Posts Tagged ‘“If we want a better system…We’d better recognize + scrutinize the tax-exempt sector and find a better more accurate term than “Philanthropy” to describe and discuss it.”’
The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic, Family-Court-Beleaguered and the UNbeleaguered FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocates Reporting on (Us) [Publ. May 14, 2022].
THEME #1: The BELEAGUERED v. the UNBELEAGUERED.
(THEME #2 is: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE)
This dynamic,
The BELEAGUERED (first by in-home abuse and violence, then in the Family Courts, as people attempt to exit abuse) vs. the UNBELEAGUERED^ (by the family courts, “the beleaguered,” (their victims),
effectively excludes the former’s voices and with that, valuable insight or feedback (we) have to the field, which is typically dominated by the “Unbeleaguered.” The former are sidelined, and are not taken seriously (regardless of how valid any claims) except when, where, and as it suits the various experts…. to fulfill minimum token “survivor” representation in any organization, testimonies, or at a conferences, etc.
Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus”)
This ever-widening discrepancy guarantees a bias in the information throughout the field which never self-corrects. If it were corrected, careers would need to be restructured, people who have invested their lives and reputations in and on it discredited; they would have to find other lines of work in other fields. I.e., function as the “beleaguered” have had to all along.
The next section is another summary, written May 14… which pushes my footnote (definition of) “Beleaguered” and “THEME #2: UNFREEZE – CHANGE – REFREEZE“ further down, but both are still there. Scrolling through the post for an overview before reading individual parts may help, or read it (patiently) in order. But understand what you read has been layered in sections over time; many sections simply develop a statement a little further, and reflect many ways to express what I’m thinking. This is a blog, not a fully-developed, complex website with many sub-menus and “portals” to information, so most of what’s on it is linear.
Exposure of major cracks in any form of advocacy potentially exposes even deeper cracks in all forms and if taken seriously by enough people who might act on their understanding could rattle the foundations much deeper. Those for whom such systems is working nicely (i.e., jobs, housing, careers, publications, citations, positions in life, etc.) are pitted against and naturally resist those for whom it isn’t.
Face it: Advocacy as we understand it has typically meant “public/private partnerships” and involved tax-exempt organizations (with different names and tax processes in different countries). When criticizing advocacy calls attention to its forms as innately unfair — that has a potential ripple effect. It could be a subterranean earthquake which triggers a tsunami with far-reaching impact in such an interdependent world. The categories of economic existence involved the taxed, the tax-exempt (including those working for them), government (the same) and their respective, pooled or allocated assets, either producing income now, (sometimes tax-exempt, sometimes not), or held for possible sale (for profit, is the general idea) elsewhere. Selling profits to friends below-cost solidifies friendships; selling distressed assets (whether or not people wish to sell) is perceived as rescue.
Right now, distressed PEOPLE, and made so often through court systems, are a known (if unofficial) asset class. Marketing to their “kind” and managing them is major business. Those on welfare, those fleeing abuse across borders, OR those fleeing abuse individually (within a country) all create different kinds of opportunities…not just problems. The question is: for whom.
The assumption that, among advocates and survivors needing their services “we are all on the same page” is false, when the viewpoint is accounting and accountability. A constant narrative (public advocacy and outreach) is maintained to encourage the referrals and continual application for help from advocacy organizations, while the same then go appeal for more resources and funding for the good cause/s.
I’ve read too many tax returns, experienced too much (I was never in a shelter, but I could’ve used some shelter and did need help) to mis-read the constant “we, us our — join us” branding from websites, individuals and individuals associated with websites and/or entities where funds ARE going in, but where they go (even as shown on a tax return) can’t really be tracked by the public — and even less so by the “beleaguered” among the public.
