Posts Tagged ‘Ford Foundation’s SFFI’
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].
Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)
This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today. A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).
THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS. AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….
The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.
I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994. I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.
TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.
In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).
In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe. Enter “behavioral modification programming..”
Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts. People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!
For most people, it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.
Regarding the Bush dynasty & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one: As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…
https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.
(from Google search on “PRWORA”)
We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.
This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data. I’ve shown many images and named key players. I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”). While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University. Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)
This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds. It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.
Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities. For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post: Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues. See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.
“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns). Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)
Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.” I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog. It was incorporated in 1974). Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now. While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site. It’ll be interesting reading:
Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:
The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.
(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).
(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH
Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts. Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII. Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).
… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are. So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?
Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return). Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results. Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.
I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.
— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???
re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**
**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also. I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post. Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.
Got it (just typed in the question: “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm). Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.” It got sued!
(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local). However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).
THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**
(**etc. didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website. No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)
“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).
Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed). The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations. But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger. The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it. The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty. Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.
//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)
Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.
AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..
…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” . (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)
I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)
Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.
This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ) AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially. See that link. Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.
Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)
Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.” There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).
I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor. Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000: In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):
Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton) — see footnotes, incl. FN4)
Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.
SHARE THIS POST on...
Why are Famous PRIVATE Foundations (Ford, Mott, Public Welfare) and Collection Agencies (JustGive.org) so enamored of Funky 501©3 Filers — like Wisconsin’s barely still there CFFPP (Center for Families and Public Policy) and Board of 1hr/week Unpaid Father-Focused Networks (some entities, some not) Speakers, Conference-circuit Experts?
All images are “Click image to enlarge” unless otherwise labeled. (Some viewing devices may not need, but I believe laptop computers might, tablets, ipads, cell phones, probably don’t.. This blog can be viewed on cell phones, but was designed for larger display screens (width 700px is built into most posts)…Approx. words after post-publication addition of short section on fatherhood groups referenced in a CFFPP board member bio blurb (which referenced an NPLI (apparently “PLI”) institute run by CFUF, as well as NPCL and, of course, HHS grants]: 9,646 10,000]
Can you keep the board relationships straight on this “CFUF”* return for 2013 (five years after a spinoff nonprofit/related entity, CFUF* Fund, Inc., for its capital campaign, was started up), on its first page, mis-labeling $2.2M of contributions (moved over from CFUF* original entity started in 1999) as “program service revenue”), in addition to $1.8M as “contributions”? Or perhaps make an educated guess WHY this Baltimore-based organization isn’t posting its tax returns on the website?
[*Obviously, “CFUF” is the acronym, not the full name as shown in the Form 990 below, and as displayed on the Forms 990 for its spin-off nonprofit started in 2008].
CFUF who’s involved in which businesses with whom.. (Sched O, FY2013)
CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #1 of 3 images, webite (Pg1) reads “N/A”
CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #2 of 3 images, somehow a transfer of assets isn’t a (Line 1) donation
CFUF Fund (a spinoff), FY2008 (initial, amended) Return, #3 of 3 images, Sched R showing the $2.2M transfer was indeed from related entity “CFUF” (the ‘parent’ company) and wasn’t “fees for services” or “Program Service Rev.” as reported on Pg.1, Pt. I, Ln.9 Summary AND on p.9, Pt. VIII, Ln.2a.
FYI, as the country’s “tax-cut” budget is pending, and news coverage of whether or not it will be passed, and in what form, continues, quietly and without news coverage, the ongoing federal funding under CFDA* 93.086 (healthy marriage/responsible fatherhood) which HMRF funding first kicked into gear under 1996 welfare reform act, “PRWORA,” continues, and basically, so does the infrastructure, now embedded in: child support, family courts dealing with custody and visitation issues, domestic violence prevention (sic), and social services provision of many types. This (infrastructure of embedded HMRF funding or programming) also apparently includes various centers at universities, and/or nonprofits associated with professors or nonprofit management leaders (or social workers) with historic ties to such centers or such nonprofits…
[*CFDA stands for “Category of Federal Domestic Assistance” and is labeled by two-digits (representing a federal department) + 3 digits (identified program label). See more at “Grants.gov”].
Or religious orders controlling a system of hospitals and healthcare development organizations which got in on the trend, clearly, in the 1990s. (Section in yellow borders with many images below relates to a South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families (I’ve seen it around for ages, and while looking this time whether any direct HHS grants to CFFPP, decided to follow up).
I may move the section later, but it’s here now to illustrate some of the complexities (and vulnerabilities) of having the federal government decide to sponsor fields of practice called simply “Fatherhood,” and how that works. There’s “a surprise a minute” once you actually start looking closer. Even after all these years on my part….
CFFPP in Wisconsin (street address)/ Illinois (legal domicile), by (major) contrast doesn’t seem to share the same conservative religious values as this group in Southeastern US — however, it’s still in the same basic field. And does share at least one identified funder, the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
Sample from TAGGS.HHS.gov Advanced search (name search for CFFP as potential direct recipient of such funds, that links saves the search specs, not the data). I discovered a new $2.0M/year grant to a longstanding (grants since 2006 shown) The South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, shows grants 2006-2011, then a gap, then starting again in 2015, called “Destination Fatherhood.” (notice various award titles over time). Entities that got grants under 93.086 also often obtain related-purpose grants under other CFDA#s. On that link, the CFDA#93601 shows is “Child Support Enforcement Demonstrations and Special Projects“)(First two digits “93” representing the Department HHS overall) .
TAGGS grantee list, taken Nov 28, 2017, for South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families. Click IMAGE to enlarge, or here (http://tinyurl.com/y7nteayj) to re-run the search (same specs and column headers, but if data changes meanwhile, so will the results. That version will be sortable by column headers, and clickable where you see active links).
While this represents only public grants, and for the most part, the different entity “CFFPP” mentioned in this title doesn’t seem to be funded primarily by public (HHS-originated) grants, although some state-level gov’t entities are listed among its funders then, and now, every professional IN this created field of “fatherhood policy and practice” likely knows that such grants exist, and many individuals are involved either as board members and/or founders, or as consultants TO such HHS CFDA 93086-funded organizations. Nonprofits for years have been formed, and still are, specifically to engage as intermediary (passing grants through) or destination (final recipient providing some kind of services) for such grant-making (or evaluating results of the same), and then networked if not fiscally at least by reference so as to refer to their other accomplishments in the field on the board member of some different organization, i.e., career-building and credibility as an expert in the field, regardless of performance of the underlying nonprofits individually, or in their networks. {{for examples of this regarding “CFFPP” see bottom of this post, which posts the biographies of board members. For example: of Guy Bowling:
[This next subsection’s background color is altered to signify the sub-section is not about the groups in South Carolina (in the light-green-blue background you see for this paragraph and above], but as an example of how just naming an association or affiliation can be misleading — or is at a minimum “not enough information.” The moral of the story? when someone’s bio blurb spits out a series of references, especially in the HMRF field (Healthy Marriage/Responsible Fatherhood] either “take it on faith” or “look it up.” That also holds for domestic violence advocacy groups. Studying both sides of the cause-based rhetoric, in fact, is one way to find where leadership or advocacy groups are (speaking metaphorically! not literally) “in bed with each other” and collaborating (cutting deals) with each other on what is, and is not, classified as, specifically, abuse. Among other things.
Generally, “taking it on faith” is not recommended, if the subject is of concern to you as a reader! For example, see this next example:
GUY BOWLING {{<== link to CFFPP website checked Nov. 2017}}
Guy Bowling is the Program Manager for the FATHER Project, a program of Goodwill/ Easter Seals Minnesota. Mr. Bowling has been a leader in the fatherhood field for 18 years with a special focus on working with low-income, non-custodial fathers in culturally specific communities. He has been the Manager of the FATHER Project since 1999. In that role, he oversaw the successful implementation of a five-year $2.5 million grant project funded through the federal Department of Health and Human Services, through the Office of Family Assistance (OFA). He remains in that role as the FATHER Project has received a one-year, $1.7 million grant award from OFA to expand its proven service model across Minnesota. He received the 2001 “Spirit of Fatherhood” award at the National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership’s (NPCL) Annual International Fatherhood conference.** He received the Ronald F. Johnson Award to be inducted into the Spirit of Fatherhood Hall of Fame in 2012 at the 14th annual NPCL conference. Guy was recently selected as an emerging leader to participate in the National Practitioners Leadership Institute (NPLI). The NPLI Leadership Academy is designed to assist field leaders in growing their network and expertise in one or more of the following areas: Responsible Fatherhood, Family Stability, Workforce Development, and Black Male Achievement.
It’s probable (though not certain) that by “NPLI,” he means what’s now being called just “PLI” over at Baltimore’s CFUF (Center for Urban Fatherhood), and while “formally established in 2011” (Note: when another round of HHS HM/RF grants (CFDA 93086) were approved, as I blogged at the time, herein) it’s still called an initiative of the other nonprofit, CFUF:
CFUF image, notice the subtitle, while the business name says “urban families” the focus is still on helping FATHERS (and families)..
Each year, the Center for Urban Families in Baltimore, MD is visited by social service and community-based organizations from across the country that wish to replicate its program models, by policy makers and community leaders interested in learning how responsible fatherhood, family services and workforce services directly affect the lives of those that participate, and by media outlets interested in featuring the organization’s successes.
Formally established in 2011, the Practitioners Leadership Institute (PLI) is a nationally focused initiative designed to provide Responsible Fatherhood, Workforce Development and Family Strengthening practitioners with experiences, skills and information that will strengthen their ability to improve outcomes for low-income fathers and families, impacting black male achievement.
CFUF Believes that men (who connect with women, children and “the workplace”) are key to restoration of (WHOSE — EVERYONE’s??) stability and optimism.**
Central to CFUF’s mission is the belief that men—the most disconnected and underserved citizens in urban communities—who connect with women, their children, and the workplace are key to the restoration of stability and optimism. Consistent with this mission, our organizational goal is to assist individuals in regaining the personal power needed to benefit their families and communities.
Since 1999, CFUF has served over 26,000 vulnerable Baltimoreans providing the bridge that many have needed to attain stability, while emerging as a leader in the national conversation on responsible fatherhood and black male achievement.
**Assuming an about 50/50 ratio of men to women in this country (although women tend to live longer), what does that say about permission for women, or fully-functional women raising children NOT to have a connected male, for example, particularly after experiencing violence within a relationship from the father?
Does this entity post its financials on the website? No! (It’s also apparently not been updated as to the “history” since presidential election of 2016). Image for the first (2013) such PLI notes cooperation of: OFA (i.e., federal department of HHS), Open Society Foundation (Baltimore is its US program home, I recall from prior study), and this nonprofit:
1st PLI summit held under “CFUF” of Baltimore…
ALSO ON THE BIO BLURB ABOVE: CFFPP’s Mr. Bowling appears to work for Goodwill Easter Seals in Minnesota; Goodwill is also a major fatherhood grants recipient in general. For example, in just the 90FK00__ grant series referenced for the SC Center for Fathers and Families near top of this post, Goodwill recipients of those grants across Texas, Pennsylvania, and Minnesota totaled $12.7M grants just since 2011 (that “tinyurl” shortlink is sorted by grant#, or click any column header to sort by that field). (“…/ESM” in award title column no doubt means “Easter Seals Minnesota”) Or, not restricting the grant # to “90FK” but to Goodwill in Minnesota only and the two CFDAS 93086 (marriage/fatherhood) and 93601 (Child Support) $1.7M grants do show up, $9M page total, although he is not listed as principal investigator at least on TAGGS. Click to repeat that search). This only shows results 2006 forward (possibly because I specified by CFDA 93086).
Acronym finder (click image to access that search result on-line)
The NCPL (“National Center for Strategic Planning and Community Leadership” / Jeffrey M. Johnson) is (if I recall it right) in New York state, and another nonprofit — they do conferences, announce awards and honors, and this type of nonprofit sometimes also run “institutes” all focused on maintaining “Fatherhood Promotion” as a professional field, and lending it credibility– while the field is sponsored by a combination of federal grants AND private backing (including from groups sometimes as large as the George Soros’ “Open Society Foundations,” and others. Acronym Finder says that the reference is its “former name” (possibly a spinoff?):
NCPL (I explored the website years ago, it’s not changed much) – “now moved to DC” and runs certification trainings in “building strong families,” etc.): EIN# 521994048 — this is NOT an organization I would boast about my association with to anyone who is liable to ever look at its Forms 990! (Words consistently mis-spelled in “Program Service Accomplishments” obviously as a boilerplate situation, included:
workshop (“worksop”), leadership (“leardership”), strengthening (“strenghtening”) and fragile (“frazile”).
That’s in addition to: listing activities for which no $$ amounts are filled in (repeatedly); sometimes putting a board member’s name in the wrong column (under “Title”); major gaps in information; and it appears, functioning only so long as government grants were available, whether $200K or $400K, and then spending it on, typically, “Professional services” (Forms before 2008 ask for professional contractors paid over $50K; I saw FY2007? had Dr. Johnson — $75K and, possibly his wife or other relative, “Uriel Johnson” $75K — and no one else. You’ve GOT to be kidding — but apparently someone isn’t, for this one):
Total results: 4. Search Again.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Partnership for Community Leadership | DC | 2015 | 990 | 17 | $0.00 | 52-1994048 |
| National Partnership for Community Leadership | DC | 2013 | 990 | 12 | $298.00 | 52-1994048 |
| National Partnership for Community Leadership | DC | 2013 | 990 | 18 | $298.00 | 52-1994048 |
| National Partnership for Community Leadership | DC | 2010 | 990 | 20 | $2,232.00 | 52-1994048 |
NCPL Image 1 of 3
NCPL Image 2 of 3, coaching nonprofits, etc.
NCPL Image 3 of 3, advertising a 2-day “strengthening families” certification, etc. date and time “TBD” (Click HERE for that URL)
Click on some of those returns. Amazingly, in a year when it claimed to be receiving government grants ($40,000 — or more ,another year) and have 3 independently voting members on the board (on line1) and was signed by “Jeffery Johnson” — under “Key Officers, Directors, and trustees,” the word “NONE” was typed in, more than once.
Strangely, this one was revoked and reinstated on the same day in May, 2013, which the IRS posted the following October. But it does not show up on a “revoked” list, although plenty of prior years tax returns are not found either on their own, or under Form 990-N filings. The entity, “surprise, surprise” shows a 1996 start date…
EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.
EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.
EIN#521994048 (dba “NCPL”) tax return excerpts and an IRS “EOS” result showing instantaneous revocation/reinstatement May 2013.
(Back to the South Carolina situation, not including some (actually SIX (6) 3 photo, 3 re: IRS + 990 excerpts) images from NPCL which will overlap some with the text:)
Since I mentioned this South Carolina example from a recent “TAGGS” search, I of course looked up its tax returns, and was surprised to find that this 2002-created nonprofit is operating from Cleveland OH and has many related tax-exempt entities, only a few of which are even based in South Carolina — because it’s a health system associated with the “Sisters of Charity of St. Augustine” (i.e., religious, Catholic organization). Originally (FY2002 Form 990), some of the officers were paid directly from “The SC Center for Fathers and Families” but now, it shows “0” employees (leadership is paid by “related entities” — although which of the dozen-plus ones, isn’t shown), and redistributes most of its receipts to six fatherhood programs throughout South Carolina.
SC Center for Fathers and Families listing at SC Charitable Registration Search
So it’s easily showing a good charitable profile — “98%” goes right to charities — in part by simply having related entities pay their (very nice, incidentally) leadership salaries. It looks to be closer to about 33% admin overhead, from what the tax returns are showing. Profile for 2015 from SC Charitable Registration (with disclaimer, it gets info from the SC Sec of State Annual Reports (which SOS doesn’t independently validate!) and the IRS Forms 990:
A FY2008 Form 990 (tax return) of the “South Carolina Center for Fathers and Families, Inc.” shows it’s controlled by a foundation (also based in OH) controlled by SCHS (Sisters of Charity Health System) associated with a religious women’s order (in Ohio too), takes credit for formation of its own grantees, i.e., the father-focused organizations. While the much larger “Sisters of Charity Foundation” seems to give much smaller grants to various groups EXCEPT its spin-off Center for Fathers (and the State of South Carolina’s Social Services Department), once that(much smaller) SC Center for Fathers and Families gets the funding, year by year, it re-grants most of it in larger amounts (over $100, $200, sometimes $400K) to fewer organizations, giving them the “fatherhood promotion” edge in the state, I guess, with less than average transparency….
EIN# 364506347 SC CENTER FOR FATHERS AND FAMILIES, Direct recipient of $8.7M of HHS grants (2006-2017) mostly under health marriage/responsible fatherhood promotion (CFDA 93086, and if not, under Child Support Improvement programs for noncustodial parents, strangely, is run from Ohio (although legal domicile SC), something not reflected in the TAGGS.HHS.Gov database (see this generated link from an Advanced Search run Nov. 28, 2017) which locates it in SC. Regardless of location, what it’s doing is, as a grantmaking organization, funding (currently, and it seems recently) just six fatherhood programs across the state, thus concealing from direct observation of TAGGS without other research, where and on what these tax receipts from the federal “coffers” or at least appropriations, are actually being spent.
Form 990, Sched O Supplemental Info for SC Center for Fathers & Families (EIN# 365406347, an OH-based, SC Legal domicile-entity formed in 2002 and re-distributing HHS grants to six fatherhood programs throughout SC, with leadership paid by its related entities in the religious health system. Sole member is as shown on image — another foundation..
Total results: 3. Search Again. This “Sisters of Charity Fndtn of SC EIN#57-0708391” with $93.8M Gross Assets, spun off SC Center for Fathers and Families only in 2002.
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina | OH | 2015 | 990 | 45 | $93,838,419.00 | 57-0708391 |
| Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina | OH | 2014 | 990 | 43 | $94,488,556.00 | 57-0708391 |
| Sisters of Charity Foundation of South Carolina | OH | 2013 | 990 | 38 | $92,938,192.00 | 57-0708391 |
This foundation, formed it says in 1983, is itself controlled by (has a “sole member”) of yet another, and its main income is from selling accumulated assets, almost all of which are held in “public traded investments. However (after all this writeup I finally went to the website) its own website says it was formed only in 1997 — meaning, it suddenly decided that “fatherhood engagement” was the way to go immediately after passage of 1996 PRWORA reform saying the same thing:
The Sisters of Charity Foundation, founded in 1996, serves the entire state addressing the root causes of poverty statewide through grant making, advocacy, and capacity building. The Foundation launched a statewide initiative in 1997 “Reducing Poverty through Father Re-Engagement” and [specifically, five years later] later established the SC Center for Fathers and Families to sustain the Initiative.
I finally went to the State of South Carolina, Business Entities search, and see that it goes back to 1937, with prior name “Providence Hospital Foundation.” No images or further details are available at that site than the summary page, like this one:
SC Business Entity Search, Sisters of Charity showing 1937 founding (and in good standing)
Sisters of Charity Foundtn of SC (Bus entities search at SC State level) showing docts on file and prior name. Not that clicking on any will bring up a pdf image or further details.
Currently its website home page features (across top right) pro se modification of child support, visitation and “expungement” (see banner with dark-red background above the featured photo, “Need to Modify Your Child Support?” (next image w/ photo).
SCFathersandFamilies.com (see gray top margin of website for page title).
While it only grants out a small percentage of the total holdings — of just this one among its MANY related tax-exempt organizations — its two largest grants in FY2015 by far ($250K, $450K) were, respectively, to the South Carolina Dept of Social Services –i.e., a State government department — (which elsewhere is stated as partnering with the fatherhood initiatives) and the above SC Center for Fathers and Families nonprofit created in 2002. Other grants (that year) were ALL of them, that I noticed, under $50K and many only $5- or $10K. The funded nonprofit (SC Center for Fathers and Families) is itself basically only receiving grants from (a) related entities (apparently this one) and (b) “government” year after year, while its employees’ income is reported from “related entities.”
Meanwhile, SC Center for Fathers and Families, once it gets those grants, is re-granting them to, according to some of the originating foundation’s descriptions, created by it in the first place.
So, if this organization is likewise funding the government funding SCFF or its fatherhood programs, that does seem a bit circuitous! I also saw references to involvement of Annie E. Casey Foundation and the Duke Endowment. Without reading the tax returns, I would not know this? A thorough follow-up would, for EACH such organization re-granting, to look up those grantees, or at least take core sampling of their legitimacy over time, and which programs they are running. WHO’S EVER GOING TO DO THAT, OR HAS BEEN? is a point I wish to make in this post. It’s designed AND implemented in ways to logistically defeat monitoring of where the public (and private) funds actually went!
The above statements may make sense with a few annotated images which are below. Know as you read that this is part of the larger CONTEXT of welfare reform, and proliferation of faith-based (in this case) controlled entities setting up their own nonprofits to commandeer more government grants and distribute them ‘where the sun don’t shine. [I’d noticed this SC Center for years while researching TAGGS, so finally took a closer look this time. I had not noticed how deeply entrenched it is in (1) a health system, and (2) that health system and the associated religious order are focused on maintaining and supporting “Catholic women religious” (i.e., the sisters // nuns) in their ministries during a time when involvement is declining. There are also internal consistencies within the tax returns, with no formal preparers and no real outside contractors displayed throughout, it seems.]
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 