.  Notice the participants in fine print at bottom of first page (I just transcribed, as it’s impossible to copy from website, or website as pdf, or to upload the same pdf, it seems to a blog for public discussion of the trademarked plan to alter the focus and form (nationally) of public institutions….

“The MCWBC Training & Evaluation Team is led by Judge Cindy Lederman, Miami-Dade Juvenile Court (11th Judicial Circuit, FL) and Dr. Lynne Ktaz, University of Miamia Linda Ray Intervention Center, in collaboration with researchers at RTI International, Dr. Jenifer Goldman Fraser and Dr. Cecilia Casanueva.  This effort is currently being funded by a generous grant from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control at the Centers for Disease Control (No. R18 CE001714).  The model began as an innovative collaboration between the judiciary and infant mental health, led by Judge Lederman in partnership with trauma expert, Dr. Joy Osofsky, of the Lousiana State University Health Sciences Center, and Dr. (Lynette) Katz.”  [quote added to post 12/2015]

I took some time (just now — on this major holiday weekend) to look at the participants here, in some detail.  Interesting affiliations and in what fields the various “Drs.” above, all women as it turns out, actually hold doctorates. (Hint:  Apparently none are M.D.s)…  This is becoming a separate post — it ties into major, systemic changes to the courts already set in place, and how they are occurring. As far as representative government f the people by the people, with citizenship being tied in the USA to specific states and people being subject primarily to laws (and taxation) in those states, this process is NOT good news.

This model was developed — excuse me — “evolved”  and by 2013 was trademarked.  See (later than this post — added during an update) http://www.floridaschildrenfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/MiamiChildHandbook.pdf  I’m saving this to Media — click for image. Apparently, despite the public funds (federal grants, juvenile court) — we’re not supposed to as general public, actually discuss the material on a public blog — see encryption of the text to prevent quotation under Fair Copyright Law):

!”#␣!”#$”␣%&”‘(␣)*”␣+*”,-␣%./012␣$%&#’␣()␣*␣+(%,##-(,.␣/%0-1␣(,(1(*1#&␣)2)1#$)␣(,1#.-*1(%,␣*++-%*/”␣1%␣ +-%$%1#␣”#*'(,.␣*,&␣-#/%3#-2␣4-%$␣1-*0$*␣(,␣$*’1-#*1#&␣2%0,.␣/”(‘&-#,␣*,&␣1%␣5-#*6␣1″#␣(,1#-.#,#-*1(%,*’␣ 1-*,)$())(%,␣%4␣/”(‘&␣*50)#␣*,&␣,#.’#/17␣8,␣1″()␣$%&#’9␣1″#␣&#+#,&#,/2␣/%0-1␣()␣*␣+’*14%-$␣4%-␣(,/-#*)(,.␣1″#␣-#*/”␣ *,&␣#44#/1(3#,#))␣%4␣1″#-*+#01(/␣#3(&#,/#␣5*)#&␣(,1#-3#,1(%,)␣4%-␣$*’1-#*1#&␣/”(‘&-#,␣*,&␣1″#(-␣/*-#.(3#-)7␣!”#␣ $%&#’␣4%/0)#)␣%,␣:;<␣/#,1#-(,.␣1″#␣*11#,1(%,␣%4␣1″#␣/%0-1␣%,␣1″#␣&#3#’%+$#,1*’9␣#$%1(%,*’9␣-#’*1(%,*’9␣*,&␣$#,1*’␣ “#*’1″␣,##&)␣%4␣1″#␣2%0,.␣/”(‘&␣(,␣=0&(/(*’␣&#/()(%,␣$*6(,.9␣/*)#␣+’*,,(,.9␣*,&␣+#-$*,#,/2␣&#1#-$(,*1(%,>␣:?<␣ 1($#’2␣-#4#–*’␣1%␣*,&␣=0&(/(*’␣$%,(1%-(,.␣%4␣)#-3(/#)␣4%-␣*&=0&(/*1#&␣/”(‘&-#,␣*,&␣1″#(-␣+*-#,1)9␣*,&␣:@<␣/-%))␣ &()/(+'(,*-29␣)0)1*(,*5’#␣+-*/1(/#␣/”*,.#␣*1␣1″#␣/*)#␣’#3#’7␣!”#␣$%&#’␣”*)␣.#,#-*1#&␣*␣.-%0,&)A#”␣%4␣(,1#-#)19␣A(1″␣ /%$$0,(1(#)␣*/-%))␣1″#␣/%0,1-2␣*,&␣(,1#-,*1(%,*”2␣)##6(,.␣1#/”,(/*’␣*))()1*,/#␣1%␣#B+’%-#␣*&%+1(%,␣*,&␣*))()1␣A(1″␣ ($+’#$#,1*1(%,␣%4␣1″#␣$%&#’7␣C)␣1″#␣%-(.(,*’␣&#3#’%+#-)␣%4␣1″#␣$%&#’9␣1″#␣D(*$(␣1#*$␣”*)␣/%,1(,0#&␣%,␣*␣)1#*&2␣ /%0-)#␣1%␣50(‘&␣1″#␣1-*(,(,.␣-#)%0-/#)␣1″*1␣A(”␣.0(&#␣#44#/1(3#␣*,&␣)0)1*(,*5’#␣($+’#$#,1*1(%,␣%4␣1″#(-␣/%$+’#B␣ $%&#’7␣


Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: