Posts Tagged ‘Foundation on Child Development (FCD-US.org in NY)’
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].
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 »
SHARE THIS POST on...
Child Support, Fatherhood Promotion: More DIALOGUE and TABLES of OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93601, 93563, 93564) from my 7/26/2011 Post (For example, in Alabama..)
. . .
Yep…I’m regrouping from an over-extended (vertically and horizontally, and probably subject-matter-wise) 2011 post….For more background on why and how I’m doing this now, in April, 2016, see the last installment (post) in April 2016, “Dialogue from 7/26/2011 post charting HHS/OCSE Grants to States (CFDAs 93563, 93564)” which, as that post explains, excerpts the most of the DIALOGUE from the earlier posts, and adds (marked by different colors) updates, leaving more of the charts to this one…..That post began:
2016 Update (I will use this background-color for this post to indicate):
RE: OCSE: Child Support Enforcement/Federal Grants to States: Let’s Look at the “TAGGS” HHS Charts (CFDAs 93.563 & 93.564) Originally published July 26, 2011, and at 25,000+ words
This blog excerpts most of the DIALOGUE from an older post, leaving the charts, breaking it into pieces so as to format the post with the real payload — the charts.
Also know that the above coloration (cream-colored background inside maroon-borders) basically represents 2016-added information, anything more than a paragraph. Naturally, in almost five years, some links will be broken, images not displayed, etc., which I will either correct, or at least mention.
I don’t expect this all to sink in with one reading or exposure to the information. I will be repeating the general concepts in following posts, “the Lord willing”…. meaning, as I can get to it. As sometimes happens when new or “cosmic” information or level of awareness starts to sink in, it grips my attention and I do have trouble getting a post out in one post… as opposed to one, long, linear, and systematic (covering each and every organization referenced) post
Tags on this blog — there are more tags than covered in this post; I took an EXTENDED 2016 update to a separate post and will duplicate the list of tags. This happened when I looked closer at a set of grants in Alabama hooking up with “Prevent Child Abuse America” and started, well, “taking names and posting tax returns.”
I discovered not just the defunct (but still advertising) nonprofit cited at the state level (“VOICES for Children in Alabama”), and the system of funding of multiple similar-but-not-identical “Children’s Trust” “Children First” and other things “Children” — and the pushing of more PreK education.
The Pre-K education pushing led to the authority for doing this, called “NIEER” which being “National Institute for Early Education Research: a Unit of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey” and with this, direct connections to the UNC (University of North Carolina -Chapel Hill) based, and now 50 years old as of 2016, “Frank Porter Institute for Child Development.”
So far, that was “only” a New Jersey and North Carolina University weighing in on what should be done with public funding under CAPTA (to prevent child abuse), Tobacco Settlements (federal), and a state level board for preventing child abuse and neglect in ALABAMA.
But then a closer look at a letter posted on “NIEER (which, again, was used to validate the programming being run on Alabama’s poor, at-risk, abused, etc. children who were not showing up “Ready” for state-sponsored kindergarten) 
School of Education(the oldest school of pedagogy in the US; it was “experimental education” then and is ‘holistic education” now under the new, improved (and referencing a 2001 $10M benefactor) “Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development”
http://Children.ALABAMA.Gov/first-class-pre-k-grants/ references the NIEER:
First Class Pre-K Grants
About the First Class Pre-K Process
The First Class Pre-K Program is Aabama’s state funded pre-K program for 4 year old children who are residents of the State of Alabama. The program is funded by the Education Trust Fund through the Alabama Department of Children’s Affairs Office of School Readiness. In order to receive funds for a First Class Pre-K Classroom, organizations must first complete an online application.
First Class Pre-K has been recognized by the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) as meeting 10 of 10 criteria for the highest quality Pre-K programs. Funding for First Class Pre-K is to (1) provide access for more children to attend high quality pre-K and (2) enhance quality of existing classrooms by providing funding and support to meet the high quality standards. All state funded classrooms receive coaching from specialized coaches to support classroom instruction and Developmentally Appropriate Practice (DAP). Additionally, DCA monitors to ensure grant compliance and a high level of accountability for the grant funds
Note: Children.Alabama.gov doesn’t provide a courtesy link to NIEER, mention that it’s based at Rutgers (and probably not a 501©3) or who decided that this NJ group should be evaluating programs for Alabama. Who, if anyone, is monitoring whether there might be some conflict-of-interest relationships between coaches & curriculum providers and the evaluators? Yet State funds TO Alabama fund the programming.
Let me show this with a link to the “NIEER” letter, the statement of whose publication the letter was based on, and an (amazing, actually**) few resumes, wealthy, PRIVATE foundations, and sponsored (by those foundations and of course federal agencies such as the US/DHHS and/or the US/DOE) university centers, not to mention a set of global connections which shed an entirely different light on why there is such ongoing interest in compiling social science data on “low-income” American families and why the pre-school school should be extended, and the pre-school year become year-round..
Apparently, there’s an intent to know what also works overseas in low-income families on other continents, and JUST HOW MUCH can we standardize, streamline, coordinate, and efficiently replicate “what works” overseas too. Also, how long can all the American public be persuaded that their taxes should not just be to save all the children HERE (which, FYI, isn’t happening) but also globally. And, apparently our “overseers” (Congress who appropriates, and federal agencies who distribute, particularly HHS) have already chosen their champion proselytizers with stellar academics (mostly in psychology, still !!) and PhD-published coming out the ears. In journals put out in corporation with universities alone, or (one example below) University (Princeton) + Famous Nonprofit (Brookings).
Regardless of what you may think about the programming, it’s time to look at the sponsoring foundations, the lingo, and why not, some of the people involved? HOW are they doing this, WHAT (in other terms than the profession/practitioner-specific jargon) is actually taking place here, and based on a closer look at that, WTF is the endgame?
Is there, or is there not, any genuine intention that the current generation of “low-income children” young, or youthful, actually stop being “low-income” and make it into another social class in ANY method other than a chosen few of them becoming mentored scholars (it comes up below) of the same scheme (or “schematic” if you wish) for another generation?
I wonder how the sponsored professors with named chairs at public/private-sponsored center (and their networked colleagues and philanthropists) would feel if forced to become subject matter of collected (and published) studies by low-income ADULTS (especially PARENTS) proposing that instead of redistributing OUR taxable wage revenues to these places, it’s time to flip the table sand redistribute some of the research grants, endowed professorships, and put a “chill” on how many tax-exempt entities any one family may start, sit on the board of, or otherwise control. (That statement may make more sense after you look at some of the numbers involved in these networks, and start counting just how many foundations are in on it….)
Read the rest of this entry »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 