I’d love to post more Forms 990 and audited financial statements (including — again — ALL of the (corporate) entities and for each, most recent tax returns within the DV Advocacy field USA, and the DVRN regionalized networks), but between new developments (in this field, i.e., NationalSafeParents.org “coalition” website teaming with the National Family Violence Law Center at George Washington University Law School, (literally, Law.GWU.Edu/(description) pushing hard for the VAWA Reauthorization with “Keeping Children Safe IN Family Courts” (Kayden’s law) tweak), (as I recall about ten posts in late February/March on this, and a few more in April), my NOT being on the same page as these (and hence getting not referrals or cites from them), and my private life events — I cannot out-produce or out-publicize solo when even top producers and websites (pick some and look at the publication “Acknowledgements” front matter, even for an annual report) which require many specialists for the output, and other sponsors to distribute. Case in point, why the post title. See “Tactics: Divide and Conquer” below. As a tactic, it works. I still hope it may work both ways when enough people get sick of being mentored, monitored, lied to and betrayed — but this won’t be seen without looking outside the mainstream that is, looking to the accounts and accounting infrastructures. Start SOMEWHERE to take those repeated snapshots and get a picture!)
Oh– and did I mention, most of these websites (USA) decline to post BOTH Forms 990 (reliable and current) AND audited financial statements. I don’t even know whether or not the IRS even requires that they do post the latter — it just asks how they make them available. I’ve seen responses such as “not available” (View IRS Form 990 Part VI.C. ‘Disclosure’; it’s near the bottom of a page). But I DO know that transparency and a sense of duty to the supporting public would’ve posted this information voluntarily (not shelter addresses of course, but the financials of those running the shelters, etc.)
Tactics: Avoid and distract: rather than starting by considering ALL possible causes and choosing the most likely, advocates constantly raise and publicize less fundamental ones (such as “unsound psychological theories,”).
Tactics: Divide and Conquer: Manage Quarantine/Isolate veteran survivor dissidents, then emphasize “Solidarity” first for whoever is left, especially newcomers, and mentor them. Anyone, especially survivors, who’ve seen through that strategy and remain vocal about it, could potentially “contaminate” the ongoing fresh-blood of headlines and horror stories, which is a currency in this field. Speaking of currency, almost any survivor who brings up and looks at the topic of “finances,” and calls attention to resources for investigating tax-exempt organizations (which the field is peopled by), becomes and is treated as a threat to its stability.
Major energy and money is poured into publicity claiming concern, advertising “progress” in problem-solving, ensuring those politically advantageous get a seat at the decision-making tables. How is that really the best use of public resources?
Tactic: Ignore the National: ALWAYS talk and go Global. Within my country, you will not find any systematic discussion or “reveal” among advocates of their own funding and reporting policies, of welfare reform, of the potential of negative nonprofits (tax-exempts or trade associations) as an issue. The focus is to be kept away from “accounting literacy” and a specialized shared language of “cause literacy” is the unifying force for system change.
What if the accounting systems locally, within any single country, are THE major facilitator of abuse, at the national, local and (guess what, also) familial/individual abuse? Are not access “resources” often what people (and countries) fight over most in the first place?
“The game seems to be not proving (actually, anything much) but persuading whoever “matters” to accept and invest, and casting a few crumbs to those who evidently don’t…
Persuade, publicize, legitimize, legislate, reproduce…. when problems surface, leverage that to further embed more investment — thus solidifying the same foundations. That’s how reformISTS think and operate. (Cambridge Dictionary:”reformist” noun, verb; Wikipedia “reformism” as a movement within socialism, referring to gradual change rather than revolution — but the end goal is the same. At least read the “Overview”).
(Post title, and my related one just published are shown again below):
Post Title: The Widening Credibility Gap between the Long-Term, Chronic Family-Court-Beleagured and the UNbeleagured FamilyCourtReform/ist + DV Advocacy Experts Reporting on (Us) [May 14, 2022]. (short-link ends “-eus,” which seems appropriate to the topic here: EU vs. US… combined, is it “EUs?” (except for Brexit….). Published imperfectly at about 12,000 words, the latter situation I hope to correct eventually, the former, “in my dreams..” Any writer knows it takes longer and is harder to write a good short post than a halfway decent longer one.
This weekend and next week I’m packing up a household and relocating (no new residence obtained yet, but a temporary safe place has been offered). If this post helps you and you can, please use the DONATE button and/or let me know. I’m not relying on Donations (or, a tax-exempt) but IF you appreciate it, small amounts help, and for those who might not, the DONATE button is not the forum. Read the fine print here:
NB, Recently, a certain man whose name appeared ONCE in this post in 2016 or 2017 as I recall, chose to use the “Donate” button (a second time) to, this time, threaten (or attempt to threaten) to defame me unless I removed his name. The name was mentioned — not featured, just mentioned — appropriately in context as a board member of a charity. Via a second PayPal Donation of $20 (after I’d belatedly, saying why and with an apology for the delay, refunded his first one of $10) note to me, and a link was provided to a ‘substack” to threaten me with further publication if I didn’t comply. His (rant) used the word “tarnished” several times and “conspiracy” (some form of it) even more, without proving I’d either tarnished the charity’s or his name, or proving that I was a “conspiracy theorist” (I’d quoted one). …. In the protest he at least included a link to my post complained about, showing that even the section on the charity was only the bottom half, and quoting none of it. I.e., anyone who compared what he summarized to what was said, could see a difference. The guy actually started a “newsletter” to discredit the blog, based on his experience with me responding to a complaint about one of my posts (representing about 1/870th of the posts published). (this was the first and only post shown). Other than a street address he sent me (for which I found no direct connection to that name) and the association with the charity, very little about him shows on-line.
I posted a single response (yesterday), asked him to grow up (or prove his point, if he could), said I was returning the ($20) and did so. I’m also looking into how I might block any further donations to deliver notes to (attempt to) bully me at the PayPal level. FYI, in the post in question, I was looking at another individual (now deceased) who did talk “Conspiracy Theory” and asked for donations to an entity. I looked up the entity, posted, and talked about it — as this led to other interesting topics. My post also mentioned that I’d done this on the suggestion of a friend (not as a normal part of my blogging). People who join boards of any public charity which must file tax returns should understand that strangers, not only friends, may be reading those returns: it is public access information. The alternative if privacy is more important is to not join such boards. For example, so far, my privacy is important, and so far, I haven’t…
Therefore this notice is my way of saying: if you want have issues with this blog, or any post on it come at me with something that holds water, but don’t use PAYPAL messaging to come at ME personally as its author or complain about it; I will return that donation and seek to block you. Substituting name-calling for a process that involves proof trying to get me to retract something truthful and (in that context, it was also innocuous) reflects more on the individual. It’s also made me want to look even more into a single nonprofit he was on, based on what I’d found back then: why is it even so important for this individual to have privacy, but not me? If you want the text of those exchanges, ask and I’ll provide links or full texts. For “defamation” the guy doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on and failed to state any falsehood I’ve posted about him; in fact it was disturbing to speculate, given no legitimate cause, why it was even worth a protest: but I if this keeps up, I may have one for harassment. RE: Donations: I’ve made it plain in and around that Button that I have not organized a nonprofit (formed one or joined one) and FYI, historically Donations have been mostly inactive, year after year. Occasionally someone who knows me may send $20 or $40, for example, on a birthday or otherwise.//LGH, May 14, 2022.
If people wish to debate either my facts or my conclusion from the facts (links, quotes, etc.) which result, mostly, from years of looking into things in this manner, go ahead: PROVE me wrong, or mis-guided somehow. I’d especially appreciate this from anyone with a background and mindset to understand the difference between proof and supposition.
^^BY THE “UNBELEAGUERED” IN THIS CONTEXT, I’m REFERRING* (but not deferring!**) TO:
Refer/Defer: (*meanings 1,2 or 3) (**to defer to” references to a person, i.e., out of respect for him or her as a person, his/her authority and his/her more expert qualification. It’s a firm of submission. See vocabulary links. Here, I indicate but decline to submit.)
By “UNBeleaguered” in this context, I mean:
^A category with a long label: FamilyCourtReformists and Domestic Violence/Child Abuse Advocates including their (respective) associated, sponsored^^ think tanks, and university centers, which feed them policy and ‘best-practices’ info and technical assistance and training, certifying courses, curricula, webinars, programs, etc.
Typically the category of “advocates” (here) is meant to be at the state level, a series of 56 (as to DV) private (but public-funded) tax-exempt coalitions, ONE per jurisdiction, with funds (for how much or what percent — find and read ALL their financials, which typically aren’t even posted on their websites) along with sexual assault coalitions. These are coordinated by specific “national” (so-called) websites, sometimes equated 1:1 with an identifiable nonprofit entity, but not always.
^^Such sponsorship includes both private and public funding where the universities (or the involved nonprofits) are also public-funded. For example, the DV advocacy field USA is essentially controlled by the federal government’s decisions how to redistribute (its) wealth state by state and regionally to special issue resource centers, which I’ve blogged (for years, i.e., repeatedly) elsewhere. Tax-exempt anything in the USA (and I”m sure elsewhere) is also a form of public sponsorship: it’s a privilege.
(Again, the context is USA, because this post is an appeal to those NOT dealing with the consequences of [their] supporting and public endorsement of this crowd from afar).
To these, I say (and it’s a rhetorical question: So many already have the answer):
Will you ever hear us, on the basis of common sense, reason, and that country economic and government differences exist for a reason and should not be set aside or undermined lightly?
To uninvolved observers, inside and outside the USA, ask yourselves:
Does our [the beleaguered] often less slick presentation and fewer social networking connections really mean we are less credible?
Are we ALL talking only anecdotal evidence/our horror stories, thereby becoming only “survivors” (unless we’re selling books or consulting services the existing field endorses), not real “experts”… or do many of us have other and possibly at least equally credible bases (than the ones you’ve fed us) for understanding the situations, appropriately labeling the situations, and recommending what to do about these situations?
Regarding the attempts to internationally align policy through privatized (but government-endorsed) nonprofits and charities backed by major wealth, or civil servant leadership (i.e., trade associations with judges, or as seen in CAFCASS), I challenge you:
Why is having good country boundaries as a country considered “bad” if not extremist and a danger to society — while poor personal boundaries is discussed cross-border as “healthy” and in the public interests — generating sponsored education and public awareness campaigns about healthy relationships vs. bad ones (coercive control, domestic abuse, etc.)?
My complaint and opinion:
–>I’m reporting and getting REAL tired of significant boundary violations (of the United States of America, the country I live in) which have nothing to do with a wall on our southern border (48 contiguous states) with Mexico or blocking truckers’ protests on the northern border with Canada based on vaccine status.
–>I am talking policy-setting, public-purpose boundaries being set from outside the reach of the people living here and without regard to circumstances long-documented to be occurring here, which are not and cannot be openly discussed in a common language with other countries where so many integral facets are not common: our tax systems, our laws, and (after a few generations past welfare-reform) the forces driving social policy through our welfare system, parts of which derived from the UK to start with.
Briefly, some World War II-era history: “When so much infrastructure is wiped out, and resources depleted, how to rebuild?” (Did the USA ask to apply the UK model? If not then, why now?)
(See “1942 Beveridge Report” (William Beveridge lived 1879-1963) and The Beveridge Report and the Foundations of the Welfare State” (75th Anniversary, 17 Dec. 2017 from UK National Archives). Quote is from the second source (and from its cover page / summary only, all emphases added):
“Now, when the war is abolishing landmarks of every kind, is the opportunity for using experience in a clear field. A revolutionary moment in the world’s history is a time for revolutions, not for patching..”
Churchill received a copy of the report on 11 November 1942, but was no doubt quite busy conducting the war, so instructed the chancellor Kingsley Wood to ‘have an immediate preliminary, brief report made on this for me’. He soon received Wood’s ‘critical observations’, as well as comments from his close friend and adviser Lord Cherwell.
These two reports sum up the initial reception Beveridge’s ideas received from the Prime Minster’s inner circle. Wood described the plan as ‘ambitious’, but worried it involved ‘an impracticable financial commitment’. Wood said that ‘the abolition of want’ was an admirable objective that would have ‘a vast popular appeal’, but he was concerned that Beveridge’s plan was ‘based on fallacious reasoning’.
…Wood, as well as Cherwell, also raised concerns about how the United States (who were by and large bankrolling Britain’s war efforts at this point) would react to such bold proposals for state provision by a country brought so financially low by an all-consuming war. Cherwell pointed out that the US population might take umbrage at financing the creation of a far more generous welfare state than their own. Wood worried that it would appear that Britain was ‘engaged in dividing out the spoils while they [the US] are assuming the main burden of the war’.
Concluding, Wood expresses the cautious attitude the Report initially provoked
I say, the Social Welfare State USA and UK are NOT identical, nor should they be.
SHARE THIS POST on...
‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019).
POST TITLE: ‘We Must Have a Stomach for the Details and Willingness to Look at the Numbers…’ (Orig. Jan. 2018 on LGH Front Page | Updated, Supplemented & Published Sept. 30, 2019). (shortlink ending “-aYW”, length: about 7,500 words)
“…As These Situations** Continue to ‘Morph,’ ‘Evolve’ (and Expand) Our Collective Stomach for Noticing the Details WILL Impact Our Collective Level of Freedom (LGH Front Page, Sept. 5, 2019).”
THIS POST is an OFF-RAMP with INTRO, REVIEW and INTERNAL CONNECTIONS TO EARLIER WRITINGS. I moved a short section with details on a specific parent education/anti-parental alienation curriculum targeting parents, a section written probably in January 2018, from my Front Page to this new post. That starts several paragraphs below, under:
“**These Situations” as referenced in post title:”
This post is also exhortation and some paragraphs are in second person: direct address, not third-person, descriptions. The direct address tends to draw of my experience on-line (admittedly limited, but I have been blogging a long time, and Tweeting, at times more intensely, several years, commenting on others blogs, on-line journals, formerly more active in forums, etc. So there is a basis for that subjective “grow up!” commentary). As usual, it’s subject to further revision and I’ll likely move the “Read More” link up higher after a few days or a week. //LGH.
It shows a drill-down, related posts previously posted on the topic (and the main organization featured) and some tactics used in concealing the money trail originators were and still are so eager to access, that is, forced-consumption of behavioral modification classes as a market niche feeding off public institutions — often through judicial order to start, followed by attempts to then legislate it into practice, and involving the family courts.
Those who came up with these concepts were “insiders” obviously aware which federal funding streams were most likely to support it before it hit the public conscience, as they have continued to this day. Family courts and anything dealing with young children (and young children’s parents) were always a target population.
Talk about reforming family courts because of their corrupt, flawed, broken, or unsafe status decision-making is beside the point until the infrastructure — basic financial details, gatekeepers, and To/From sources of revenue — is exposed. There’s a movement and attempts to get parents (especially mothers) to self-identify as “dumb” by re-tweeting, posting, circulating references to numbers without any surrounding context on social media. Circulating such things without fact-checking, or demanding more specifics from the source IS dumb; it shows gullibility and puts a “for-sale” sign on the promoters.
How hard it is to respond with a “Sez Who” or “When?” instead of mindlessly RT-ing or re-Posting? As a group, are “we” really so co-dependent on others’ approval that asking that is a new group dynamic? That’s cult-like behavior, and encourages more of the same. If you’re going to engage in such behavior, then quit complaining when your kids are taken by others of similar behavior intent to program them unfairly against you, for profit or just for fun and spite. It’s time to grow up and expect others around you, for continued associations, to start doing the same. Adulthood can be contagious, but it’s not time-free or a free ride mentally. If it’s not put together FOR YOU as an engaging story, then your attention wanders? ….
(Moving on,…): The goal of centralized control of not just the system, but also reform of the system mimicks specific business models becoming popular around the same time, but developed earlier (i.e., I call it the Harvard/Bain/Bridgespan model: University Center (for credibility and citations), Bain (a consulting company with strong political — and Harvard/Boston connections) and “Bridgespan” representing the philanthropic (i.e., nonprofit niche) consulting. I don’t care if people call it something else, just that they get a glimpse of it by sticking their OWN heads into some of the documents which aren’t 100% spin, advertising, and vague, and quit making excuses for not doing so. Learn to chew on the information and spit out what’s roughage, not real substance.
Look if an abuser continues to tell you you’re stupid, can’t do anything, incompetent, as an excuse for hiding his (or her) financials within a household, while engaging in theft, threats, bullying, and other forms of violence, would you know that’s wrong? So what’s the big difference when the same behaviors occur on macro-economic and micro-economic sectors too?
Develop a stomach for the details now; it’s already late in this game, and understanding it really does help.
HERE, I wrote and inserted three inset (boxed sections with bulleted lists and hyperlinks) listing connecting to other posts to This post introduction and off-ramped section: In order, these insets are:
- KIDS’ TURN POSTS (in Introduction), and
- HEALTH SYSTEMS FLUSH WITH CASH prior posts
- PARENTAL KIDNAPPING posts, because they overlaps with KIDS’ TURN creators,..
…KIDS’ TURN Creators who just so happen to have strong connections to the AFCC (Association of Family and Conciliation Courts) which also has maintained throughout high interested in convening, conferencing, and coordinating internationally, at least in Commonwealth (and some European) countries how to run their own programming through what increasingly looks like a privatized court system run internationally also, parallel to the public ones, but with different standards (and more conflicts of interest built in). While this is now more out in the open (see my Twitter threads on CAFCASS, AFCC, and NCJFCJ and the involvement of private UK famous foundations such as Nuffield, Leverhulme, etc.) it’s always been there as I was reminded in revisiting some of the earliest posts.
If you’re unfamiliar with “KIDS’ TURN” specifically as started in California, by looking at this understand that it stands in for “Parent Education Psych-Educational Re- (or De-)Programming,” was sold as an antidote or vaccination against “parental alienation” (which sold well in certain quarter obviously), it was a FRANCHISE operating through Nonprofits, and its founders being highly positioned within the state-level court systems (i.e., AFCC had staff members at the California Judicial Council AOC/CFCC as well as consulting retired judges, other judges etc. working throughout the system for many years), PARENT EDUCATION was in California one of only three limited purposes for those Access/Visitation Grants, and it in general represents a developed field, specialized, and intentionally “vertical” monopoly, self-sustaining once up and running.
Whether or not the classes successfully turned kids’ heads or immunized them against “parental alienation” isn’t the issue. Setting up the business operations was, and still is. Getting on the “community referrals” list at local courts, organizing it over larger geography for referrals (particularly to AFCC membership) and setting up the direct ability for donors to the private nonprofits to, potentially, bribe a judge with an open case before them also on the board (or staff) of said nonprofits.
It has crossed my mind more than once that my coming out of nowhere as an unknown blogger in 2011 to showing some of the “Kids’ Turn” board members, court contracts, and set-up may have had something to do with its eventually going underground (as shown below on this post, which I’ve had up almost two years now in part). I certainly don’t know for sure, but I do know my posting at the time was intentional, and that imitation operations under slightly different names can be seen in other states.
At the post bottom (short) section (tan background) comments briefly on how databases I’ve used since starting this blog at times change, or change hands. This complicates tracking programming over time. Generally, I find it really hard (without a letter-writing campaign or multiple subscriptions to databases which may or may not have this information) to get information pre-dating this century. That’s a problem when so many key organizations running program started in the 1970s (some) 1980s (many more) and even 1990s (still more, especially the kind dependent on massive public grants to exist):
- PUBLIC (GOVT-OWNED) AND PRIVATE DATABASES ALSO CHANGE, EVOLVE, ARE BOUGHT & SOLD.
While that’s obvious, it’s also significant, but I don’t have much to say other than point it out, this time.
The post is exhortation and show and tell, and also that I’ve been saying this for years now, under MY banner: “Let’s Get HONEST.” That’s a group effort, not a solo effort. Getting honest I find more than getting “even” (unlikely), or even some form of imaginary revenge without consideration about who might already be counting on that motive to move ALL system even further away from accountability.
The stomach for details and willingness to look at the numbers are basic survival skills and essential to safeguard against, essentially, crooks who know how to play both the words and the numbers to access public resources and sell policy. There is no substitute for the conceptual understanding of whether or not, and if not, how, books can be cooked, tales spun, and how a legitimate cause, so stated, so often masks fake advocacy by simply withholding and failing to operate “above-board” when the operations involve public funds.
Some private organizations don’t need, except enough to justify tax-exempt status and don’t directly take public funds; they are privately funded but target the public institutions we still support. Read enough tax returns and you’ll see many of these also pay cities, counties, school districts, and/or universities (both public and private) to run pilots of their coordinated (or, proprietary) causes which eventually, most people will be subjected to and pay for through taxation.
More can always be done as there is always more to research and because organizations tend to “evolve” constantly in this sector, but my main concern is how few people seem to be even starting to look such things up, admit they exist, and after admitting they exist, speak of them in terms of what they are as much as what they’re doing.
“What they are” individually, if it’s an “entity” is going to be either public or private; if private, it may be a whether a nonprofit taking mostly government funding, mostly or only private funding, or some of both, or a part of government itself. It is where the two sectors connect, start mimicking each other in project and purpose names that the support for them — which comes from the public “purse” in many ways, and should be taken personally if squandered, lost, or misappropriated.
When you start reading tax returns (which should happen soon if it hasn’t, including — try it on for size — some really big ones: just look at the categories, browse for general understanding) it should not take too long to run across private foundations which are, systematically, directly grantsing funds to government entities across jurisdiction lines (i.e., in-state, out-of-state from wherever the foundation is registered) to promote or test private-purpose programming.
It’s rarely a one-way or interest-free street, the “commerce” (information, capacity-building, Social Science R&D, etc.) between private and government functions.
SHARE THIS POST on...
In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… [Published June 29, 2019/#1 of 2]
In About 2,500 Words,** Why I Still Bother… [Published June 29, 2019/#1 of 2] (short-link ends “-ac4”).
**Post title originally: “In About 1,000 Words…” I had to adjust the title several times but quit, cold-turkey, before 3,000 words.
Then I <>added two image galleries with captions and connecting text and three or four more individual images ….<>expanded one of the early “**” references while copyediting for grammar, then footnoted it… <> added to the very bottom a bio blurb from one of the added image captions for a Mark Rodgers, of The Clapham Group (Charlottesville, Virginia), on the Alliance for Early Success‘s (“AES” in Kansas but legal domicile Nebraska) Board of Directors, which information is fascinating, I’m currently writing on because its a classic example of why we all need better language and to establish the habit of identifying, digging up the financials, and comparing them to the public relations material, even when it shows up at Harvard University (https://developingchild.harvard.edu), or backed by people (with heirs) listed in Forbes if not THE richest in a state, others in the same class.
Please see after this, Footnote “Clarification“ at the bottom of this post, (Three Footnotes to About 2,500 Words on Why I Still Bother (to Blog). (#2 of 2,June 29, 2019) (short-link ends “-ad3″| published the same day).
Here, it does and there are already major discrepancies surfacing. It’s also interesting in its own right.
I have to bite my tongue even now to not add to that information, knowing as much as I’ve just discovered within the past week (but had made mental notes of as far back as September 2016)…
It did only take about 2,500 words to state my case. The rest is “for example” and some examples, details behind the declaration.
Details matter. They reveal who’s involved in which roles in any mass social transformation targeting public institutions (i.e., source of ongoing revenues). Discernible practices discourage fair and open debate before any side has enough backing on questionable methods, or even purposes.
Privately networked, cross-jurisdictional collaborations and layered tax-exempt entities obscure full awareness of how few are at the top. Like any pyramid (marketing) scheme: highly networked, compartmentalized by cause at the lower levels.
… Still under 6,000 words (or so) …
Why I still bother to blog: Not just for fun!
I write to communicate what I see in fields whose established leadership do see, but have chosen not to say — including in fields developed essentially within the last two decades or so.
I write for those who like me, should’ve had better validation over two decades ago of things which just didn’t smell right in and around the family courts, on-line complaints and media exposes of the family courts. Those things that weren’t and still aren’t right, if you, like me, have smelled but (unlike me) haven’t yet found the source, know that the “what’s not right” can be seen and identified in objective terms — but not the cause-based rhetoric we are all being fed, constantly. So there’s a matter of functional vocabulary leading to expression in forms of what is seen — and from there, what to do about it, and only from there, how.
It starts with understanding there’s an existing taxonomy, the scaffolding of any operational support for ANY cause, to be considered. IS IT PUBLIC or IS IT PRIVATE — IS IT AN ENTITY or IS IT A PROGRAM POSING AS AN ENTITY shows WHERE IT TIES INTO THE ECONOMY. For collaborations and coordinated programming or any cause, the whole still has parts, and these parts still should be identified.
I also write to show how suppression of functional vocabulary is commonplace, cannot be accidental, it’s nearly universal, and the intent is subjugation of an entire population (and engaging them in keeping others down). In this language and vocabulary are a technology… key tools… leverage. The antidote is self-education. It takes some time and practice, but it’s achievable. One challenge will be time when people’s time is spent fighting to survive economically.
Basic literacy on how we are governed must be in economic terms, and must deal with concepts on submission to taxation in exchange for accountability for use of those tax receipts. Not just trust in leadership, and not just rebellion without understanding how to govern ourselves. (The intended level of dissonance with reality seems to parallel with a historic intent for South Africa: “Hewers of Wood and Drawers of Water”). That’s not the ideal society or a “just and sustainable world” when applied globally.
I write so women (mothers, in particular) might have a choice not just between forms of exploitation or abusing others (& becoming an abuser because it seems safer) or having been driven out of one field, need to make “family court reform” the new one — but walking in without a perspective on the usual guides to “family court reform.”
If what I’m saying is: untrue — challenge it; true, but irrelevant — show me how*; If it’s true and relevant — deal with it, which will require making hard choices.
I know that challenging, or proving irrelevance, or dealing with this material would be itself challenging — because you’d have to consider enough of the material to debate it, and then figure out ways to dismiss it.
It seems to me that too many “thought-leaders” have not accepted that the easy route — dismissal, silence, censoring the discussion, encouraging dependency of followers; let them run interference — won’t work forever.
Read the rest of this entry »
SHARE THIS POST on...
LOOK BEYOND THE LOGO! AND IF A NONPROFIT IS NAMED in the NEWS, OR EVEN HINTED AT IN THE NEWS, LOOK IT UP!
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.
https://igws.indiana.edu/OilGas/drilling.cfm
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 »
Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History 