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 ‘DevelopingChild.Harvard.edu (Harvard Center on the Developing Child)

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.


CAN YOU TRACK THE MONEY OR GET SOME FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THIS?  CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHO STARTED IT?  WHAT, REALLY, IS IT?

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 »

Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements, Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Publ. Sept. 18].

leave a comment »

Another post held in draft now being released… From its contents below:

This post punctuates the overall message with the vastness of systems change 1999-2019 IN ADDITION TO major changes mid-1990s due to Welfare Reform + VAWA (also especially advancing public relations consultants and media owners), both …set up two decades ago.

Sure, it takes some concentration to follow, but no apologies offered!  Concentration is a helpful quality in life, as well as judgment on what to focus on and for how long!

Another choice quote from this post:

This fills in some of the billion-dollar-background context which sheds light on what the intense focus on “Zero to Three” “First 5” and “Early Childhood Education” special interest group coalition leaders know well that probably has escaped substantial notice of the paying public.

The coalitions happen at university and state leadership area backed by philanthropies (tax-exempt foundations) that often just do not even post their own financials, let alone post them in both legible and functional formats.

I wouldn’t dare make that last sentence if I hadn’t found it, repeatedly.  Really, the situation is shocking.

One foundation associated with a center listed below, at some point during recent drill-downs, I found claiming to have donated over a four-year period a total of one million dollars to an organization which actual organization (by its name) was at the time IRS-revoked status in Florida, while the foundation tax return recorded a Massachusetts address, as I recall, directly associated with this center, i.e., with Harvard. (Foundation: Alliance for Early Success, which is listed as an investor in the center).  Not posted here; that’s just my comment. If you want to see this, start looking for and looking up tax returns, then looking up among their larger grantees! I do not recall offhand whether I actually published any post containing that drill down, but probably have provided some links to it within the last three months)



Why posting this now, a bit out of sequence from recent themes?  Take a look at it below!  Would YOU go to all that trouble and detail and not publish? It also contains summary (first) and many valuable points of reference, I feel, below that.

It helps provide an overview of a system which the originators of the system so far have not and do not seem inclined to offer the public, from the perspective of expecting systems for fiscal accountability to exist within the United States, even in the tax-exempt sector, which we all know is interacting significantly with the public sector, which we fund every time we work and receive a paycheck, and in countless other ways when receiving or seeking services or accessing ANY of the vast infrastructure privately owned by the federal and state governments (as to USA) which frame our lives continually.

I see on reviewing this one just before publishing that in addition to the topic referenced, I’d also just recently run across “Harvard Center on the Developing Child” which intersects with subject matter of the family courts because of the psychology/education/early-childhood subject matter and professions organized, generally, into private societies by geography or special interests, so often accessing U.S. Health and Human Services grants and contracts.

THIS POST’s TITLE:  Health Systems Still Flushing Cash into — WHERE is it going again? (About 20 Years AFTER Tobacco Master Settlement Agreements + Other Tobacco Tax Revenues like Prop 10 in California Propping Up Public/Private “First 5” Circuitry) [May-June, 2019, Published Sept. 18].  (Shortlink ending “-aaH,” and (unbelievably) under 5,000 words)

SUBJECT MATTER CONTEXT: The most closely related post was published August 7, 2019 (which no longer shows on the “Last Ten Posts” widgets shown below as images or on the blog sidebar): A Health System Flush With Cash — because ‘Smoking Causes Cancer’ (1998 Tobacco Class Action Litigation MSA Payments, and Tobacco-Related Taxes Impact ‘in perpetuity’ on Systems Affecting Family Courts) ((Begun Early June; Publ. Aug. 7, 2019) post short-link ends “-a6m.”  Currently 5,200 words, having just been shortened (split), but this one is still a bit complex. Following the funds has been made complex. Last update, Sunday, August 11, 2019.

I’ve been trying to get out a “By Now We Should Know” post for almost two months now, while trying to deftly knit together some complex information as a backdrop to that basically simple post.


LGH|FCM post (pre-publict’n) Admin, ‘Health Systems Still Flushing w Cash’ Last Revs 3 months ~|~ 3 wks ago (June vs Aug 2019) (see June22 published post) ~~SShot 2019-09-18

LGH|FCM Sidebar ‘Last Ten Posts’ viewed in 2 images ~~>Screen Shot 2019-09-18 (Image #1 of 2)

[Sept. 19, 2019 Pre-Publication UPDATE: “By Now We Should Know” was published June 22, 2019.]

Meanwhile, I’ve also been working on blog front-page and trying to stay current with developing (family court legislative reform and government restructuring) events. (See small image, below-right)

I could just show here an image of the top of “By Now We Should Know” but feel it’s more helpful to provide it in-post, with active links.  So this post (otherwise complete at under 5,000 words) starts below with an updated section, added Sept. 18, 2019, after which I have published it basically “as-is” meaning, as it was, as written (last previous edit) August 28, 2019).

LGH|FCM Sidebar ‘Last Ten Posts’ viewed in 2 images ~~>Screen Shot 2019-09-18 (Image #2 of 2)

I’m also posting FYI here from the blog sidebar (as of today) annotated images to show the last ten posts reflecting some of the current content and (back through Aug. 15, 2019) the one most recently dealing with this Health System Flush With Cash” (see nearby, one on the left, the other on the right)…

This information is of course easy to see now (without annotation) under that sidebar widget; I’m including here only for future reference,  for anyone including myself who may be reading this post possibly months or a year or more from now). That situation comes up from time to time, as you’ll see below where I reference the “Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan topic” I posted on earlier, and how large an impact it had on the US economy (for starters) in the 1980s and 1990s.  Basic concepts to keep in mind and timeframes to remember (i.e., those LBO leveraged buyout years, major players, and more)…//LGH Sept. 19, 2019.

TOP SECTION, “BY NOW WE SHOULD KNOW” (encased in red borders, cream-colored background, with “Two Helpful Links” configuration also shown (as on that post)), published June 22, 2019:

“By Now We Should Know!” (Impromptu Re-cap of Key Players addressing [how to handle] Domestic Violence especially as it impacts Family Courts) (Apr 28 ~> June 22, 2019).  (short-link ending “-9NU,” post drafted as insert to “More Perspectives” in late April, under 4,000 words, for starters…). (now exactly 6,000 words; latest revisions for clarity and extra links, 6/23/2019).
Read the rest of this entry »

Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019].

leave a comment »

Caught! Chronically Usurping Communication btw. Government and the Governed, Pushing Back Legal Boundaries Set by Subject Matter and Geopolitical (State and National Borders), Undermining, basically, The USA [Published Sept. 16, 2019] (“-b4j”, about 8,600 words with footnotes).  [Over one dozen tags, only added Oct. 2.  This post covers key important basics influencing family courts’ purposes & principles]

(Top part — discussion.  Mostly prose, my writing.  If you want the individual professors’ organizations’ or advocates’ names, more pictures, and links, scroll down!  Based on the original word count above, I added about 2,200 words, including those long titles to connecting posts, so that’s not too far.  Tags for this post are shown on the previous (“Builders”) one.  Publishing as-is, without extensive copyediting and without apology. . //LGH Sept. 16.)

This post continues from the bottom of:

Builders and their Blueprints: Who, Really, Designed the Family Courts, How, and Since When? (“The Evidence Speaks”) [Started Aug. 17, 2019, Published Sept. 15].(short-link ends “-aI6” and the middle character is a capital “I” as in the pronoun,  or as in “Idaho.)

For the immediate context of that discussion, go to the very bottom of that post, which has a link to here. Handling the Blueprints/Builders topic above brought up the topics, and specific university centers, psychologists, and nonprofit government-advising institutions (i.e., Brookings Institution, in the USA) engaged in facilitating the usurpation.  I’d also brought up (quoted) an article on the “Transnational Ruling Class, … or Anglo-American Establishment” referring to the historic close, friendly, relations between the RIIA (London) and the CFR (USA). I searched those two terms as symbolic of the ongoing, functional undermining/ bypassing of local (i.e., within national boundaries) representative government in “developed” countries.  There’s a direct connection to the family law practices through, Tavistock Relationships (<~~that Wiki, while flagged, is still informative in this context), formerly Tavistock Centre for Couple Relationships, but also through historic development of the “psych” fields in Europe, what’s now the UK, Canada, the USA and globally. Particularly psychoanalysis (Freud & following) traditions are troubling when entrenched in government practices.

There, I had referenced and quoted:

This undermining of jurisdiction and the effectiveness of geopolitical (national, and within the USA, state, borders) process through perpetually-created crises has been taking place for at least a century, (For example, on the RIIA-CFR topic: Think Tanks and Power in Foreign Policy pp 189-214,CFR-RIIA Interconnections: A Transnational Ruling Class, Liberal Atlantic Community or Anglo-American Establishment? by Inderjeet Parmar, (“Chatham House” referring to the RIIA factor).

My post title here is generic but the original, specific details on this post cover common recent themes and situations in my blogging.  If I were to list them, I’d say:  “Psychologists and other Patriarchs, and their habitat: university centers” and then simply name specific ones, calling attention to in which countries they  were, the specific (i.e., Michael Lamb, Nicholas J. Cummings, Milton H. Erikson) professionals’ spheres of current and recent operation (also relevant here) and who mentored them, and how (Byron R. McCandless, Frieda Fromm Reichman) — which was the “new to me” part of this post, meaning, it’s not just a re-hash of material I’ve already said, posted, or otherwise covered.  There is much review, but it’s not just review!


Also, who mentored those mentors, for example, such as Kurt Lewin, at the Iowa Child Welfare Research Station (1933-1945) he ran after emigration from Nazi Germany, and how it influenced funding and directions in American psychology.  I’ve also included reminders about what scope of studies are involved in the Princeton-Brookings-Columbia (and now University of Cambridge) connections, as well as the patriarchy behind “Fragile Families” research, ongoing…  Just look for the more colorful parts of this post….


FYI: To think you can handle the women’s rights or “domestic (or family) violence (or abuse) prevention” field as somehow separate from all that is mistaken.  They are two arms off the same tree trunk. and tap root. The important thing (in my opinion) is locating the root system, its nutrients, and in which direction its growing. Both arms off the same trunk want to treat  and train as many people as possible, coordinate and saturate government with their knowledge, and, to the extent possible depending on just how gullible or vulnerable the public is, pretend the other arm doesn’t exist.   In addition, they want to get to ALL children as they are being born for proper rearing, and are using “violence prevention” or, alternately, “fatherhood promotion” or “evidence-based child development” (etc.) rationale for doing this.

(Example:  Harvard Center on the Developing Child and its extended reach/special sponsors, involvement of “The Frameworks Institute” and so forth).  The tangled mixture of participants, if laid out side by side and sorted into their respective categories, including “unidentified” then laid onto a chronology (identified date of origin) would be, I suppose, like a combination of the finds from an archeological/anthropological dig.  Except that it’s recent, and the artifacts  are being created at the speed of: collaboration, electronic transmission of data, and travel expenses for personal conferences, website expenses for webinars, most of it written off as exercised in some nonprofit format.


I’ve DONE some digs like that on this blog (check out a few posts from April, 2017 on a center at Brown University involving the Annenberg Foundation: yegads!), with the results being characterized — properly — as “dense walls of text.”  One recurring challenge — I’m intent to use vocabulary which categorizes according to public or private sector, entity or non-entity (which most centers within universities are), whether tax-exempt or not, and who is in which legal domicile — while the power-players and their hired/sponsored professionals in same sectors (both public AND private!) seek to do, and successfully do the exact opposite — blurred, meldedpersona… and they hire consultants to coach them how to do this!  The public, thus the more confused it is (we are) the less able they are to resist sales tactics or manipulations into, if nothing else, ongoing passive consent.  This is so much! like the tactics abusers also use on their targets.

I am also Tweeting on this, as it comes up (i.e., most days) along similar lines though of course mostly focused on this subject matter.

IF neither the UK and Canada has, as the USA does (however effective is another question, but we do have) any requirement to disclose their respective charities’ (tax-exempt entities’) tax returns — NOT the same as financial statements, audited or otherwise — that the public, theoretically, anyone with [un-censored by their own government] access to the internet regardless of national origin (it’s on the internet, in other words) could look up and look at, and learn from over time (and specifically as to individual tax-exempt entities which are required to file) then it’s quite possible this might only be dismantled and comprehended from the USA point of view.

Some organizations post “available upon request” or “available for inspection at our offices” but that’s impractical for any overview and financially burdensome to the person seeking it.  Some organizations do seem “open and transparent” by posting theirs, but on closer look many are partial, many are not even close to the most recent tax year’s (or the year’s before) and many when it comes to tax returns, may have related entities — with money moving between them — but only post one of the entities’ 990s.  There seem to be dozens, if not hundreds, of ways to put off the interested member of the public from getting to the truth of their fiscal operations or even status.

Unless there is some parallel in other countries for developing an understanding and perspective of how their own government revenues are collected, disbursed, and most important — accounted for (invested).  (See “Walter Burien” (currently out of Arizona) for more and concise summaries of this type of information on CAFRs, he says, reporting on it since 1989. He has a mailing list and while emails are rare (i.e., your inbox won’t be cluttered with solicitations), when they come they are very effective communication).


Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: