Posts Tagged ‘Mustafa Abdul Salamm (of NHFA and other CT/New Haven area 501©3/forged signature to get CDBG grant’
#2 of 3, Connecticut’s New Haven Family Alliance | Street Outreach Worker Program (SOWP), SOWP’s Role Model, a Rhode Island 501©3 “Institute for Study and Practice of Nonviolence” + ITS partner “Rhode Island Mentoring Partnership” (“RIMP,” a d/b/a of Chamber Education Foundation) somehow organized under non-entity? “The National Mentoring Partnership” | See Also the USDOJ/OJP/OJJDP facilitating Public/Private Partnerships & Global One-World Agenda.
Correction: If you read the initials “CFNGH.org” in this blog’s former version (I’ve corrected now) or any other post, that stands for “CFGNH” — The Community Foundation of Greater New Haven about which we had have much to say…
More Commentary: The “New Alliance Foundation” mentioned below, it turns out, also has some of its assets held by the CFGNH, so no wonder both are donating to the “Active” but why, don’t know, and IRS-revoked “NHFA.” (Note: It may get reinstated, but that doesn’t erase that it had been IRS status previously revoked…)
Community Foundations, in any metropolitan area, should not be overlooked or misunderstood. Whether they are dealing with HHS, Education, Violence Prevention, Housing (HUD), Labor, Refugees/Immigration Issues, or any other critical subject matter, they are frequently serving as intermediaries for Federal Policies, including but not limited to those run through the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) and Social Innovation ‘Social Impact” Funds to fast-track what works, targeted geographically.
This is ALREADY in streamlined operation, and the public will probably figure out what happened (wake up) later unless they start looking at some of the top-down sources (including financers) of local operations. There may be no more “local” at this point when all factors are on the table. And where there is not, there is then no effective, local representative government. And by “local” I include even as “Local” as an individual State, let alone an individual country. There is NOWHERE that I can see, which is not considered fair game for investors (those who have the wherewithal to invest), whether or not those locals are particularly invested in this country or not.
This only becomes evident when one attempts to follow the financing. If all we follow is names and self-descriptions, or paid-for press releases, or “quotables” from the local nonprofit leaders in the local press, promoting events or responding to some other recent news some incident, we do not have enough pieces of larger picture for understanding.
For any of these organizations in Connecticut, The Connecticut Secretary of State (Commercial Recording Division) “Business Inquiry” Search page. Massachusetts’/ HERE, and Rhode Island’s /HERE. Usually easy to find by typing state name followed by “Business entity search.” While I’m here in case it comes up, here’s DCRA.DC.Gov (Dept. of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs) for a District of Columbia search. It’s free, but you must create a password and user ID.
- “Mentor: The National Mentoring Partnership” registered as a D.C. corporation in Massachusetts only in 2013. Its address is in Boston.” Because it did, I now have an EIN# 001117630 (other states typically don’t reveal EIN#s) at 201 South Street, Sixth Floor, Boston, MA 0211.
- It’s DC Registration I just found, it shows 1990 registration, and Governing Officer “David Shapiro.”
| MENTOR: NATIONAL MENTORING PARTNERSHIP, INC. (THE) | 900927 | 3/09/1990 | Active | Non-Profit Corporation | Domestic | Non-Profit |
However a search of that EIN# (001117630) produces NO results as “Eligible to Receive Tax Deductible Contributions” on the IRS “Exempt Select Organizations Check” link. Perhaps because it’s kind of a “business” or trade (the trade of mentoring) organization — I don’t know, yet. So, Instead, I searched just Boston, MA — and by name (not EIN#) and got a similar, but not identical name, with a different EIN#, that WAS eligible. For why I may seem obsessed about this, continue reading the post…
| 04-2775852 | Mentor Group Institute for Intercultural Education Inc. | Boston | MA | United States | PC |
| 04-3502631 | Mentor Charitable Fund Inc. | Boston | MA | United States | PF |
| 04-3575764 | Silver Lining Mentoring Inc. | Boston | MA | United States | PC |
| 20-4935290 | The Mentor Network Charitable Foundation Inc. | Boston | MA | United States | PF |
| 22-3207958 | Mass Mentoring Partnership Inc. | Boston | MA | United States | PC |
| 46-3310980 | College Perspectives Mentor Program Inc. | Boston | MA | United States | PF |
| 52-1674088 | National Mentoring Partnership Incorporated | Boston | MA | United States | PC |
(Last three tax returns):
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Mentoring Partnership | MA | 2014 | 990 | 40 | $2,770,647.00 | 52-1674088 |
| National Mentoring Partnership | MA | 2013 | 990 | 36 | $2,481,192.00 | 52-1674088 |
| National Mentoring Partnership | MA | 2012 | 990 | 41 | $2,486,418.00 | 52-1674088 |
I absolutely cannot find this one registered (by EIN# search, by name, or even by Person’s name) registered in Massachusetts. Apparently this EIN# isn’t supposed to be noticed at the state level?
To review where we stand in the Connecticut, Again (2016) post series, I keep links near the top and have made them short-links in case people wish to Tweet, or share elsewhere. Please do!! The Titles are long, but the underlying urls are not.
- Post #1 of 3 found at this link. ** Shortlink to this Post #2 of 3, and *** Post #3 of 3 is found at this link. (will become active when I finish the three-way split and hit “Publish” — soon, I hope!!)
- Also see “Why a Connecticut Series Again; Why Now? Well, It’s ALWAYS Timely to “Look It Up,” While We Still Can(!), Also…” (Published 6/20/2016) and
[Those links and text will be repeated below].
We are looking at nonprofit after nonprofit after nonprofit and the money moving between them, and between government and them. Some larger than others, often copying each other. Word is out that some low-income youth are slipping through the cracks, not having mentors, and causing problems, such as violence, which providing mentors would then correct.
It seems to me that what’s significantly slipping through the cracks and might, if found more directly affect the poverty status of troubled youth and communities, is accountability for public (and private) money run through those tax-exempts.
For example, I discovered that The National Mentoring Partnership needs people to send donations to them through “Network For Good.” Here’s THAT set of tax returns — sounds like this is working out real well for this organization, maybe not so well for people who wish to sort through over 6,000 pages of tax return to see what any “Organization We Help People” (fabricated name) received in the latest round:
| ORGANIZATION NAME | ST | YR | FORM | PP | TOTAL ASSETS | EIN |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Network for Good | DC | 2014 | 990 | 6375 | $77,679,754.00 | 68-0480736 |
| Network for Good | DC | 2013 | 990 | 637 | $62,156,491.00 | 68-0480736 |
| Network for Good | DC | 2012 | 990 | 203 | $56,249,127.00 | 68-0480736 |
How does $56M turn to $77M in just two years? Where are those assets being held (invested)? (It turns out most of those assets are “Grants for Distribution” — meaning, they are being held somewhere, and while being held somewhere THAT SIZE of fund balance, even if held for just a single month (!!) or ongoing, WILL be producing interest. The website doesn’t show most of this — but they have just moved their employees over to a for-profit C-Corps related organization, meaning, less transparent to the public.
Their website does NOT provide searchable information on grants distributed (nonprofit leadership or employees must log in). While this may (I’m sure does) increase the amount of money moving from donors to (wherever) or allegedly moving there, it bypasses credibility checks IF and WHEN those nonprofits are involved in providing government services, or contracting/taking donations also from governments THROUGH here.
Network for Good is a hybrid organization—a nonprofit-owned for-profit. Network for Good’s nonprofit donor-advised fund uses the Internet and mobile technology to securely and efficiently distribute thousands of donations from donors to their favorite charities each year. Our donor-advised fund is accredited by the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving Alliance and meets all 20 of its standards for charity accountability. View our accreditation information.
And how does a tax return get to be that long (conjecture while it’s still loading on my laptop — out of the many grants they are distributing, the listing is only one or two showing per page, instead of the about 10/page the IRS form prompts for)….
Wow. How Network For Good is now operating –Gross Receipts for Year ending 2014 — $230M. Grants to other organizations (yes, shown 1/page for a total of $218M distributed!) $218M, they spent almost nothing on salaries — but $6.8M on Professional Fundraising services. The previous year, they spent $4M on salaries.
It has a related C-Corps for fundraising, so all board members shown on the above nonprofit will show their salaries as paid from “Related Organization” — this being the same organization Name (“Network for Good, Inc.” at the exact same street address (but different legal domicile), and the 501©3 (above, nonprofit) Network for Good owns 51% (formerly 100% it said) of the assets and revenues of the for-profit (taxable) management/fund-raising C-Corps also called “Network for Good, Inc.” (which may explain why it’s legal domicile is in a different state; the name was already taken in the original state).
That for-profit (taxable) management/fund-raising C-Corps “Network for Good, Inc.” controls another for-profit (taxable) entity called “GiveCorps (also a C-Corp) which does “software for nonprofits and universities.” At the end of the day, this nonprofit and its thus controls everything (51% is a majority stake…). Despite all having the same street address and suite#, what you see above is a Delaware Legal Domicile; the other one, a New York legal domicile, and GiveCorps, a Maryland one.
Incidentally that last paragraph I saw from the tax return: Page 1 (showing a major change in Salaries Line Item), Part VIIB (showing “Network for Good” as a $6M+ “Independent Contractor.” I never did get how an organization gets to call its own “Related Organization” an “independent contractor” in Part VIIB of the Form 990. ….. Schedule R (Related Organization) as well as Schedule L (Transactions between interested persons) reveals this, and in this case, Schedule O (Supplemental information) talks about the relationship.
As I keep saying, you can learn a lot from a tax return, and sometimes it will be laid out more specifically than clicking all over the organization’s website and speculating on what is meant by the descriptive text.
General Principles:
A lot of “PR” must continually happen about all the great projects run by smaller nonprofits which the bigger philanthropies are supporting for proper (?) distraction from what their funders are doing with the wealth held as investments within the philanthropy or private foundation, that is, filing with the IRS either a Form 990 or Form 990-PF for private foundation, or owned similarly but held under separate organization or entity.
A reminder about the process: the donation of a SMALL percentage of tax-exempt corporate “profits” (it can be around 5% only) yields for any such privately-controlled corporation positive local PR and significant corporate tax reduction simply because of foundation status.
Another reminder: they are organizing with each other as tax-exempts to act regionally with common purpose. Whether or not this is grassroots requests, or the will of the people, at this point, doesn’t seem to matter. The donations should be looked at — are they going to legitimately registered nonprofits / entities or not? However, the assets of the larger groups should be looked at as to how they are coordinating with each other regionally, and cross-cutting legal representation provided in the political units which individuals must deal with.
That coordinated privately held wealth — when combined with the public funding, is a major power bloc and political influence. This wealth will ALWAYS describe itself as for the purpose of better provision of public (government) services; but from the individual’s perspective, it should be looked at as a network, and that network as to the collective honesty and transparency of its members.=
So, who ever gets around to fact-checking whether donations record go to legitimate nonprofits, or figuring out what some of the indicators are when the dealing may be less than legitimate, despite positive local press… But this is something the average person who will commit to consistently taking a look at commonly overlooked details, can actually do. Case in point….I do…
New Haven Street Outreach Workers program had tough financial year
By Shahid Abdul-Karim, New Haven Register
POSTED: 08/03/14, 9:57 PM EDT | UPDATED: ON 08/03/2014 2 COMMENTS
NEW HAVEN >> New Haven Family Alliance Executive Director Barbara Tinney said the Street Outreach Workers Program had a difficult 2013-14 fiscal year.
The program that works to prevent violence has been operating at a loss for the past three years, Tinney said
“Full funding for the program requires $400,000 and we’ve managed the program at the funding level of $348,000 in fiscal year 2013-14,” said Tinney.
Fiscal year 2013-14 ended June 30….
According to Tinney, the program budget covers these expenses: seven full time and one part time street outreach workers; one part-time supervisor, one part-time program coordinator, fringe benefits including employer taxes, health, dental and life insurance, program expenses such as cell phones, youth activities, trips, and supplies, and administrative costs that are less than 5 percent of the total program budget.
Tinney noted that her organization has “a contract through the New Haven Board of Education for services that support families and student school achievement,” she said.
“The New Haven Family Alliance obtained separate state funding for violence prevention awarded through the city, as one of 18 organizations,” said Tinney.** “Funding is obtained through processes that require the submission of proposals and applications that are vetted by reviewers.”
The Street Outreach Workers Program is one of a number of anti-violence initiatives in the city. Other efforts include community policing, Project Longevity, the relatively new YouthStat initiative that works to connect services for youths, and numerous community organizations working to prevent violence, The number of shooting and homicide victims is nearly the same for 2014 to date compared to the first half of 2013, according to police reports.
According to city’s spokesman Lawrence Grotheer, the city’s appropriation to New Haven Family Alliance the current fiscal year is $425,308; approximately $70,000 of which came from the school district’s general fund.
**In what year is not defined.
Interesting admissions, in that the organization NHFA apparently stopped filing annual reports (as a state business entity) as of Year 2011, and per IRS, stopped filing tax returns past year 2011 also (see charts below) for which their EIN# was subsequently revoked in 2015, which the IRS published in 2016. So much for “vetting.” Moreover, CFGNH.org, local half-billion-dollar community organization which as of 2015 (webpage last revised, though its still up there) continued to promote and may have also donated to the NHFA (CFGNH’s board membership –you should read their tax return’ Schedule O –it involves by definition public officials or appointees by public officials who absolutely ought to know better than to grant to a non-filing entity after it stopped filing…) CFGNH’s therefore refusal to upload a Schedule I of identified grantees, by name, address, EIN# and amount granted each year reflects on the chief executive of City of New Haven, the Bar Association Probate court, Chamber of Commerce, etc.
But apparently neither “commoners,” nor working folk, nor anyone receiving services aresupposed to check up, or think about such things…
Section on NHFA (Street Outreach Workers Program) DONOR
New Alliance Foundation
on 195 Church Street, 7th Floor, New Haven
A New Alliance Foundation (who??) Annual Report says in Fiscal Year 2013, they gave NHFA $2,500 for the SOWP. Not much, but they say they gave for:
To support Project Success, a work-based learning program embedded in the Street Outreach Worker Program and designed to provide services, supports and opportunities for youthful ex-offenders experiencing significant barriers to academic success and employment readiness
Did New Alliance Foundation {“NAF” for this post} care that New Haven Family Alliance wasn’t filing its reports and IRS returns, on donating to it in that year? And, what’s with all the groups named “Alliance” anyhow? See NAF’s “About Us” History Page for some clues on who it is. The entire website is in bright, primary colors (red, yellow blue) and some green:
NewAlliance Foundation was established in 2004 through a contribution of $40 million in stock from NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. at the time of the Bank’s initial public offering. Committed to the same long history of philanthropy of its predecessor, The New Haven Savings Bank, NewAlliance formed the Foundation to enhance economic vitality and improve the quality of life for residents in the communities it served.
In April 2011, upon the closing of the merger of NewAlliance Bancshares, Inc. with First Niagara Financial Group, NewAlliance Foundation became a private, independent foundation serving 44 Connecticut communities.
Since its inception, NewAlliance Foundation has approved $18 million in grants to local organizations.

The Social Innovation Fund (SIF) is a powerful approach to transforming lives and communities that positions the federal government to be a catalyst for impact—mobilizing private resources to find and grow community solutions with evidence of results.With the simple but vital goal of finding what works, and making it work for more people, the Social Innovation Fund and its grantees create a learning network of organizations working to implement innovative and effective evidence-based solutions to local and national challenges in three priority areas: economic opportunity, healthy futures, and youth development.
In just five years, the Social Innovation Fund and its 



