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

'A Different Kind of Attention Develops Sound Judgment' | 'Suppose I'm Right Here?' (See March 23 & 5, 2014). More Than 745 posts and 45 pages of Public-Interest Investigative Blogging On These Matters Since 2009.

Posts Tagged ‘NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency)

Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020].

leave a comment »

Post title: Pay For Success Social Impact Funding (SIF) = Same Old Public/Private Pipelines, Faster Flow: Why Do We Submit? [Too bad was NOT published Jan 21, 2016, but is Now: Jan. 21, 2020] (“-2Sr,” published Jan 21, 2016, at about 5,500 words).

[As I started this post in 2016]

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it. Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms. 

UPDATE: About  the Title’s “2016 / 2020” (NOT Published/Published) Dates:

Yesterday, I was looking for this post as a reference to that (SIF) concept under “Published Posts” but finally found it under “Drafts.”

Since it happened to have NOT been published almost exactly (to the day) four years ago, is still relevant to what I’m communicating, and has information on both the AFCC and (related) NCCD), I’m publishing it now.  I’m also publishing it now because the post I’d hoped to get out yesterday, 1/20/2020 — such a unique date — just couldn’t be wrangled into shape or down to size: it happens!

The “public/private” issue it addresses remains important and has specific applications in the USA.  Other than the above title adjustment and these few words, and one re-run of a Form 990s table for the “NCCD,” the post is unchanged from as written in 2016.  Personally, in late January, 2016, I’d JUST been improperly forced out of a long-term rental (kept uninhabitable, but I was (circuitously) prevented from exercising tenants rights which did exist in the area) the previous month which may also be reflected in the opening sentiment. I was in a fight for housing and economic survival, for which “justice” would’ve come in handy...

I also just realized, though it wasn’t published at the time, January 2016 was when I finally broke that year and a half pause in posting on this blog with a different post, as I recall, in disgust at what was taking place with the David and Sandra Grazzini-Rucki family court case up in Minnesota and despite  key domestic violence organizations being located from the early 1980s right in that state. As usual, there had been AFCC personnel involved in the judicial AND custody evaluator decision-making in the case.

As is except for minor formatting checks (and while doing that, a few copyediting comments added within italicized “{{…}}”s where I thought it might help. I also on viewing this, changed the level of some Headers to make them larger.  I also added tags, and because I wanted to mention “Sir Ronald Cohen” (who I was originally looking for when discovered this post had been left in draft), added these two although the post doesn’t really deal with those topics:

  • “Big Society Capital (BSC) Oct 2016 SAID Bus School Case Study on SITF + Sir Ronald Cohen’s Leadership in the same in the UK”
  • “HBR-Bridgespan’s “Insight Center on Scaling Social Impact” + Sir Ronald Cohen”

By clicking on either of those tags, more information may be connected to this post. “HBR: in the second one stands for “Harvard Business Review”…

Another change I’ve made is to add a screenprint of the NCCD/AFCC section (from this post) near the top as a visual.

INCIDENTALLY: The NCCD (National Council on Crime and Delinquency) is an odd organization I’ve featured in other posts — odd because of how many other governments are recorded as granting to its projects, while it’s operating tax-exempt with the word NATIONAL (not “INTERnational”) in the USA and (so it seems) seeking to digitize the handling of people in almost any public institution within the USA.  A Children’s Rights group (founded by an ACLU lawyer) in New York was using NCCD as a subcontractor with an Oakland, California address which is what first brought it to my attention.

A distressed mother from Georgia’s comment on this blog referring to (another) NY-based nonprofit subcontracting with the NCCD brought my attention to that Children’s Rights group, in case you were wondering whether comments on this blog are noticed and their contents considered… They are…

Overall, this posts’ material blends well with the current post(s) I”m trying to wrangle into some acceptable shape soon…

//LGH “Early 2020”

AGAIN,…

Some of us are wondering where “justice” went as expressed in terms of due process and representative government, and what to do about it.  Well, continuing to read, write, and research (regardless of whether I’ve been still posting to this blog — as you can see, I haven’t put out a new post since summer, 2014), I’m starting to wonder why we even still ask the question expecting it to show up, miraculously, in the traditional places — like courtrooms.

To “govern” is to control.

Right now, it seems Public/Private Partnerships are actually in control and in a very tangible, identifiable way, the form of government (defined again, as control backed up by force:  particularly the ability to tax, and to incarcerate) — and not traditional government entities alone.

Over the past six years, as I tracked  or did “drill-downs” on one “national” nonprofit association or another associated with some primary function of government in the USA — and most of them also operating internationally, just like any other corporation might — I see there really is a network of organizations which, taken together, really do “shadow” and influence government itself.

In mainstream media, including on TV, major national print and on-line publications, etc., it’s not uncommon to report in the influence of corporations (implying for-profit businesses) as an improper influence on government, but I have yet to see a significant, ongoing discussion of the nonprofit sector itself (ALL of it) as an improper influence on government.

I’ve talked about some of them before on this post, and currently, have been looking at and will be posting still on one called the National Council of Family and Juvenile Court Judges.  HOWEVER, today, I’m talking more about the National Council on Crime and Delinquency as part of Social Impact Funding.

It’s time to talk about who’s in control when the unified, coordinated language coming from:

(1) sources such as Forbes magazine, representing of course, corporate wealth,

(2) philanthropy, as coordinated with other philanthropy and

(3) federal agencies such as the CNCS (Corporation for National and Community Service) and the White House [both representing of course the Executive Branch of Government, to the extent we have separate branches of government in the USA any more…]

uses such terms as “Social Impact Funding” and “Pay for Success” to represent  deals cut privately with a federal agency by those with wealth to invest, with “intermediary organizations” scattered across the states, and networked into “subgrantees” (all nonprofits it seems) to do the work that the public is already taxed in order for government to do as a great thing.

The power of common words, undefined, to “spin” what’s actually happening is nothing new. But the acceleration of this spin made possible in recent (decades) HAS to be noticed, and ought to be protested, differently.

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: