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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘“Audited Financial Statemts (entity detailed financials) vs Annual Reports (basically = entity advertising)”

Got a Campaign, a Cause, an Advocate You Want (Me, Us, Others) to Promote, Support, Publicize or Volunteer For? FIRST, Understand “Entity” and Find Which One You’re Promoting. Investopedia, Defining “Accounting Entity” Shows The Risks of Failure to Comprehend the Concept. [Draft, Oct. 26, 2021, Publ. May 18, 2022: at 27K words…].

leave a comment »

ABOUT THIS LONG and LONG-DELAYED POST (You may want to read first!):
 
“WTF?”What’s going on here?


This is what’s going on: I’m in housing transition: I’ll be out of this place within the next 24 hours, literally, and still not exactly sure how to reach the next (safe place) destination about one state away. I know it will represent a blogging pause, so I went through my most recent drafts, looked for some which were most helpful, and least embarrassing in format. Three or four qualified, but I chose this one. The most embarrassing aspect is its obnoxious length. On the other hand, within the contents is plenty of useful information; people who may follow my writing will understand better. It’s focused on a key concept and I think illustrates it at length (literally…). It was drafted eight months ago — that’s a long time, but this is still a worthwhile post for the patient readers, or those who understand it may work better read in installments (some today, some tomorrow…).


Parts of it apply to different situations:  for example, (not its main focus, but) I see on scrolling through it today (5/18/2022), I’d shown the tax returns of what’s now called “Evident Change” but was then “National Council on Crime and Delinquency,” (inc. 1907 and I’d said, may just have been the model AFCC was following, only with family courts, not juvenile…)  NCCD began with associations of probation officers, definitely a focus on the juvenile (age group), which I’d just Tweeted on yesterday.  NCCD’s California Registry of Charitable Trusts “RRF” filings also show which governments — this usually shows which USA governments or government agencies — it was taking grants from. I still remember the shock of discovering, it was taking grants from a whole selection of governments OUTside the USA.  From yesterday’s Tweet, I recall (possibly post http://wp.me/psBXH-2KW, but check Twitter) I’d written in 2014 but (another long blogging pause, that time for family court aftermath litigation) only posted in 2017.  These delays happen at times, especially when your out put doesn’t keep up with your own research, which never stops…  NCCD (Evident Change) has an office not far from AFCC’s office in Madison, Wisconsin (by “not far” I mean, when I last looked, a very short WALK away, around the block).  I would say that’s an entity to watch although it’s not much in the news.  Learn who it’s been and what it wants to do:  this link will redirect:  https://NCCDGlobal.org


I may never get around to splitting or further developing the material on this post. I can’t see that far into my own future, but I hope its serious topic resonates with gut instinct that there HAS to be a better way to categorize and keep track of advocacy groups, and governments. Before 2022, VAWA Reauthorization and other media “events” and campaigns, this was where my blog was going: to revisit and re-emphasize the concept of “Entity.” (Without the entity you can’t track the money…Looking for them is its own set of lessons). Another example: I see I had a link to the California Secretary of State Business Entities Search site. This will redirect — the appearance and function of that state has since migrated into a whole new format; at some levels it has more functions, but in display, in many ways less, making communications on findings among (normal people) harder… Government (and private) databases migrating platforms and undergoing format changes will happen, but still important to notice as it happens.  “ENJOY…” //LGH May 18, 2022.


From California: (Businesssearch.sos.ca.gov website delineates what types can and cannot be searched on its main database, and how to find the other types of ENTITIES.

Post Title and Shortlink:

Got a Cause? Want to Promote an Advocate? Or Donate or Volunteer? Fine, but FIRST, Understand “Entity.” Investopedia Defines “Accounting Entity” and Why You Need to Get the Concept. (Oct. 26, 2021, Draft), Publ. ay 18, 2022 at 27K words. short-link ends -d2d even if this title may vary before I publish!

Let’s Talk “ENTITIES.”  Let’s speak “entity” and have some idea what one is — and isn’t.  This illustrates when someone or group of individuals, in self-descriptions (on-line) want to be seen as though “it” were.

Why Not Speak “Entity”? It’s the language of business, and government, of business doing business with government and/or with other businesses; it’s the language of governments doing business with other governments, and so forth, and it specifically deals with accounting.

That means, relevance to accountability.  And on this blog, we’re talking “family courts” which come under governments: that means accountability TO the public for use of things taken FROM the public, by consent or by force.


It just so happens that both businesses and governments are in the business of (are always) selling things: goods & services, and especially policies which sustain goods and services, and legitimacy.

The less most of us know about the language of entities, the easier such sales and the harder getting accountability will be. “A sucker [that is, a fool] is born every minute.” [Quote Investigator.com].

Why not talk entities when seeking policy change, or campaign funding for any righteous cause — like justice, instead of being foolishly “sucked in” by propaganda, i.e., accountability illiteracy or sloth (failure or stubborn refusal to fact-check presence or absence of alleged entity, or its profile indicators)?  


Most times, basically, a business search IS a business entity search.  Within the United States, Search websites in state after state make this clear.  The above example (image) is from California…. Search for (Google) “business entity search _______” and fill in the name of a state: or a country.  A variety of websites will surface; some search sties are run by private businesses, others government. Check the URL formats).  Either one could be charging fees to search, but most government sites don’t, at least for the very basic information.

On the other hand the types of data shown at least on initial level, changes over time and sometimes disappears from viewing and many state (and, generally, the IRS’s) entities’ search websites “summary results” are often NOT in formats conducive to taking screenprints to discuss with others in looking at or looking into who’s doing business where. In other words, functions may be added, while actual search fields are subtracted.  These changes are rarely explained or announced in advance: just show up the next time you visit the site.  Another reason I say, better to start looking before more data and data fields disappear or are buried even further from public access. 

But for now, databases do exist, and can and should be regularly searched for those concerned about any cause — because those causes will have driving entities promoting it, there will be some existing market niche (for most public policies) unless new ones are being carved out or spun off existing ones.


For California, (currently the search website is: BusinessSearch.sos.ca.gov), the word “entity” appears on both Business Search fields (and searchers, as in California, must choose which type of entity they are looking for) and in the search results, and on the Registry of Charitable Trusts ‘Verification Page.” One is run by the Secretary of State, (“SOS”) the other by the Office of Attorney General. 

The “Office of Attorney General/Registry of Charitable Trusts” (which will include search results with California entity numbers) web address is hard to remember/not intuitive, but If you can remember https://oag.ca.gov/charities, scroll down to “Resources & Tools” on right sidebar and click on “Registry Verification Search” This page and search results use the term “organization” not “entity” even when referencing the Corporate/Entity number (a searchable field) as you can see. I keep a link on my Twitter profile (@LetUsGetHonest).

Remember: these (state-level) government websites are not listing government entities but business ones, to monitor and control who does business or solicits funds/functions tax-exempt in a category which must register, within the state. It’s not a field to minimize or ignore.

To identify what government entities or authorities are in operation (at least USA), and knowing the which political jurisdictions define “USA”. Per Wikipedia, the United States is organized into:

…50 states, a federal district, five major unincorporated territories, 326 Indian reservations, and some minor possessions.[h]

Read the “minor possessions” link which further details incorporated territories and there are some helpful visuals. Rights vary among the parts that make up the whole called “U.S.A.”

When it comes to identifying “government entities (and their sub-parts),” for incorporated territories, all states, and presumably also the federal district (i.e., D.C.), there would be lists and organizational charts on each one’s annual “CAFR” (Comprehensive Annual Financial Report”) which is to be audited and posted for the public every year.  This awareness is helpful in any attempts to track finances or accountability among government and business entities.  There are also authorities (JPAs) etc. that cover more than one jurisdiction, i.e. government ENTITIES regionalized across state lines.  Example:  The Tennessee Valley Authority.


The word “entity” recurs throughout the financial statements (CAFRs) of the U.S. federal government, and on the Advanced Search (user interface) website  TAGGS.HHS.Gov on which one may search for HHS grants, at least from after about 1995 forward (HHS has existed under that name since 1980).

It’s a common word within businesses, especially ones doing business with governments.

Yet so many entities doing major, ongoing business with government in public-facing websites, and even government public-facing websites themselves (exception: on their own audited financial statements) use words interchangeably and inconsistently to the point of meaninglessness and to conflate non-entities with entities, public with private lists of the same, and to call non-entities in some lists ‘partners’ or “members” when by definition, they can’t be both at the same time.  

And that’s a shell game!

Thus anyone hoping to make sense of which is which on such public-facing websites, couldn’t figure it out by deduction.  The only way seems to be to have basic definitions going in, and then individually check out — for each name or label in a list — which and what it is.  Such an unnecessary burden IF there was a collective will for the public to tell its favorite charity (entity) from (a hole in the ground)!

Read the rest of this entry »

Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated "C.Psych"  and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).

with one comment

Just so you know:  This post has many large BIG pictures with pretty springtimebright colors, even a few cartoons, directors’ head-shots in circle’d cutouts and is possibly even shorter than its title.  

I’m as tired of the word-games / name-changes as anyone else, but not too tired to make fun of a few of them such as the ongoing attempts to use graphics, including pie-charts  with tiny numbers, and half the facts to coverup conflicts of interest and erect barriers to seeing the financials (even as posted under a link labeled “Financials”) followed by a lot of name-dropping (parts of Canadian government and specific foundations that are behind it).

POST TITLE: Behold, a municipal family court clinic, “Inc.”|| London, Ontario, Canada’s Answer to AFCC, USA (or vice versa?): ‘LFCC’ (1974) — I mean, ‘CCF in the JS’ (sometime <2009)– no, make that ‘LFCC’ (2014) but led by at least one AFCC-affiliated “C.Psych”  and, like AFCC, set up privately to feed off [a.k.a. ‘service/help’] BOTH Family (Private*) and Children’s Office (Public*) Court by way mostly, of Referrals & Lots of Gov’t Funding (Publ. Oct. 19, 2019).  (… “-bkw”)

This one is about 7,500 words, after I did “just a bit more” look-up and added that information to the top of the post (and more updates, reformatting Oct. 20).

LONDON FAMILY COURT CLINIC INCORPORATED

Digging for information:

Basic Website: https://www.lfcc.on.ca  Motto: “Professional Services for Families in Court”

Directors:   Daniel T. Ashbourne, C. Psych, Kimberly C. Smith, C. Psych, Joyce Radford, C. Psych.

(No JD’s or accountants?)

LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website. Read the legend for the categories. Fees for services and “All other revenue” under which they’d be included (dark green) only 20.8% or about 1/5th. What kind of assets are accumulated? Doesn’t show.

(Bio snapshots of each from web page shown in 21-image series below).

Is it a Court, or a Clinic? Well, Canadian Charities Search Site has it as a charity (private entity), effective date 1977 (not 1974), Fiscal Year ending March 31, and a pie-chart (differing from the one shown by the organization on where its revenues come from by category (Remember: not US$)

LFCC.ON.CA Charity Registration from gov’t website

 


 

Originators, per its “About Us/History” page,## which holds just three short, “link-less” paragraphs to cover over forty years (##an image provided below also):

Judge Maurice H. Genest, “mustered a small group of local professionals” to start “family court clinic” modeled after one in Toronto — but where to get the money?  Oh… the Ministry of Health… .

Read the rest of this entry »

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

leave a comment »

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

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

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


Among the various problems of projects which blend…

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And from the Time photo-essay link above:

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

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: