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

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘“Even men (and women) who beat up on their partners feed BIP (‘Batterers’ Intervention Programs’) and societies not to mention Social Science R&D for that sector.”

How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022).

leave a comment »

This post began as a section called “My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)” but a more specific description was needed outside of its original context, like in the title:   How USA Has Standardized, Professionalized and Privatized the Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots (Quick by-Recall Summary, Publ. Apr. 19, 2022). )(short-link ends “-ei7”), about 7,500 words;  the original essay, as usual, near the bottom)It came from the post (not published yet, as of 4/17/2022, and because more of a project, likely to be published after this one),

‘Table Talk’ Helps You Quickly Analyze Any Task Force*, Council, Commission, etc. (*Here, New York’s Task Force for a COVID-19 DV Response): Add Columns for Entity/Non-Entity, Website, Legal Domicile, and (For Size/Operations), Even Some Tax Returns [Begun Apr. 15, 2022].. (short-link ends “-egn”),

which I’d taken from and which was the original focus of this post (only published 4/18/2022):

My sentiments (opinions) regarding USA’s] … Basic Response to Domestic Violence, with Built-in Biases and Strategically Chosen Blind Spots, take a while to express.  So did my expressing how the post is organized. Enjoy the ride; there’s content and entertainment (at least my brand), and I trust more insight into current events (in this field) throughout whether preview, intro, or “basic quick summary.”  As a blog, it’s still informal in structure, not a book with chapters …//LGH

~~ Quick post preview before I publish this today, April 19.  Well, maybe not that quick…~~ 

This post’s two middle sections deal with the HiAP topic (how the entire topic of violence and abuse is framed, internationally and with intent that nations should make sure to get in line with this approach) and — only because the current arrangements USA, and as the domestic/family violence prevention field (notice I’m not saying “and child abuse” in that phrase) resemble in character and operations the same organizing and multi-layered, multi-sector, multi-jurisdiction arrangements that — until it collapsed and was shut down — were found from the 1970s until the early 1990s at the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (“BCCI”).  I found and added a few BCCI-summaries, but, people, this is NOT off-topic!

After those two sections, and moving towards the final summary, an extended set of paragraphs and some images/quotes regarding Lundy Bancroft (NOT my original focus in this post) made their entrance, and the bottom section is recognizable by its color.  In fact, this is how it starts:

My Basic Summary, Impromptu, By Recall (from the years of looking this up…)

For example, within the domestic violence (prevention and services) field, USA, it’s already been strategized and organized into statewide coalitions (primarily government-funded) with member organizations in each state (and/or territory), ALL tax-exempt and the delegated (and by law, better funded, from the US government at least), “Domestic Violence Resource Network” (on Twitter, I use “#DVRN”), itself a combination of entities and non-entities.  The DVRN provides the main theory and information to distribute; the statewide coalitions provide feedback and control operations within each state (via membership status for pass-through grants, typically small).
(PREVIEW HAS BEEN MOVED TO,  and  I expect  to  publish  today):USA’s DV Advocacy Infrastructure Looks, Sounds and Quacks Like the BCCI Scam, 1970-1990. [Posted April 20, 2022]. (short-link ends “-ekW”).

Several parts of this approach are unfair and lack transparency.  Some experts in particular, being more prominent and adept at self-promotion (in addition to positions of prestige to start with), have done irretrievable damage with obsession with behavioral modification (training perps, training judges, training everyone within reach), that is with not handling “domestic violence” as a criminal matter involving attacks upon individual persons, as opposed to establishing and building capacity of a  privately run, public-funded (mostly) system-of-change enterprise, with favored “warriors” and specific battle-cries featured and the overall truth — about the economic motivations, conflicts of interest with the public interest — often buried, no matter how many non-brainwashed survivors report it openly, usually individually, and usually without support of mainstream journals or advocacy (tax-exempt organization) groups compliant with the overall “privatization” schema.

Most of us “lone wolf bloggers” regardless of what we’ve researched, said, or know don’t have the public relations “pull” which is, bottom line, also connections to media, and access to the finances.

Moreover, if we don’t play up the “survivor” element in the right way, with the right demeanor and appropriately loyalty to the infrastructure — this includes keeping BIG secrets — we typically don’t have the stable employment, many do not have the pertinent advanced degrees (i.e., lawyers, psych, sociologist, etc.) common to the Family Court Reformists, regardless of what many may have had before the Family Court Fiasco experience involving (typically) years of litigation, broke or funded — the litigation continues…

We face paywalls regularly (journal subscriptions), no way to write off airfare, globetrotting consults or conferences (pre-pandemic or after), and, some having become also fugitives (for lack of the safety they/we didn’t get through normal legal protections or interventions), are often not even in the same public location, and not prone to divulging widely where we now live.  “It’s complicated.”  This leaves advocacy by the publicity-seekers but NOT personal long-term family court or domestic violence/child abuse issues — how many are even married or parents, or if so have gone through divorces post-welfare reform USA (1990s) or in this century, (CAFCASS was formed in 2001, right?)  I often wonder — a wider-open field.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

April 19, 2022 at 11:51 am

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

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

Coercive Control and Co-Opted Conversations in Connecticut (Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, his wife Yale MD, Ann Flitcraft, Serial Global BIP Entrepreneur(?), Safe&Together’s David Mandel) = LGH’s FrontPage Sept. 2, 2019 Subsection #2

leave a comment »

Published “WYSIWYG.”  The “ReadMore” link will be much closer to the top in a day or so. Revisions for basic copyediting and for better flow likely to continue over the next few days. The theme is important and timely; thank you for tolerance of the initial version in my voicing my concerns. //LGH.


THIS POST IS: Coercive Control and Co-Opted Conversations in Connecticut (Rutgers Professor Evan Stark, his wife Yale MD, Ann Flitcraft, Serial Global BIP Entrepreneur(?), Safe&Together’s David Mandel) = LGH’s FrontPage Sept. 2, 2019 Subsection #2 (Short-link ends “-aUL,” published Sept. 7, ca. 7,500 words):

“BIP” – Batterers Intervention Program”

I’d said and I still feel that:

…Many of us who’ve lived with in-home violence (rarely restricted to the home environment only) could “write the book,” on coercive control, probably without that label.   Some have written their own personal accounts, but the moment this goes into “the conference circuit” that’s not really in good company — and without the travel budget (etc.) impossible to keep up with AND manage one’s own life AND continuing research.

I say, why MUST we support all these professions which then have networked nonprofits, publications, policies and of course RoundTables with people basically in agreement with SOME of the basics — like the health paradigm, coordinated community response, and in general sticking the public with if not the costs of domestic violence, the costs of treating and “preventing” it…?  And why must “father-engagement” be central to all forms of abuse prevention, whether in child welfare services, or in the family courts, in child support agencies, in prison/re-entry situations — at all points?


While the term “Coercive Control” now has specific meanings, including a legal one in the UK (since it  became an official crime in 2015), I’m also using it to describe a type of coercion in those co-opted conversations (around the field of domestic violence and protection from abuse, stopping violence against women, etc.).  Hopefully by the end of this post, readers will understand that co-opting conversations in these fields exists; that there are “on the table” and “off the table” topics, with certain career academics in certain fields (particularly sociology and psychology) and their backers making the call. And that this is an effective form of coercion, to cut-off other plausible explanations of why it seems just SO hard to stop violence against women, and to explain the behaviors of the family court systems, here and abroad.

Doing so is morally and ethically wrong, although probably not legally wrong, that it’s been chronic in this field since “domestic violence” became a word, that is, just about from the start.

Note:  laws against battering women and protests of it is not synonymous with the usage of the term “domestic violence” and development of a major state-funded industry around it, a key part of which includes NOT talking about the state-funded marriage/fatherhood/family values” industry.

One analogy for the word “table” above would be “roundtable.”  There have been major round-table conferences and/or consultations on this topic (some even called that); defining features of any RoundTable are who convenes it, who is or is not invited to present, and where they occur.  Also who sponsors them.

Publications catering to fields and professions (i.e., research, publication, practice etc.) which rely so heavily on state (i.e., government) funding also impact what ideas are and are NOT in significant circulation.


(Up front: more text, my voice.  Below: more pictures, links, and quotes)

Most of this post was previously published on my main (Front) page for at least a year.  I removed it on Labor Day, (Monday, Sept. 2, 2019) to condense that page.

On finding new information since adding this segment to the Front Page (in January or as late as December, 2018), i.e. especially since obtaining my copy of Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life book, (<~~that link is to a title search so you can see where it’s being promoted (notice url domain names..including “global.OUP.com”) New York: Oxford University Press, Inc., 2007, hereafter “the Coercive Control Book”), ….

Note:  This is the second book in an “Interpersonal Violence” series.  Series editors are Jeffrey L. Edleson, Ph.D. and Claire M. Renzetti, Ph.D.  Number one in the same series is significant of a shift in (geographic) emphasis, though probably not strategies, within the domestic violence movement:  Parenting by Men Who Batter: New Directions for Assessment and Intervention by Jeffrey L. Edleson &  Oliver J. Williams.

Please see my Footnote “Oxford University Press, Inc.: Interpersonal Violence Series.”  It’s relevant to this post. I’m footnoting because it only came up when I realized I’d referenced the Coercive Control book without posting the link.  On going to post the link, I felt it appropriate to show the series. Including that information up here would interrupt the flow of this post.

…based on this new information and on general principles (reviewing some of my existing links,** and my ongoing awareness of the expansion of this field internationally, and from all of the above, my perspective about a year and a half later), I decided to develop this post further before publishing and to prioritize publishing it first among the many (about six or seven) other Front Page extracts which became separate posts now in draft.

In other words, it’s not going to be just a “block-copy, paste, re-publish as a separate post” project!

To completely distinguish previously published (2018) and my progressive updates since (Sept. 2 – 7, 2019) is probably impossible, but I’ll leave several indicators throughout the post below.

**(Especially from a long post, of Stark’s testimony January 2016 on a Connecticut Task force on Children Exposed to Violence).

I posted some of the new (to me) information on the Front page (pending publication of this post first among all the (about six) off-ramped sections during a “massive edit”) because I believe people deserve to have it brought to their attention promptly. Coercive Control conferences continue.  People have been arrested for violating the new (2015ff) law against it in the UK, there is  plenty of social media “buzz” around the theme.

IF there is major co-opted conversation, any censorship, or significant reporting gaps in those from the USA running (personally or professionally and in publications as only the internet and certain types of academic journals can do…) to the UK and elsewhere pushing programming, the “left-behind” sector in THIS country more acutely aware of how this field was set up and run — and what elements are historically omitted from its history — that information should be publicized, however imperfectly, as fast as possible.

Such reporting is, I’d say, right now about THIRTY YEARS behind in awareness.  Mathematically speaking, given the distribution and publication networks and proliferation of DV organizations and university centers (or “Centres” as it applies),  for every professional who claims “30 years experience” there are probably many more individuals who have 10, 20, or 30 years “in your face” experience off exactly what “coercive control” looks and acts like. Many of (us) HAVE been speaking out all along– but we cannot keep pace with Oxford University Press, Sage Publications, Wiley On-line (Taylor & Francis) AND government-sponsored “Centers” at various universities, or simply on their own specialized websites ending “*.org” in the USA, or “*.org.UK” or *.co.UK” etc. …

Unlike the academic professionals, many of us continue to get killed off over time (“roadkill,” or some of the children do). I’ve read of various professionals dying of old age or cancer (Schechter, Pence, others) but not so many being murdered, jailed, extorted or being full-time occupied in economic survival from onslaughts (so to speak) via the family court systems. That is a genuine hindrance. This doesn’t seem to slow down others publication and conferencing while we are so occupied, speaking for myself and others I have known over the years.

So, built-in “institutional” issues include access to funding and of course, access to media (which requires generally, access to funding).  How many ideas are being squeezed out of consideration simply because those with better financial incentives and job stabilities for the respective authors (pardon me for making this reference again, but with  existing PhDs, JDs, and so forth) to NOT talk about what I’ve been blogging about for ten years now?  And what I am a witness was basically unearthed (at least the basics of it) a minimum of twenty years earlier (that is, 1999)? And if you include Liz Richards (NAFCJ.net) claim of having started in 1993, make that about twenty-seven years.

Having done that, now I’m working to get this post out so I can in good conscience shorten the footprint (some quotes, links, and discussion of the “new information”) left behind) making sure nothing is lost in the move.
Read the rest of this entry »

“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).

leave a comment »

“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).

re: ‘TWO HELPFUL LINKS’ — Image from TopRightSidebar, ‘GO TO POSTS’ widget, shows TOC 2019 & 2018 + ‘Key Posts 2012-2017’ (LGH, @ Sept. 1, 2019)

TWO HELPFUL LINKS added Sept. 1, 2019 (for recent subject matter overview):

 Table of Contents 2019, Family Court Matters’ Posts + Pages: January 1 – August 31 (so far). (Shortlink ends “-ayV.”  About 6,300 words,posted August 5, updated Aug. 31) (You can also link to this TOC post any time from the top right sidebar, under”GO TO: All Posts, incl. Sticky, Tables of Contents..” widget, which holds several boxes for navigating to specific important places (posts or pages, incl. the home page), and, 

(Table of Contents 2018, Posts and Pages.. (publ. 24Mar2019, short-link ends ‘9y7’)

This post (that you’re reading now) prepares people for another post, already written, which asks a hard, “what-if” rhetorical question.  I hope readers on considering that (coming post’s) rhetorical question have the integrity to consider where they may have been radically mis-led about the real purposes of family court reform/fix/correct movements.  Even though it may be embarrassing, confronting, or disturbing.


IF I COULD FIGURE THIS OUT 2006-2010, especially (and subsequently)…

If I could figure this out with what I was going through 2006 through 2010 especially (and subsequently) under the related conditions post-DV, post-overnight-custody-switch and all kinds of family betrayal, amid professional livelihood destruction, repeated stalking over the years, and at this point it seems about every other year, another lawsuit of some sort — when I don’t have the ongoing income to predict a future at times more than a half year, or a quarter-year in advance — then I know other, more consistently employed and less family-court-plagued individuals, including professionals such as lawyers, psychologists, law professors, psychology professors, state court administrators, and politicians could have chosen, IF not in on it, to figure it out and, for mutual public benefit and “out of the goodness in their hearts” share it.

And share it not just among the mutual professional circles within court-connected and cause-related [abuse prevention, etc.] fields, but also with the people they are charged to help, while dealing with the issues named and as reflected in the respective organization’s business names (i.e., “Family” or “Battered Women” or “Violence Prevention” etc.)…

What’s more, outside the professionals, there are plenty of women (and men) who have been in my situation who could’ve figured out and reported (blogged! spoken consistently) about the same things I did as just a human being with (I admit) at most times — some times a lot harder to access than others — access to the internet and (eventually) a laptop so that access wasn’t limited to library hours and time limits (where I lived, generally maximum 1 to 2 hours at a stretch)… And common sense enough to pay attention! 


In fact (looking for a certain reference to include just before publishing this post), about a year ago, I see I went through it again last spring (May, 2018), even though at that time I was being gradually pushed out of temporary housing, and within just two or three months of having to flee the state:

Post title: How Relevant is AFCC — and Who, UNLIKE many ‘Crisis in (or ‘Enhance/Reform’) the Courts’ groups and associated professionals who won’t, in public or on-line — Acknowledges Its Existence and Significance? (started May 7, 2018) (Case-sensitive shortlink ending “-91l”; that’s two numbers, as in the year “1991” and a lower-case “L”) (Posting “as-is” about 5,680 words on Mothers’ Day (USA) May 13.  Subject to later updates for clarity and/or towards bottom of the post).

(I was also active on Twitter today with more links, documentation and as ever, reminder of terms in use in current fatherhood policy, particularly as involves Temple University-housed, Center for Policy Research-organized “FRPN.org” (also previously posted herein).  http://bitl.ly/2KVQHOi) {{<~~may be multi-Tweet/ a thread; see the whole thread if so and I tend to have attachments (media) to Tweets to explain them}}

This post will illustrate both those who won’t (while talking on the same topics) and those who, obviously do acknowledge AFCC when presenting at its conferences or listed among its ongoing board of directors or other activist members (i.e., on individual C.V.s)

That post has has some typos I see but its contents are still relevant.  Some emphases added.

I even found a post written almost exactly EIGHT years ago, featuring the general operations and co-operations among key organizations.  It doesn’t drill-down tax returns so much, but it does show tendencies and business relationships among them (reference, background, cream-colored, inside green borders added one day post-publication here);

Post Title with shortlink and enclosed comments added June, 2019. Post written eight years earlier.(This post came up in a search and I needed to add a “Read-More” link anyway).

OVW + BWJP-FVPF + PRAXIS + NCADV(s) + AFCC = same old, same old (with new names on the grant systems) Here’s why: [Publ. July 6, 2011]

[WordPress-generated, case-sensitive short-link here ends in just two characters, probably because it’s so early in this blog:  “-K7”].  As first published, about 10,800 words, incl. any & all quotes, image captions, tables, etc. //LGH June 23, 2019]

On review of this post, I see that perhaps the final ⅓ is quoting (at length) three sources on Irish Slavery, including “Tangled Roots’ “Barbadosed: Africans and Irish in Barbados” (2008, I think) from GLC.Yale.Edu, a center originally inspired when businessmen/history buffs G&L heard lectures by a Yale history professor David Brion Davis, who I now see died this past April after a long, productive life:”Prizewinning Historian of Slavery Dies at 92” NYT April, 2019.

Professor Davis wrote or edited 16 books, but paramount were the three that examined the moral challenges and contradictions of slavery and their centrality in American and Atlantic history. ~~|~~The first, “The Problem of Slavery in Western Culture” (1966), won a Pulitzer Prize and was a National Book Award finalist. The second, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Revolution, 1770-1823” (1975), won the National Book Award as well as the Bancroft Prize, one of the most prestigious in the study of American history. ~~|~~The last book of the trilogy, “The Problem of Slavery in the Age of Emancipation,” was published in 2014 as Professor Davis approached 90. It won the National Book Critics Circle Award…~~|~~President Barack Obama presented Professor Davis with a National Humanities Medal in 2014 for “reshaping our understanding of history,” as the citation said. ~~|~~The fundamental problem of slavery, Professor Davis wrote, “lay not in its cruelty or exploitation, but in the underlying conception of man as a conveyable possession with no more autonomy of will and consciousness than a domestic animal.”                                                          [ “~~|~~” = para. break omitted]

I was (and still am) pretty irritated at the exclusionary practices of the above-named groups in deciding how to solve “family” problems involving abuse; see concluding paragraph.  And there are many parallels between abuse and slavery.

Most of the July, 2011, post deals with and quotes the entities its title names (starting with the OVW as part of the US DOJ, the associated “entity” here is the U.S. federal government (with DOJ under its Executive, not Legal or Judicial Branch, despite the word “Justice” in the Department name); all other “entities” referenced are either nonprofits, or projects of them)..

I don’t know how many “re-caps” and reminders it’s going to take to sink in….or what it’ll take, but I write (in part) because I know for some, it’s not reminder — it’s news.  On hearing this news, some decisions might need to be made (unless you’re OK continuing to “float” and becoming a “floater” when it comes to effective strategy, or even figuring out what’s going on…. “just go with the closest flow that sounds friendly…  or go against the closest hostile currents around, and hope that’s got some real impact, makes a splash, makes a difference (etc.)….).

(Impromptu re-cap, with attention to the key players addressing “DV” aspect hitting family courts.)

By now people should also be aware of to what extent and HOW the “sleeper organization” Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (“AFCC”), working often in tandem with the better-known “National Council of Juvenile and Family Courts (“NCJFCJ”)## all but runs the family court system as we know it today …  

(I’m referring to in the USA, while aware of a longstanding intention to align practices across country lines, not to mention through private association influence as has already been taking place, across state lines.)

This Impromptu Recap isn’t going to post tax returns or extensive documentation, which are spread throughout the blog and searchable on it (or search even post titles throughout the blog). For the most part here, although there are some links and images, I’m going to just say it.
Read the rest of this entry »


leave a comment »

Post Title:  LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO! AND IF A NONPROFIT IS NAMED in the NEWS, OR EVEN HINTED AT IN THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP! (Short-link ends “-99m.”)  Post started July 16, 2018… July 31, 2018, I was on-line and on-blog again for the first time in a week, picking up three posts in the pipeline (in draft status). Further work on this draft Aug. 21… published August 29, 2018, updated post-publication* same-day and Aug. 30.

  • *(Added a short section on Weithorn & Ehrmann Family Foundation + charitable tax specialist lawyer Stanley S. Weithorn (1924-2015) to complete brief drill-downs on Tides.org supporting foundations as recorded on Tides Organizations’ consolidated annual financial statements YE2014-2015)
  • The post is now about 8,300 words including all image captions and (as I recall) just one table. It has plenty of pictures, but if you know the routine, typically those are screen shots of tax returns or other fine print from quotations of websites or new articles, sometimes annotated.

Before getting into it, know that this post was last edited, as of Aug. 21, three weeks ago (Aug. 1) including some additions.   Since Aug. 21, I was (besides being busy) deciding whether to split it in half, leaving just one substantial “drill-down” in each half. It’s one post which may feel like it has two or three distinct sections.

Some of my additions take time to clarify differences between my geological point of reference for “Drill-Down” versus a related but different point of reference (usage), computers: websites designed to lead readers into pre-fabricated drill-downs for the purpose of, generally, sales, or selling a concept for which public funds may be required.

Geological drillings are often but not exclusively for the ultimate purpose of profit (whether for mineral, oil, gas, or water). I use the phrase #DotheDrillDown often on Twitter thinking of the material , geological term, and want to clarify that when I say “DoTheDrillDown” it’s not for people to “click and read what I’ve prepared for you to read so you won’t have to work for the information” but for people to develop the habit of exploring themselves – personally engage with –  certain untapped reservoirs of valuable information from disparate (seemingly unrelated) sources — and let what’s found there speak to them about the surrounding contexts and connections.

And to become more aware of when they are being coached what not to think about by people and groups whose purposes, “brands” (public image) and agenda depend heavily on most of the masses  never having a cognitive curiosity about the importance of accounting: following the money, and where the dots ought to connect from one entity’s balance sheet to another, but the path to follow that connection is littered with broken and missing links.

Know also that this post has substantial but not only overlapping material from a post published August 4, Budgets Aren’t Balance Sheets! and other Basic (USA)Facts about Billionaires’ Philanthropic Behaviors, Such as of 2014-retired Microsoft CEO Steven Ballmer + His Wife Connie [July, 2018] (short-link ends “-982”).  Started mid-July, published Aug. 4, 2018, at about 9,000 words (tags added later).  

“Substantial overlapping material” means mostly about the Silicon Valley Community Fund, its organizers and just some of their related organizations and organizations’ grantees, or as I call it on Twitter, “#FamousFaceBookFounders and their LLCs.” A more complete report would mean drill-down on 16 or 17 “related organizations,” more of the subcontractors besides ICONIQ Capital, and so forth.  I’ve done far more than is posted here.

Vocabulary “Drill” – same words, different applications.

In saying “drill-down,” I’m using a geological idea, but as in geology, things are also moving sideways.. there’s a flow; no single core sample tells the whole story.  Descriptions from the field of geology, including Indiana Geological & Water Survey (“IGS”), show basic concepts I’ve borrowed.

When it comes to data far below the surface,  first there’s the digging it out, then there’s the recording, if that information is to be at all useful. This differs from (I just saw) another common usage, meaning “pre-pared” for public consumption computer viewing, i.e., Business-Intelligence (“BI”) usage.

Geological and water surveys of course (say some of the excerpts below, on the IGS images) now use computers and electronics to record the measurements after physically drilling.  Unfortunately, for the types of things I record and (as possible) measure on this blog, I know of no software program or automated process of taking readings.

However, I have made it, through habit, and almost “automatic” routine check as a human being, remembering which items to look for, and keeping my eyes out for any “anomalies” (using correlation) and other peripheral information on an entity or on its leadership (board, or executive officers’) which might help increase a historical perception of its change, and the field’s changes, over time.

Google search results, “Drill-Down, geology” were far fewer than those referring to computers, without the word “geology.” Here’s one from AustralianMinesAtlas.gov.au…

I believe this was from the Cambridge Dictionary… “many websites have some form of hyperlink navigation as you drill down…”

Both involve getting to more in-depth information than the surface, but a key difference is one is not a guided tour.

I’m saying, we have to break new ground, it seems, in connecting disparate sources of information to obtain, mentally and at least SOME of it retained in our memory, a landscape involving financial concepts as tied to the public use (and accountability for) our tax receipts, and translate the PR, the degree of spin (whether from public or private, or both together entities) into a vocabulary which cuts across the divide enough to compare — similar, different.  Big, or small.  Characteristics of the corporations and (by association) those running them, etc.


Vocab Drill Down (Geo) from IndianaU (Bloomington) IGS (two images only) ~~~ SShots 2018Aug22 Wed @2.07.19 PM

References: All illustrations except those of the old drilling rig, the cross section, and the road cut are from:Baker, Ron; 1979; A Primer of Oilwell Drilling; The University of Texas at Austin; Austin, Texas

Vocab Drill Down (Geo, see LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO post) from IndianaU (Bloomington) IGS (two images only) 2018Aug22 Wed @2.09.03 PM

This “drill-down” process (speaking of applying the geological concepts to searching for information in key places, taking core samples and then recording the measurements somehow) differs from the “BI” (Business Intelligence) concept of “Drill-Down and Drill Through(<==please read the short description; a link at bottom of the page also leads to a clickable, alpha, vocabulary list; it’s a “BI Encyclopedia”) which refers to preparing the data & (I guess) “html” to direct the reader to such information at the easy click of a mouse — as a well-designed website might.

When I say “Drill Down,” I am talking about, as a consumer / outsider of information, takes more effort — it is locating and looking down, in more details, the relevant information that the websites often do NOT provide in drill-down or drill-through format either. I’m saying, learn to see what’s NOT been offered at the surface level, and take notes if/why it might not have been.  See what’s not there but likely to exist and can be tracked elsewhere.  Observe misdirection and distraction from the bedrock reality, for historic folds and fault lines (changes over time), for characteristics of that rock (bottom-line best description of the entity or entities operating in synche), and correct course in a search for understanding WHO IS IT?  as — trust me — often will be necessary!  

The BI web design Drill Down/Drill-Through purpose is driving revenues, or selling a cause.

Mine is, public-interest awareness of (across-the-board) both government and tax-exempt entities (so often working hand in hand with governments) frame their respective causes. The backdrop of audited financial statements + 990s (if found) + legal domicile registrations AND the organization’s various websites helps translate the truer activities.  The more personal effort into at least looking! the more patterns of a gap between presentation and reality surfaces.

[End of Vocabulary “Drill” section.  Next:]

From my handwritten notes last week, “Tides Orgs” list several supporting organizations.

“Supporting” vs. “Related” organizations. How it seems to work… who they are.

For example, not identical, but after looking closer, I noticed some similarities in between the Tides Organizations’ “supporting”  and SVCF’s “Related” organizations.  The “Tides Organizations” are also [mostly*] from Northern California (San Francisco Bay Area, not Silicon Valley — although these are less than a half day’s drive from each other).  [*One in NY.]

“Tides.org” represents several different organizations laterally (find and view their comprehensive audited financial statements (they are on the website), or for a taste of how presented, follow me on recent Twitter threads on #R4G (RightsForGirls.org, which is a fiscally sponsored project).

  • Beauchamp Charities
  • Rouhana Family Foundation
  • Harding Rock Fund
  • One Pacific Coast Foundation
  • The Underdog Fund
  • Weithorn & Ehrmann Families Fund.

Here’s where in the (Years ending Dec. 2014 & 2015) Tides Consolidated Financial Statements I found that.

Note: In reading any Financial Statements, always look at both the financial statements themselves (the pages mostly tables (columns + labeled rows) of numbers with totals of each column & section) see Table of Contents for specific name each statement is to take and what it shows) and for more insight on WHO is the organization and what those numbers represent, “Notes to The Financial Statements.”  The notes often explain things less than clear on the organization’s website and sometimes not even on their tax returns. This is even more important for government Comprehensive Audited Financial Reports or “CAFRs”…read the accompanying Notes too! (Look under Comptroller’s Offices for government entities, or just search for them on the website, or in general, naming the entity)…

This image is from Note 1 to Tides Organizations Consolidated Statements YE 2014 and 2015...

What “Tides Organizations” means for purposes of these financial statements is also shown on Note 1 (but not on this post).  Note, the statements are of consolidated operations, which would of course differ from what’s seen on individual Tides entity (I think there are about five of them) Forms 990.

“Tides Consolidated Statemts YsE Dec 2014, 2015 (shows supporting orgs + its Entities + some financials)|SHOW THIS!~~ SShots 2018Aug22 Wed..”


I had no idea (Before any drill-downs, that is) who the above organizations are, or what are their assets, but am looking now, repeating the list, but adding EIN#s if found, website if found, and whether or not the website connects people to that info and for some of them, a few images or other “specs” giving the general flavor of each.

Correction or Clarification (8/30): What the Financial Statements called “Supporting” organization, a tax return identifies under “Related”. There are many Tides Organizations, but I chose to look at “Tides Foundation” Form 990 because the supporting ones I’d already viewed cited that as the one they were “supporting.”  Notice the increasing total balances for Tides Foundation over just three years.  Most of that is simply increased donations.

Below that, see its Schedule D (FY 2014 chosen) showing how many Donor-Advised and (second column) “Other” Funds, and how much is held in or distributed from each type.

Form 990s results for Tides Foundation, EIN# 51-0198509, Total Assets shown FYs 2014-2015 showing major increase. (No column headers shown only because I used a name-search not EIN# search to locate it; other results inbetween these and the top of the table//LGH)

(174pp shown above for FY 2014 includes page after page of fine-print, basically illegible “grantees” which is unnecessary and is a statement of intent NOT to encourage closer scrutiny.  “Who gives a damn?” is the mentality…  The grants, over $100M worth, are also arranged in descending order by amount (not alpha) and probably have repetitions, i.e., if two grants of different amounts to the same organization, the entries would not be near each other.  ….
Read the rest of this entry »

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

August 29, 2018 at 1:35 pm

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

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

%d bloggers like this: