Posts Tagged ‘Fund for the City of New York (1968ff EIN#13-2612524) 2015 assets $115.8M Ford-Sponsored’
The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].
Post Title (as published): The ongoing racist and sexist legacy of PRWORA, ‘Moynihan’ and, for example, The Ford Foundation [published Dec 14, 2017].
What would you call this post? After reading, if you have a better title, comment and tell me. Until then, in full, it’s:
But as posted in condensed form, I took out the ‘commentary’ part of the title, which may save some blog’s sidebar vertical acreage under on “Most Recent Posts,” making for a subtitle:
This material was formerly (but before publication there) labeled and in place as the Preface and “Pre-Preface” (I already had a “Foreword” and was starting to run out of meaningful section names) to:
The Money Maze: Following Multi-State, Multi-Candidate PACs + Super-PACs through Rapid Formation and NameChanges. (Giffords, ARS PAC + Lawyer Steve ‘Hurricane’ Mostyn (1971-Nov. 2017). (started Dec. 4, 2017 as a follow-up to my Dec. 3 “NRA (not) on the Record”** + preface to upcoming “Robin Hood Foundation” (or “RHF”) *** posts. Both those posts had been weeks “in the pipeline”. The case-sensitive, WordPress-generated shortlink to this one ends “-87w”). [[for what those “** / ***’s” refer to, see “The Money Maze / Giffords PAC” post referenced here.]]
This post as first published (including an extended footnote) is 16,000 words. Where it started may be seen by what looks approximately like this (next image) and is about halfway down the post. Feedback welcome — use the comments field. Keep it relevant, please; I won’t publish ads disguised as comments.
(Screenshot from my post of similar name, to be published Dec. 14, 2017. The image to left is from another blog I started in 2013 around the theme of the [poor, unreliable and dysfunctional, though still informative] condition of the TAGSS.HHS.Gov database)
For example does using the phrase “randomized controlled trials” (or “RCTs” for short), or previously more popular, “randomized evaluations” make any sponsored activity somehow more like medicine, or more scientific? And at what point is running RCTs on poor people’s “behavioral economics” (decision-making) while not reporting equally about one’s own financial activities and characterizations as an organization within the created fields scientific? For that matter, is “social science” as a whole really even a science, or instead more the process of collecting information with a view to practicing on populations and developing better demographic or functional labels said populations (such as “low-income”) and as such more of an “art”?
Restructuring the Social Sciences: Reflections from Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science.” (quoted below, the article associated with the next image explains the significance of being named Harvard “University Professor”). See Para. 1 of “Message from the Director” of the IQSS (“IQ.Harvard.edu”)
Whatever social science WAS, those helping run and fund it now have declared it a “new day” and the past thousands of years of learning are apparently nothing compared to what’s coming … and that’s coming from a decorated (“University Professor”) endowed or at least named (Alfred J. Whitehead III) professor at an elite (Harvard) private university, speaking as head of the fairly recent “Institute for Quantitative Social Science” which has already got its spin-off nonprofit, which nonprofit within the first few years of operation has already changed its business name.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment [Original, March 23, 2014. Reformat + Reminders March 14, 2017][+July2017]
Post title with case-sensitive, WordPress-generated short-link ending “-2qM”:
A Different Kind of Attention develops Sound Judgment [Original, March 23, 2014. Reformat and Reminders March 14, 2017, Three Years Later]. The post is too long. On the other hand, I take on key entities involved, do some drill-downs, and put timelines and participant names to cover-ups.
Apparently I am not showing solidarity within “the movement,” said a comment below (see “Comments”). I responded to the assumption that the “movement” (coalitions, groupings of professionals towing traumatized parents around for show-and-tell, and encouraging them to tell their stories as a platform to the reforms wanted by the groupings of professionals [“Let’s get yet more Technical Assistance and Training (domestic violence consultants — aware of the custody issues) in there” — like us and our friends”] was really “the movement” and that those so engaged had battered mothers’ or the public best interests even as a priority.
Post in Update Process. Recent (Oct. 2014) introductory material will may be reduced shortly.
I tend to revise published posts as my understanding increases, and often in the process or drafting a related one. Here, I felt inspired to elaborate some more on the role of the Ford Foundation, Center for Court Innovation, MDRC, and the economic influence on setting in motion systems-change elements (including court changes) at public expense.
This is a recent find when I was explaining and showing the Center for Court Innovation to a person completely unfamiliar with it. It didn’t take too long for the individual** to “get”once the tax returns and other materials were shown in person. It probably also helped the understanding process that the individual was familiar with project development and budgets, and hadn’t been indoctrinated NOT to talk finances or economic systems through any court advocacy group which is more interested in selling books, promoting conferences, and getting in on the “train the trainers, educate the judges” routine…. **Incidentally, said individual was a man, not a woman with a cause, or in trauma or fight-or-flight mode regarding the safety or even location of minor children. Not a father with either of those two situations. Just a guy.
It’s not rocket science– it’s just a different kind of attention, and but, yes, it still takes sustained attention and awareness of what kind of information one is focused on absorbing.
NYC 2014 BUDGET — READ! Center for Court Innov got $400K (Fund for City of NY not mentioned), Man Up, LIFT, Vera — ec (439pages…) About 61 pages of summary, followed by a few hundred of fine-print detailed tables, “Appendix A”. <===CLICK THE LINK TO SEE IT ALL.
Qualifiers (added 2017, now that I can do screenprints) — this Report is a Schedule C, dated June 2013, of Adjustments to the FY2014 Budget for the City of New York.
I wish to point out the use of the name “Center for Court Innovation” associated with the EIN# for “Fund for the City of New York,” which this document shows…instead of the EIN# & legal business name “Fund for the City of New York,”
In, fact the Fund (in association with this “Center”) was identified a few times up front (the phrase “Fund for the City of New York” does occur repeatedly throughout the document, the words Center for Court Innovation” just a few times. However, that “CENTER” is not its own entity, neither government nor business, but (as described on its website) a joint project from the Unified NYS Court System AND the (tax-exempt foundation) Fund for the City of New York.
Here are some screenprints from the front of that budget, and a few showing the use of both the Fund for the City designation (with EIN#) and the “Center for Court Innovation” (without; in fact an “initiative” is actually named CCI). MY main point is — be aware of this powerful combination, and of the CCI, as its intents (tax returns and related entities do show) are to test programs, then go national (outward from NY) and international with them. Click any image (in this section on FCNY+CCI) to enlarge; you have the NYC 2014 Budget (Sched C Adjustments) link above.
Among those shown, the light-blue captioned image here, top line of the chart refers to a certain Adolescent Portable Therapy Program under agency DOP (Probably Dept. of Probation) The second row reads “Alternatives to Incarceration (ATI) and was recommended to receive much funding, and the third, “Center for Court Innovation,” $400,000.
Here a “Center for Court Innovation “Initiative” through Agency “CJC” is allocated $400K. Notice also the Adolescent Portable Therapy Program (APTP) by the Vera Institute — this is an “import” from a UK group (Anna Freud Centre), or at least featured by it.
I also took a closer look at “Adolescent Portable Therapy” in NYC and who’s referring youth and their families into it.
The light-blue caption (Image referencing “Adolescent Portable Therapy Program”) in association with the CCI initiative under “Criminal Justice Services” (from that Budget Adjustment Schedule C).
Enough was found to move to a separate post, however I’m leaving one of the referring agencies, nicknamed “CASES” and showing its recent increases in Total (Gross) Assets for a joint of reference.
Total results: 5.** Search Again.
| ORG. NAME [“CASES”] | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services | NY | 2017 | 990 | 44 | $8,879,354.00 | 13-2668080 |
| Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services | NY | 2016 | 990 | 38 | $8,330,660.00 | 13-2668080 |
(**Above: I added two more years, YE2016 and 2017, of search results during Aug. 2018 (slight) post cleanup).
| ORG. NAME [“CASES”] | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services | NY | 2015 | 990 | 39 | $8,229,096 | 13-2668080 |
| Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services | NY | 2014 | 990 | 32 | $5,288,689 | 13-2668080 |
| Center for Alternative Sentencing and Employment Services | NY | 2013 | 990 | 31 | $3,916,408 | 13-2668080 |
