Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

Identify the Entities, Find the Funding, Talk Sense!

Posts Tagged ‘National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges

About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E. Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022].

with 2 comments

About University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ, Its Pittsburgh-based NCJJ, and NCJJ’s E. Hunter Hurst III (d. 2012)’s Tucson-based, multi-million-dollar, NASDAQ-traded Company (“PRSC”): First, the Context [Publ. Mar. 10, 2016, More Font-Changes Apr. 24, 2022]. (short-link ends “-2Se” About 7,500 words)

UPDATE 2022 comments: About more 1,000 words which I may move later except the first paragraph:  All relate to UNR.edu and its recent Carnegie Classifications and some background (and news) on both.

(In the update, I changed the title from “UNevada-Reno” to match what the university calls itself:  “University of Nevada, Reno.” Since I was using it as an adjective, I kept the hyphen:  “University of Nevada, Reno-based NCJFCJ“).  (And I corrected the spelling of “Tucson”!)

For more on the university, see its “About/History page, but remember you’re looking at a 2022 not a 2016 page. Changes since include its becoming a Carnegie Level R1 institution** — but only in 2019, repeated in 2021…and more partnerships in 2022).  This post is about NCFJCJ AT the university, not the university.  Anything extra in this “updates” section is for the wider context (always relevant, but more incidental to this post).

**In 2019, the University learned that it achieved one of the most prestigious honors an institution of higher learning can ever receive: It was chosen as one of just 130 universities by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education as an “R1” institution — “very high research activity” — which is reserved for doctoral-granting universities with exceptional levels of research activity. In 2020, it was announced that the University had reached the prestigious Carnegie Classification for Community Engagement, becoming one of only 119 institutions in the country so honored.


Looking for brief reference to exactly what the Carnegie Classifications represent, because I do not know how many readers of this blog might know, I see a recent consolidation with the American Council on Education, points of reference in time (1970s) and (see the “IU” in the url here), at the bottom in fine print that Indiana University is licensed to use this, and who (Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching) holds the various trademarks lists (again, in fine print at the bottom / footer banner, to this page).

CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION and THE CARNEGIE CLASSIFICATION OF INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER EDUCATION are registered trademarks of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, used here under license agreement by the Indiana University Center on Postsecondary Research.

Check out (AFTER you read my 2016 post please!), A Feb. 2022 news release: https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/newsroom/news-releases/carnegie-foundation-and-american-council-on-education-announce-partnership-on-the-carnegie-classifications/, and don’t forget to read what the Foundation says about itself (including its 1906 Charter by Congress, and its new, improved goals, at: https://www.carnegiefoundation.org/about-us/ It shows a street address in Stanford, California (probably at Stanford University)

I thought this might be a mistake (I’d always assumed Stanford University was in Palo Alto, and I lived near-enough for many years (i.e. I lived in the San Francisco Bay Area, which includes the County of Santa Clara) by to know better!) until Wikipedia enlightened me:  Stanford University sits on Stanford, which is not a city, but an UNINCORPORATED part of Santa Clara County. Palo Alto is adjacent:

…Most of the Stanford University campus and other core University owned land is situated within the census-designated place of Stanford though the Stanford University Medical Center, the Stanford Shopping Center, and the Stanford Research Park are officially part of the city of Palo Alto. Its resident population consists of the inhabitants of on-campus housing, including graduate student residences and single-family homes and condominiums owned by their faculty inhabitants but located on leased Stanford land.  // The population was 21,150 at the 2020 census.[3]

While CFAT is in California, it’s just recently decided to move its Classifications over to ACE (American Council on Education), a membership organization, which is in Washington, D.C., and claims to educate two out of every three individuals educated by certified colleges (Public or private).  ACE in “convenes” institutions through the Washington Higher Education Secretariat (see very fine print, bottom right of web page.  I didn’t even click on all the pretty and engaging photos; I’m looking for self-definitions, place, and who does, as opposed to who does not, post their financial statements and (if applicable, which it may not be) Forms 990) of “Washington Higher Education:

ACE is a membership organization that mobilizes the higher education community to shape effective public policy and foster innovative, high-quality practice. As the major coordinating body for the nation’s colleges and universities, our strength lies in our diverse membership of more than 1,700 colleges and universities, related associations, and other organizations in America and abroad. ACE is the only major higher education association to represent all types of U.S. accredited, degree-granting institutions: two-year and four-year, public and private. For more information, please visit www.acenet.edu or follow ACE on Twitter @ACEducation.

CFAT Foundation History tells more, you can’t help but learn from reading such timelines to understand coordination of setting government policies in (here), the 20th century.  And, I can’t help but notice neither one posts its financials….  Nevertheless, the Carniege Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching timline (that link) explains that for THIS century, the 21st century, it’ll be focused on:

The work of the Foundation in the 21st century joins the discipline of improvement science with the capabilities of networks to foster innovation and accelerate social learning. Specifically, the purposeful collective action needed to solve complex educational problems can be found in networked improvement communities. These NICs are distinguished by four essential functions. (etc.).

This post was drafted January 20, 2016. It  holds a significant “find” that I don’t know who else has found, or would ever have found. Probably, only people who drill down on organization tax returns and notice what might be missing when any organization describes itself, boasting about the public service it’s done over the decades, would have run across this information. There are indicators that the organization involved did not want this information to be found.

I am under considerable personal pressure this year (more than last year), and because of possible consequences depending in how I may find a way to stand up to it, I am concerned that this information might not get out.  So, although it may not be in perfect sequence with other posts, or even various sections within this post in the best sequence, I am publishing it now.

The “find” on this post speaks loudly as to whether or not the private and government-funded organizations collectively driving national family court and juvenile justice policy (including responses to child abuse and domestic violence, i.e., criminal matters) can be trusted AT ALL, and as to whether they should be permitted to continue setting standards and driving policy, let alone receive cooperation and government financing (grants and contracts).

Read the rest of this entry »

Ignorance — about Privatization, Reorganization of Government within the USA– Ain’t Bliss!

with 5 comments

[In present form, this post is over 12,000 words. I’m posting it anyhow; it should raise awareness of certain types of national organizations [nonprofits or centers with the word “national” in their title] as a pattern, as well as awareness of specific influential ones –some long-standing, some newer– each with its agenda for ALL states [as witnessed to in part by their name including the word “national“] which bypassing the local (state-level) legislatures and general public awareness locally, then, through force, bullying (one example below, this includes litigation — suing), or simply “outflanking” informed consent of the public through inclusive, open, public debate seeking to inflict privately-agreed-upon models, practices and values developed among collaborating experts, as “in the public interest” and therefore, to be applied to all.  
I hope this reveals some of the strategies already in place to bypass due process in writing, passing state laws, or policies.  You MUST look at the nonprofit sector as the powerhouse it really is, and as the position that nonprofit organizations hold by virtue of not having even public shareholders — and by partnering with the significant financial clout involved in government entities.  501©3s  and 501©4s, for example, being private NONstock entities (although they certainly can and do invest in or own stock, or sometimes even control for-profit related businesses) are primarily accountable to their boards of directors.   Even after their existence reaches one’s awareness, their funding is not always immediately obvious.  Where that funding is private, it also may not be traceable at all.  Where it’s public, it’s listed on the Form 990s as “government grants” and good luck locating consistently– from which government agencies!    These organizations, as a sector,  therefore should NOTbe ignored!
Whatever the specific agenda and policies end up being — you can be sure it will involve moving the balance of power away from government into the private trainer, technical assistance, and program-providers.  Government, meaning, “the public,” of course is welcome to continue funding all stages of the system change, and the new systems — coming, going, and inbetween.]

Recently, I re-booted (so to speak) a service which lets me see where blog visitors are coming from.  Highly recommended (statcounter.com) and not too expensive. Readers cannot view this on the site, it’s a password protected service to help bloggers understand their audience.

On seeing the quality and affiliations of visitors (WHO is watching — or at least repeatedly visiting this site), I decided to speak more plainly about the macro-systems through which privatization of government and progressive reorganization of the Executive Branch of the USA has been set up, was planned at least 100 years ago and is proceeding, fast, in the same direction:  Undermining representative government at the individual level, and strengthening the stranglehold of the nonprofit/government alliances.

I was surprised to see that despite over a year and a half of silence (no new posts), within 2016 alone, including before I broke the silence on January 23, 2016, FamilyCourtMatters was visited, repeatedly, by: HHS, USDOJ, several state governments (as in “State of Minnesota, State of Hawaii, Colorado”), repeatedly from the Department of Veterans Affairs, and, for some reason  DOD NNIC (Navy Network Information Centers), Bureau of Corrections in two states, Northrup Grunman, Lockheed, Ford Motor Company,multiple universities (Including MIT, and Yale at least once), a few law firms, California Judicial Council AOC, “The City of New York,” (and various other cities), surprisingly, several school districts, the IRS and the FBI — I think perhaps someone else may be getting the message that we are (I am!) now still reporting on certain things whether or not it’s popular, or picked up in mainstream or social media.

If these entities are at still looking at this blog, perhaps the average viewer (unaffiliated person) might also just want to acquire some time and patience to consider its basic messages, and the supporting evidence.   (Qualifier:  These are IP addresses which come in with their labeled names via statcounter, and not individual people or homes.  I do not have access to individual viewers by IP and would not report if I did).  Some of the visitors seem to relate to what I was blogging on, or potentially my own visit to their site. A visit also doesn’t tell me why someone was reading, and doesn’t necessarily indicate that the visit was related to official business by any of the above.  It’s just a “came from” web address, that’s all. It could be people on break at work, etc.)

There aren’t many comments on this blog, and for one which has been around so long, really not that many registered followers.  I’m not promoting it enough (or consistently) on Twitter, on Facebook (basically at all).  I have always focused on writing my own material, which makes for less frequent posts (possibly less traffic).  Certainly, I quote plenty of others within posts, but I personally search out, personally process the information (to varying levels depending on the relevance)  and write.  The overall position I take, on the blog and on specific posts and, on the topics covered in each post, is my position:  this is my voice and understanding, and no abject copycat of a political, gender-based, or group-based.  If we were sitting face-to-face, I would say the same things conversationally, referring to the same themes, and offer even more in-depth examples.

Perhaps that’s what makes this resource (the blog is a resource) different from so much information now available on-line about domestic violence, child abuse, custody battles, and even “custody of children going to batterers,” let alone “protective mothers”  —  a term I hate because the “-ive” ending on “Protective” indicates a job not done or even likely to be accomplished, at least not in the family court venue, which was designed for:  collaboration, mediation, cooperation and (in effect) “conciliation” — not protecting children, or for that matter, their mothers.    The family courts have carved out a completely different market niche, namely “therapeutic jurisprudence” and “bring on the behavioral health experts…”

A much better designation involving the word “mothers” might refer to our ability, developed possibly in the process of raising children, or maybe it’s instinctive, innate? in being able to smell a rat, or smoke out a lie, particularly when offered as a pitiable excuse for some recent very bad behavior.  For example the words smart, savvy, or a well-placed comment, “Seriously?” Anything indicating we are actually a force to be reckoned with, instead of highlighting the victimization might be better than “Protective Mothers.”

For this Smart, Savvy, “Seriously??” “Force to be Reckoned With” to actually apply to mothers (or others), mothers (or others) have to exercise some due-diligence-reading, and use logic, commonsense, and a wider field of vision than just single-topic scenarios. A  sense of history (time passing in the development of any trends) also.  The ability to summarize, impromptu, key elements in creating a certain condition (in the courts, or elsewhere), to “get to the bottom of the issue” and then talk about it in those terms.

SO, in 2016, there have been admissions that federal incentives to the courts exist, and in recent years (2011ff) some investigations into the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts operations (state chapter in Connecticut especially). Should this be called, “Breaking the Silence (on Who or What is Behind The Family Court Curtains)”??. Maybe, but….

What about the dozen, or more, OTHER associations also involving mixtures of judiciary (judges) or other civil servants (or, government entities) and private business interests?  Can you name a few? In this environment, is it really possible to discuss government without reference to the tax-exempt sector?

Read the rest of this entry »

%d bloggers like this: