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 ‘RWJF (RobtWoodJohnsonFndtn) + Creation of MD’s Family Law Div (w’ prompting from AFCC’s Barbara Babb @ the UBalt SOL’s CFCC pushing Unified Family Courts)

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].

leave a comment »

Reviewing AFCC Joint Conferences with Others, Who Knew What and Since When about, say, FFI (“Fragile Families Initiative”), SFFI (“Strengthening Fragile Families Initiative”), and the Columbia-Princeton-Brookings-Ford/RWJF roles in the same? (AFCC, NAJFCJ, Wingspread, Nat’l Summit on DV, Edleson-Schechter et al.) [Written Feb 10, 2018; Publ. Dec 5].. (Case-sensitive short-link ends “-8C8”)

This post is under 4,000 now about 5,000 words including an introduction and summary I added just today.   A footprint (some overlap) remains on the original, called “The Missing Link” and more regarding “FamiliesChange.CA.gov” website book list (undeniably heavy AFCC, but of course just not mentioned thereon).

THAT POST HAS MORE ON AFCC (AND RECENT ACTIVITIES, POSTED CHAPTERS, PERSONALITIES, AND HOW EVEN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA’S JUDICIAL COUNCIL WEBSITE HAS GONE “CANADIAN,” (JUSTICE EDUCATION SOCIETY OF B.C.) WHILE HELPING SELL MORE BOOKS BY AFCC PROFESSIONALS.  AND HOW IN SOME OTHER STATES OR COUNTIES (INCL. CUYAHOGA COUNTY — WHICH CONTAINS CLEVELAND — OHIO) SIMILAR RULE-DRIVEN MARKETING IS ENRICHING PEOPLE WITH CLOSE TIES TO JUDGES (AN INSIDE TRACK, APPARENTLY) AND IMPOVERISHING (BY THE SAME AMOUNT) OTHERS….

The Missing Link, Barely Buried on PAS.FamiliesChange.CA.gov (‘Resource | Publications | Books’), and where ‘CA,’ nominally, MAYBE still stands for California, but … (short-link ends: “-8zq” Post started (after the momentum of writing this up had already “emerged” on my part) Feb 4, 2018.

I’d already known about the Fragile Families Initiative and the Wingspread Conference and Greenbook Initiative (I make it my business to know), but this time went further back, having discovered some material from 1994.  I remember how it came up, but that’s incidental to getting it out, here for public awareness.


TIMING and AWARENESS OF WELFARE REFORM POLICIES UPON WOMEN WITH CHILDREN LEAVING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

In publishing this Dec. 5, 2018 (shortly after the late U.S. President George H.W. Bush died in his 90s and today being a proclaimed National Day of Mourning in respect of him), I am aware, unfortunately for my expressions of sincere empathy and patriotic respect for the Bush dynasty, of the damages done this century (by and in the wake of Welfare Reform) to women’s safety while the same government continues to proclaim ongoing concern about it — at the top level — by former U.S. President George W. Bush, 2000 – 2008).

In other words, funding continues along the premises of Fragile Families and that somehow families can be re-united — I guess with enough trainings, services, technical consulting and ongoing funding streams — in a national father-focused policy while keeping women and children who’ve already been harmed and are fleeing the same father’s presence — safe.  Enter “behavioral modification programming..”

Our — women’s, children’s, bystanders’ — lives and safety has been severely compromised by the dilution of definitions (right vs. wrong, criminal versus simply “unhealthy..”) — and it’s still hard to even get a conversation about this going in many circles even discussing the issue of domestic violence and the family courts.  People seem to prefer lower-hanging fruit; that that dangled in (our) faces constantly doesn’t feed a sound mind seeking an explanation for why the system functions as it does. It’s lacking key ingredients – -ingredients now easily found on-line; but not without the curiosity enough to seek them out!

For most people,  it seems to just take too much mental effort to digest the historic information and prioritize it too.

Regarding the Bush dynasty  & PRWORA: True, welfare reform passed in 1996 under a Democrat White House (though not Congress!), but it was further added to by the “faith-based initiative” Executive Orders of January 2001, the “Family Justice Center” model endorsed (again, under Pres. Bush Jr.) in 2003 (USDOJ OVW described in 2007), (2003 White House Press Release on this, from “Archives“) (some re-branding, and I HAVE tracked the originating grants on this one:  As described under “History” at the “Alliance for Hope International“) and continuation — without cessation — of HHS funding of “Fatherhood.gov” as though this is fair to half the U.S. population, and a half doing plenty of the work of the nation too. You can also find AHI (or under previous names) enthusiastic about batterers intervention, supervised visitation, lots of trainings (of course), co-located interdisciplinary centralized services and against anything “fragmented” or not centrally controlled…

https://www.usccr.gov/pubs/prwora/welfare.htm – Statement (2001, before reauthorization) of concern by US Commission on Civil Rights about civil rights violations in the delivery of welfare, subjection of women applying for help to “sexual inquisition” and discrepancies in treatment of white vs. women of color; assumption that there was a level playing field when it comes to work, etc.

(from Google search on “PRWORA”)

We are not just our demographics — and I intend to continue making younger generations of mothers (i.e., women!) going through things no one should have to or who in MY generation refused to acknowledge the impact of welfare reform, or the popularization of terms like “Fragile Families” to refer to households without an involved batterer father and forced-coparenting with forced consumption of services to make the impossible work and “Oops, that was just an exception” when it doesn’t work, i.e., when there is roadkill with the word “estranged” in the headline.

This post highlights the involvement of both the Ford Foundation and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in promoting theme and collecting data.  I’ve shown many images and named key players.  I suggest clicking on each image to enlarge and reading the captions, and making a note of the names (I know I did) and the publications (such as “The Future of Children.”).  While he’s not so much mentioned here, with “The Future of Children” one has to acknowledge Ron Haskins (former HHS) and his role in welfare reform (before, during and after…) as co-editor of That publication between a private nonprofit university (Princeton) and a private nonprofit (Brookings).

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Pls. make note of the names, publication (Future of Children) and use of “FragileFamilies” as part of a domain name at Princeton University.  Also combo of McLanahan, Garfinkel & Mincy; the latter two are at Columbia., and that (FN2) the fact sheet from Princeton came from a study published on the other coast, i.e., Stanford University Press (Palo Alto, CA 2011)

This article quoted below (several images and link provided below). Add  Brooks-Gunn to the “take note of the names” (I dnk Christina Paxson PhD) and how these professionals certainly understood that a famous PRIVATE foundation’s backing might help inspire more federal grants from HHS (NICHD is under HHS), i.e., provide leverage to get at those public funds.  It’s part of their professor, PhD lifestyle to run studies, write them up, discuss populations they are not personally members of, and use Public/Private resources to fund it — ongoing.

Wealthy families tend to have several – -not just one — foundations, sometimes separate their benefits/retirement plans, and have family trusts or inheritances separate from their more famous charities.  For comparison, here are the relative assets sizes of two big ones mentioned in this post:  Ford Foundation & Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.  Ford is also active in the sense of having sponsored the (1968ff) “Fund for the City of New York” which jointly with THE New York State UNIFIED COURT SYSTEM runs “Center for Court Innovation” which continues to feature “problem-solving courts” and particularly for domestic violence issues.  See their “integrated domestic violence court” movement, piloted in different places around the country. See also their intent to take the models: National and International.

“Searched today, Ford Foundation (primary) shows over $12 billion assets. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).  Notice it’s filing as a PRIVATE foundation (990PF) not public charity (990)

Looking for quick references to “PRWORA” (after publishing this post), I ran across a website by  “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“** — where “BCG” stands for “Boston Consulting Group.”  I went into the Bibliography (Not shown here; go to bottom of that link) and am posting just title page (1996) and a page which references, pre-1996, the Ford Foundation’s sponsorship of Manpower Development Research Corporation (now ‘MDRC” and I’ve mentioned it repeatedly in this blog.  It was incorporated in 1974).  Professor Michael L. Wiseman has a page full of welfare discussions by “ardent conservative Peter {Germanis] the Citizen” I was getting ready to Tweet, among the reasons I’m referencing Wiseman’s older (1996) backgrounder on Welfare Reform now.  While the url reads “innovations.HARVARD.edu,” I accessed it from the other site.  It’ll be interesting reading:

Peter The Citizen’s self-description {fn1 to latest post there, Oct. 2018}:

The views in this document reflect my own as a citizen and do not reflect the views of any organization I am now or have ever been affiliated with. I am a conservative and worked on welfare issues for The Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the White House in the Reagan George H.W. Bush Administrations.


(Wiseman’s backgrounder references “MDRC” so I’ve added a link & some brief comments on that organization here).


(Click image to enlarge as needed) MichaelWiesman.com currently at GWU (in DC) but still affiliated with UWisconsin’s IRP (Institute for Research on Poverty), background also a UCBerkeley, UWisconsin and as “Visiting Scholar” at US HHS (ACF); make note also “The Urban Institute,” and his field is economics and urban planning (not social work).. Image added 12-6-2018 to recent LGH post under “Welfare Background” paper & MDRC discussion//LGH

Update/ a few paragraphs & Link to MDRC tax return Added Dec. 6: The IRS’s latest available (seems to have been posted only in 2018?) Tax return for MDRC representing FY2016 (Year End December) shows $52M gov’t grants out of $91M gross receipts.  Of those gross receipts, they also sold (Check, but I think it was) about $27M securities for “not very much” and failed to report (as required to) where they’re holding over $9M of “Other Investments” showing on their Balance Sheet on Schedule D Part VII.  Time to do another post on this organization? The column for description of purpose of grants reads “Restricted Purpose Grant” on ALL of them (i.e., tells readers not much).

… They appear to be donating back (sometimes quite a lot) to government entities on their “Additional Data Schedule I (for grants to gov’ts or other domestic organizations) and show EIN#s for all of them — and labeled all of them “501©3” and none “government” but by the names, several – -including school districts, and an “Authority” — are.  So is there some bounceback of that $52M, that not spent on surveys, independent contractors, and MDRC salaries?

Search by Name “MDRC” or its EIN# 23-7379473 at http://apps.irs.gov/app/eos (remember after results to click more for summary details and a link to the actual return).  Or (click for “More” (ways to search) see http://foundationcenter.org/find-funders/990-finder to see the last three years in a row of results for MDRC — use the EIN# for more accurate results.  Remember that those “Total Assets” shown are gross, not net. Also, its location is NY but the tax return says legal domicile is Delaware.

I note, around MDRC’s Tax Return’s and I’m sure website’s expressions of concern for the poor (and Gordon Berlin’s half-million-dollar salary (over $540K in 2016) and many others well over $200K, some over $300K a year) — particularly children, low-income noncustodial fathers and families — and the $20M spent on “Other Expenses — SURVEYS” — most of revenues are going to (a) Salaries and (b) other expenses (look at Part VIIB for a list of the top 5 only — out of 33 claimed — independent contractors, starting with Mathematica Policy Research (in Princeton) and Abt Associates, James Bell (consultants) and Bank Street College of Education.

— I’m posting in Dec. 2018 — where’s MDRC’s report to the IRS for FY2017? ???



re: “Centre for Public Impact – A BCG foundation“**

**Notice the spelling of “Centre” indicating, not likely in the US, although Boston Consulting Group is (with plenty of overseas offices also.  I later found and posted information on CPI at the very bottom of this post.  Boston Consulting Group, along with “Bain” and “Bain Capital” (& Bridgespan) have come up on this blog repeatedly.

Got it (just typed in the question:  “In what country is [CPI] registered?” and came up with a trademark infringement lawsuit by Public Impact, LLC (a North Carolina firm).  Which states that it was formed in 2014 by BSG as a Swiss not-for-profit. Which may explain the disclaimer on the website footer that it is NOT related to “Public Impact.”  It got sued!

(#2 of 2) Detail references Ford Foundation’s funding of the nonprofit [MDRC] but on condition that random experimentation with a control group (i.e., Social Science R&D) was employed…
Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

(#1 of 2) Link to pdf from “Innovations.Harvard.Edu” (the author is Michael Wiseman at UWisconsin-Madison, published by “Fannie Mae Foundation”

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (“RWJF” searchable on this blog) has only $10B assets for the same year — if you read carefully, showing that over $7B is NOT in corporate but “Other” investments, and less than $1B in US Gov’t (none in state or local).  However it’s largest single “corporate investment,” understandably, is in Johnson & Johnson stock (over $1B).

THE ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON FOUNDATION’S MISSION IS TO IMPROVE THE HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE OF ALL AMERICANS AND TO BUILD A CULTURE OF HEALTH THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY -ENABLING ALL IN OUR DIVERSE SOCIETY TO LEAD HEALTHY LIVES, NOW AND FOR GENERATIONS TO COME TO HELP AMERICANS LEAD HEALTHIER LIVES AND GET THE CARE THEY NEED, THE FOUNDATION MAKES GRANTS TO IDENTIFY AND PURSUE NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO ADDRESS PERSISTENT HEALTH CHALLENGES AND TO ANTICIPATE/RESPOND TO EMERGING CHALLENGES FOR MANY YEARS, THE FOUNDATION HAS FOCUSED THE MAJORITY OF ITS GRANT MAKING IN SPECIFIC FIELDS SUCH AS HEALTH CARE COVERAGE, CHILDHOOD OBESITY, PUBLIC HEALTH, AND IMPROVING THE VALUE OF HEALTH CARE IT ALSO HAS SUPPORTED THE BUILDING OF LEADERSHIP AND SCHOLARSHIP IN THE FIELDS OF HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, FUNDED INNOVATIVE PROJECTS THAT COULD ACCELERATE CRITICAL BREAKTHROUGHS IN HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE, AND INVESTED IN PROGRAMS AND IDEAS THAT SUPPORTED VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, FOSTERED HEALTH EQUITY AND STRENGTHENED CHI**

(**etc.  didn’t find a continuation of this paragraph on the tax return but it’s probably on their website.  No doubt the partial word “CHI” may be “CHILDREN’s _ _ _ _ “)

“Searched today, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (primary) shows over $10 billion assets and other RWJHospital foundations (by location) named after it: only FYE 2016 shown here. Search again (by EIN# recommended) at: FoundationCenter.org for interactive results (where you can click through to read the returns).

Naturally, the corporation behind the foundation (Johnson & Johnson) is much larger (same with “Ford Motor” last I noticed).  The use of 990PF rather than 990s seems to retain more private control over assets and operations.  But compared with either corporation, or both together, all involved certainly know that government itself (US federal) through access to a taxable population’s wages and control of basic infrastructure we inhabit simply by living here, is MUCH larger.  The tax-exempt sector absolutely influences the public and works closely with it.  The taxed sector (population) as these and many other studies show, are more likely to become the subject matter of those partnerships than equal players, or involved in the same round-tables deciding how to frame issues, like single parents or poverty.  Or whether marriage matters more than safety, or men more than women.

//LGH (Dec. 5, 2018 “Intro” to this post written earlier this year…)


Re: Joint Conferences with Others.. particular ones focused on how to deal with abuse within the family law system.

AFCC Summer 2006 Newsltr (Member News). Image references Czutrin at top, but included here for the center reference. It seems that a special “judge-in-residence” position was created, possibly for its first occupant, the (ret’d) Hon. Leonard P. Edwards. Not referenced — the AOC/CFCC and its predecessor agencies (under the California Judicial Council) has had long-term AFCC members in key staff positions, making me wonder who nominated, and who made that decision, which has had negative consequences for abused women with children in their care ever since..

…(Such as the 2007? Wingspread Conference with the Family Violence Department of the NCJFCJ, which is characterized, in this viewpoint, of somehow representing the “Domestic Violence Advocacy Community” .  (Andrew Schepard in NYLaw Journal summarizing here). (Summary only unless you have Lexis-Nexis® access…)

I see also from “Mediation in Time of Limited Resources CD,” sold under “AFCC-CA 2011″ (though from diff’t website) for only $9.99 notes three individuals, one bio (Judge Leonard P. Edwards) which says he was head of the NCJFCJ at one point, and another (Susan Hanks) which says she was at that Wingspread conference.”

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.)

Judge Leonard Edwards (ret.) is a Judge-in-Residence with the California Administrative Office of the Courts. In that capacity he provides technical assistance to the courts of California, particularly in areas involving children and families. Judge Edwards served for 26 years as a Superior Court Judge in Santa Clara County, California. He sat as a domestic relations judge and as a juvenile court judge.

This together with the judge’s known consulting relationship at the California Judicial Council AOC, puts him as associated with and obviously a member of BOTH those two 2007 Wingspread Conference nonprofits (AFCC + NCJFCJ)  AND the government at the state level. As the Schepard NYLaw Journal summary above described, and other places, this conference was supposedly helping smooth over differences of approach between AFCC +NFCJFCJ/FVD on the topic of domestic violence especially.  See that link.  Meanwhile, about 8 years previously another invitation-only National Summit (not “Wingspread”) conference between NCJFCJ and FVFP (Major DV advocacy nonprofit, now “Futures without Violence) around a 1999-published (by NCJFCJ) “Greenbook” took place; I’ve blogged it.

Aug 1994 Rept to Pres of the ABA, The Impact of DV on Children (Preface cited to 1994 Wingspread Conference to which Susan Schechter had invited the reporter here)

Looking for when was a previous Wingspread conference on this topic, I found a reference to it in the preference of an August 1994 report “The Impact of Domestic Violence on Children: A Report to the President of the ABA” by the sections shown on the cover page, and as described in its “Preface.”  There, column 2 of the p.2, Preface names the previous Wingspread Conference and indicates that the late, and well-known in the DV field, “Susan Schechter” had invited the reporter (for this report) to it, although it was invitation-only and privilege, which had an impact as to both contents and feedback on the above report written just within two months of said conference (nearby image, light-yellow caption, annotated).

I found a briefing paper FOR this 1994 Wingspread conference, prepared by Edleson & Schechter, with notes that the Ford Foundation was a partial sponsor.  Thus the Edleson/Schechter (at the Wingspread Conference of 1994) material would’ve been and was carried forwards into a national summit on the (same general topic) in I believe 2000:  In the Best Interest of Women and Children: A Call for Collaboration Between Child Welfare and Domestic Violence Constituencies. (found at “www.researchgate.net/profile/Jeffrey_Edleson…”) (two images):

 

Meanwhile, in the 1990s (and thereafter) both Ford Foundation (under the leadership of Ronald D. Mincy) the Fragile Families Initiative had been focused on fathers, specifically and marriage promotion. Other major foundations (such as RWJF) got involved, including in grants to the center at Princeton which produced the Future of Children publication. (Virginia Family & Fatherhood Initiative,* which Mincy bio shows him coming from the Ford Foundation to Columbia in 2001; Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Program Results Report (Jan. 28, 2014, re $3M+ grants 1998-2011 for three specific RWJF grants, but as shown at Princeton)  — see footnotes, incl. FN4)

Click image to enlarge, or here for the web page. Included because it puts some timeline to Dr. Mincy’s (2001) transition from FFI at Ford to Columbia Univ, and his program focus in both places, in brief form.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

December 5, 2018 at 1:03 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

‘Families Change’ the Sentence? Just a Stronger (It Has a Verb!) Variation on the Familiar, Old “FIT” Tune. But as found on ‘FamiliesChange.xx.GOV’ or “xx.FamiliesChange.ORG” the Statewide Family Law Self-Help Websites (where for ‘xx’ insert a U.S. State Abbreviation) It Definitely Turns Up the Decibels. [Publ. Feb. 14, 2018]

leave a comment »

Title: ‘Families Change’ the Sentence? Just a Stronger (It Has a Verb!) Variation on the Familiar, Old “FIT”* Tune. But as found on ‘FamiliesChange.xx.GOV’ or “xx.FamiliesChange.ORG” the Statewide Family Law Self-Help Websites (where for ‘xx’ insert a U.S. State Abbreviation) It Definitely Turns Up the Decibels.. (short-link ends “-8Cg” posted Feb. 14, 2018).  (Happy Valentine’s Day to you, too). It’s about 8,700 words, including some repeated sections, and plenty of pictures, too.

  • *In the title, “FIT” = “Families In Transition” ” The Family In Transition.”

In California…

Context:  https://pas.familieschange.ca.gov/resources/books;   continuing my Feb. 10, 2018, post “The Missing Link,


It came from Canada. I see Connecticut has been listed, which website I hadn’t yet picked up on. THIS information (see top windowframe for the url) came only from the JES website; not made available readily on the California one, that I could see. Click image to enlarge; pls. read annotations also!

Connecticut’s funding was similar to Vermont’s; I now see that “FamiliesChange.org” (vs. “*.gov” as California has) even has a short drop-down menu at the top, “your state” and lists Connecticut, Maine and Vermont; probably not California because California’s website ended *.gov” and wasn’t a redirect from a legal aid website.  It seems that Connecticut’s creation of this website was, as I showed in related “missing link” post, also funded through a LSC (Legal Services Corporation) Technology Grant, similarly referring to both an on-line legal help website and a statewide legal services (i.e. legal aid) association (Vermont had, as I just posted, Legal Services Law Line of Vermont, which site referred to “FamiliesChange”) and a related entity, Vermont Legal Aid.

(topic a re-post, see also my “Missing Link” 2/11/2018 post) conference featuring type of grant that helped fund FamiliesChange in three states within the USA so far. These conferences started ca. 2000, under different name and logo (says LSC) up through 2017, apparently.

This next image gallery is just to re-emphasize that the phrase “FamiliesChange” is moving into State family court websites, whether directly (as in California) or indirectly, as traffic is directed from legal aid organizations or what seems to be a common situation, their collaborative-effort websites (CTLawHelp.org, etc.). I posted only partial results and am not discussing them further on this post, which shows that “Families In Transition” talk is still “up and running” in other formats, and, in part, who’s been involved in it.

Image gallery below has nine images, shown as a slideshow.  All have captions, most also annotated on each image. Use navigation buttons to move through them either way, or pause. Pls. let me know if there are viewing problems (and from what type of device) if this doesn’t work for you (submit a comment to this post).

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

In this family court context and rhetoric, “Families Change” is far more than just a domain name.  It’s also an assertion; a world view, and delivered UP FRONT, FIRST (and a bit subliminally; most people focus on web content — especially ones in as large pictures, bright colors, with cartoon-link graphics as these — not the domain name.  But our minds register it anyhow, whether consciously or not).  Sure, families change, generally speaking — but who, since the creation of the family divisions in various states, if not these courts, are among the major agents of change? However, if such change was a result of natural evolution (like plants growing), then other significant causes and actors allegedly do not change the families.

Want to talk about false allegations of abuse and “differential responses” to it? By now it’s obvious (from conferences featuring the topic dating back to the 1990s, at least, and the “false allegations” part, even further) who does.

But how about this subliminal, but internationally organized INformal digital communication insinuating, at the expense of U.S. taxpayers and as intended to influence various U.S. family court services, that the family courts are just part of the natural landscape and not significant and at times abrupt and violent factors in WHY families change, these days…

Let’s talk about that, honestly.  I’m certainly going to!

Read the rest of this entry »

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (Published 8/5/2017)

with one comment

PREVIEW on a REVIEW:

An Alternate Viewpoint on the Anti-Smoking / Smoking Causes Cancer! Campaign and its Syndicated (?) Backers incl. the Whiteheads, the Laskers, the NIH and the U.S. Congress (from SmokersHistory.com and Other Sources. See also Tobacco Lawsuits and 1998 MSA Settlement Funds ~~} American Legacy Foundation, now the so-called Truth Initiative®) (post started 7/31, published 8/5/2017) with case-sensitive short-link ending “-7na” (15,400 words, “Fasten Your Seatbelts –this one’s details are SO still relevant to FAMILY COURT issues!! <~That comment, Aug. 7, 2019.  I’m re-posting this (or Tweeting, etc.) in preparation for a follow up post//LGH)

(Section background-color reverts to this color after preview)

PREVIEW

After working on this post and its background material for about a week, I’m publishing it “as is,” with an alert that it may be revised substantially after publication, or further split. It is a good read, however some of its information leads to awarenesses and understandings that are disturbing, if not shocking, on the scope of activities and reach (influence on government policies) by some of the people and organizations covered.

I wouldn’t expect it to be grasped in a single read anyhow. If there are substantial revisions (you’re reading one right now), the purpose is to clarify, or supply missing documentation to support some statements where a post-publication read may reveal the need.

Some areas in this post newer to me, others not entirely new, but not my main area of research (such as the details of the tobacco class action and RICO litigation, although I have looked at periodically and am aware of it as a force in social services programming — such as the First 5-type funds —  at the state levels).** On other areas (backgrounds of some of the greats in psychology or public relations — this post adds a key advertising great name) I may sound more authoritative because I have done more research on them  over the years, as it intersects/overlaps with “Family Court Matters.”

** USDOJ Tobacco Lawsuits and Settlements (Just a~First 5~Footnote to the 2016 TOC Intro. (a Page with WordPress-generated, case-sensitive shortlink ending “-5e8” published Dec. 2016.  Added to the sidebar near top of “Vital Links/Info” menu in Aug. 2017.)

However, probing this new area and historic account of major system movements referenced by the website “SmokersHistory.com,” I am seeing people, foundations, and systems transformation characteristics in common with material I’ve already processed in and around this blog.  If I’d not seen the commonality, I would probably not have referenced so prominently the “smokershistory.com” post, especially not even knowing who its author is.  Because just now I do not know, and because of some of the angry tone of that website, I felt obliged to look further, and more independently at at least its claims which resonated as reasonably probable with what I already knew.

In the process, I ended up learning more about key foundations and people, as well as about organization of the NIH, the NCI (National Cancer Institute) and putting some serious timeline and dates to changes within the NIH, which is to say, also within HHS.  I’m confident most readers also will.  I also found it reassuring not to be the only person (many MIT faculty were asking the same question in the early 1980s) (NYT article links below) asking just HOW MUCH of our current universities and current federal agencies is really “up for sale to the highest bidder,” and how reliable is conflict-of-interest-funded science? Is that what our nation needs?

Answering all these questions is not just a matter of posting links and throwing them up in the air, hoping they come down in some sort of order.  It is a LOT of reading; this type of reading involves processing the information as it comes up with an awareness of reasonably objective (vs. name-calling, or personal-values-laden) categories and at a minimum the ability and willingness to look at tax returns, comparing one to another within organizations or across organizations, and an awareness what decision-making by the very-well-endowed may affect in a given year, whether the “Total Assets” are very very big and growing, or while still large by many standards, being spent down.  And an awareness that when the issue (goal) is steering the direction of a federal agency along with the future of a certain are of scientific research, those determined — with each other — rarely operate through just one organization, foundation, or media at a time.

It takes time, and its part skill, part “art” in the sense of a developed skill over time. I look forward to, ideally, connecting conversing with more people who are willing to use some of these skills and willing to encourage/exhort/persuade others that they are basic to comprehending government — with regard to our individual AND collective relationships to it.  Unfortunately (?), when it comes to many advocacy groups (especially in some well-worn ruts within the family court reform advocacy arena) what I know better is where NOT to find such people, or exhaust personal energies attempting to reason with people who for years have continued to demonstrate that group-membership/brainwashed state on the chosen cause is, like old blue jeans conformed to one’s body countours, just more “fun,” or standing apart, too scary.



Previous and related post: Who? (besides Harvard, MIT and other Boston-based Institutes) is Funding and Promoting/Soliciting for Personal Genomics (volunteer your personal, identifiable, genetic code for a global database to be shared internationally) — GET Research (fine-tuning and equipping the Nature vs. Nurture debate) as Essential for Global Public Health Issue? (title’s short-link ends “-7m3”; published 7/31/2017)

This post was inspired mostly by the urge to report on the confluence and long-term influence of two) organizations involving two family lines.  Those two family lines are the Whiteheads and the Laskers, and the two organizations (who both also show close connections with a third organization the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, EIN#061043412) are the Albert & Mary Lasker Foundation (EIN#131680062, with another trust which poured is assets into them on dissolution; see next table below*) and the other, much smaller but well-connected (with Congressmen on board, literally) Research! America (<==EIN#521609875, link to FY2015 Form 990; see next image).” (for contrast, FY2005 Form 990):

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) showing highest paid fees-for services (see CATEGORIES) and employees (2 diff’t categories). This year Mary Woolley’s salary was 310K + benefits.

Rsrch!America Form 990 FY2005 (10 yrs earlier) describing exempt-purpose activities.

Rsrch! America FY2015 “Additional” page from Form 990 describing PR activities. Not their largest expenses this year (see return for more info).

Porter-Novelli PR Business Agency Report 2015 (4/27/2015):

Former Unilever marcomms chief Christine Cea returned to the firm to lead its global consumer practice, based in New York. She previously worked in Porter’s London and New York offices from 1999 to 2005. Ted Sabarese joined as regional creative director for North America, focused on content strategy, development, and production, as well as advertising, experiential marketing, and design. He previously worked at Chobani. … Amy Nicole Nayar took up the newly created role of SVP of global health and wellness and lead for longtime client Johnson & Johnson. She previously ran a consultancy called Forefront Leadership.

Growth in North America
The North American region grew the fastest in 2014, with New York serving as the impetus after the office added work from Pfizer, Merck, and other blue chips in the healthcare space, expanding digital and analytics work, and a communications brief for The Shops at Columbus Circle.   Read more at [PRWeek.com/article/1344304]

 

With Porter-Novelli a main contractor of Research! America in 2005, and William D. Novelli on the board (1h/week unpaid) at Research! America, I decided to look further.

I found he was CEO of AARP 2001-2009 (severance pay of over $1M protested there, next image) and “his LinkedIn” (another image) shows that, besides co-founding Porter-Novelli and running it (1972-1990) he also founded “Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids” and ran it 1995-1999.  See where I’m going with that?  He’s now professsor of “Global Social Enterprise Initiative” (“GSEI”) at “George McDonough School of Business” at the prestigious Georgetown University(since 2011)… While there I see that Georgetown also started, looks like around the same time, a “Global Human Development Initiative”  (<=link to Novelli as faculty on it) stemming from the “Jesuit ideal of using knowledge to serve society” and an “initiative” (guiding paradigm) crossing different schools and degrees within the university. (use that link to access the “About” page on the GHD). It says in part:
Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

August 5, 2017 at 8:35 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014**, split in three; this part published June 30, 2017]

with one comment

This post was first written October 25, 2014, about 30,000 words covering the above theme and an extended section, after pointing out the type of organization, looking closer at “NASMHPD” and “Mental Health America,” not to mention showing basic ABA (American Bar Association) and APA (American Psychological Association) Forms 990O, 990 (respectively) tax returns for a glimpse at organization size,** and some of their history, from its own timeline, (**Originally, not including their known related entities, formed much later than the original associations, also.  In the update, I showed and discussed some of those, however).

…not to mention, again taking on the (il)logic of the “Broken Courts” theme for which conference, Amazon books and university-based resources are still active on-line and which also are being promoted in part with foundation backing and via various nonprofits, particularly two from California  associated for years as presenters or participants in the “BMCC” (Battered Mothers’ Custody Conference) on the East Coast (New York, and in more recent years, Washington, D.C.)

Original/full post title: Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}, with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”.

These reflect key topics of the blog as a whole — developing a better awareness of this type of nonprofit, professional trade association (not just one or two of them) as an organized tool by those who form them, to push private purposes and theories upon the often-unsuspecting public — because the public typically doesn’t focus on the networked nonprofit sector, let alone the networked nonprofit sector with words implying “government entity” in their names, when they actually aren’t (in other words, functioning something like squatters in public office, to add weight and importance), they are operating in the privately controlled nonprofit sphere,##

AND,

developing an awareness of the means and consequences of having “mental hygiene/illness/health” theme promoted upon the population at large with a focus on screening everyone possible, or claims (by another organization whose original legal name had the word “national” in it, but was not of this type I’m discussing here as referenced in the post title), that is NAMI, that 1 in 5 Americans live(s) with a “mental health condition,” and (shown below and in subsequent post/s from this one’s split) that this also can and has led (through one of the named organizations above) to excessive and harmful promotion of medications (Rx) and paid-for “expert consensus” on which ones to use, when, resulting in harmful side-effects, such as suicide and other causes of death, and other destructive, life-altering conditions.  Key phrases there include:  patented atypical antipsychotics. 

The promotion of organizations and themes focusing on prevalence of mental illness, early prevention and services to promote mental health,  and attempts to turn many basic public institutions — such as the superior courts under state jurisdiction — into behavioral health (modification, training, indoctrination, re-setting of personal values, etc.) revolving doors diverting people who walk through those doors into “community resources” is pervasive and is also reflected in practices and by design, intents, of the family courts.

##That comment may seem harsh, but I believe it’s true and relevant.

Towards the bottom of this post, I had earlier referenced a career attorney working first for in child support Tennessee, but later for Policy Studies, Inc. (deeply involved in the field), and after a long stint there, then for Maximus.  Maximus bought Policy Studies Inc. (one source said) ca. 2012.   Regarding my harsh comment about these organizations, and although Maximus isn’t in the same category, while talking about government privatization with outsized contractors, Maximus has a horrid, fraud-ridden, and frequently-sued record in the US, THEN got contracts for government services in the UK, and continued, allegedly, manipulating the data and falsifying records to the point of harming those the government’s charge was to help, that is, the most vulnerable.  This was debated 2/9/2016 in the UK Parliament (House), which I quoted.  It acknowledged the problem with accountability to the public when the purpose is contracting out services.  In the U.S., “Sourcewatch.org” also reported extensively on Maximus disgraceful track record — yet somehow, it’s still in business.

What I’m looking at here is not just what’s being done (the cause promoted) but the leverage provided by the networked nonprofits intent on pushing the cause — or any other cause they may agree upon, once the mechanism for promoting/pushing it is in place.  These are nets; they are intended to catch people, and they are referred to among the fishers as helpful, good, beneficial and for public service.  I’ve looked closely at the nets, and been caught in some of them, and do not believe this should be the purpose of public institutions.

I’m not a fish!! or somehow less knowledgeable about my own life simply from holding a different position, profession, or place in society, than those who operate in these circles. But, collectively, the public is being treated, if not literally farmed, like fish, that is, simply exploited, under pretty flimsy pretenses, without legitimate argument (that is, OPEN argumentation) and once the infrastructures are well set, privately, in privately networked circles, like the institution and attitudes to match it of, say, slavery, it’s hard to change the dynamics, or channels we (the public) get chased into.



I found it interesting that NAMI (formerly The National Alliance of Mental Illness, Inc.) was only formed, by one account in 1980 (IRS exemption only obtained in 1985), and with an initial statement of focus on mental illness in general, but also seeking biological “causes and treatment for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.” (That image and more images and discussion, especially of how NAMI organized and “reproduced” nationwide, further below), a tactic and approach shared by other do-good, cause-promoting organizations (this topic continued, below).


 

ABOUT THE TIMING of TURNING AN OCT. 2014 DRAFT INTO THREE mid-2017 POST Updates.

I’d thought this had been published. In fact, throughout the second half of 2014 and all of 2015, I’d taken time off publishing posts on the blog (see my TOC page), not time off researching and writing it up, just posting, mostly because my personal situation had heated up (legally) and was in major life transition.

Somehow after resuming it in 2016 and focusing on present tasks, and getting the Table of Contents page organized, I thought — probably because had worked extensively on it, and on the theme, that this post had been published. (See image showing revision dates from administrative part of the blog).  Once involved in a post, or a study theme, I am intensely involved and focused on it; once things are written, they tend to be somewhat off my mind unless related to the current theme, with, of course, all of them building on each other.

Having discovered the error after trying to quote this post, I decided to correct the situation and get it published.  This required splitting it into segments (three), and involved, as it always does, further reflection and some updates on the subject matter.  The updates are mostly shown as “preview” sections.  I also cleaned up the formatting some (paragraph breaks had been lost) and used a font and post format which has since become more standard on this blog).  As usual this process took about a week, and deepened my current internal, mental awareness* “database” of knowledge on, and understanding of, specific organizations and topics. (*And saving the evidence electronically for future reference of course.)


Original/Full Post Title with case-sensitive short-link ending “-2FW”Do You Know Your: NGA, NCSC, NCSL, NCSEA, NCJFCJ, NCCD, NACC, and NASMHPD, not to mention ICMA? [Written Oct. 25, 2014,** split in three; this part published June 30, 2017] {obviously the italicized words=title update}.

The basic concept, as one of its “tags” says, is “national nonprofit trade associations with civil servant boards of directors and memberships.” If you can think of a two- or three-word phrase describing this, which would apply to those mentioned above and others in the category, please help out – submit a comment! (Input at the bottom of any post.) A shorter sound-byte to convey the essence is needed.

In function, and as to at least the NGA (only one I’m aware of) in classification, these are not just ordinary nonprofits or 501©3s (or “©6s”) because of their boards, memberships, and chosen names representing several aspects of public office but most of them, by type, seem to be registered as straightforward 501©3s or ©6s.  (The NGA is classified as “deemed to be an instrumentality” per its consolidated financial statements and earlier tax returns; now it’s simply labeled “nonprofit”).

However organized except for the defined “instrumentalities,” it’s their restricted memberships and boards of directors as reflected in the names, and the sense /aura of right, that is governmental jurisdiction, which seems to set them apart and empower them to do things which local legislatures ideally responsive to their state populations only, or having to deal more directly with them, might not get passed.

Some of these organizations have been around a LONG time, others not so long, but we must face that this has been part of the way the US operates since at least the invention of tax-exempt status that seems to have coincided with “tax almost everyone” around 1913, not to mention further changes in the 1930s (between the wars) and yet more after World War II.  That is, these are NOT, for the most part, as associations, Constitutionally mandated or warranted, whether U.S. Constitution or state/territories’ constitutions.

If and when some were set up by an Act of Congress (or other administrative order, if by President or Chief Justice of the US, comes to mind), they are STILL functioning primarily in the private area, and are as such privately controlled, and can legislate as nonprofit to accept direct bribes  contributions by supporting (corporate) partnerships, and exclude whoever they want from memberships.  They are essentially private-equity, private membership clubs (associations) who want to govern, and have been doing it, but more as “squatters”  and by consent through apathy, than by informed consent of those governed.

And the plan is for unified, coordinated forms of control by agreement among the professional associations, apparently, how to recommend handling all sorts of governmental programs, in discussions NOT typically soliciting or receiving input from the lowest form, apparently, of US life, the common citizen, and strategically unaligned (other than perhaps with a political party) person.

Not all in the post’s title list have fully-restricted member eligibility or boards of director eligibility as civil servant-only, but those that don’t (NCJFCJ, NCCD [National Council on Crime & Delinquency], NACC [National Association of Counsel for Children] for example) still tend to focus on public-office and public institutions, or spheres of operation, as their names reflect — and their boards often DO have people fulfilling simultaneous dual-purpose (one, public, the other technically and in reality, private) functions.

By providing dual (public in one role, private in another) contemporary roles for:  Governors (NGA), Lieutenant Governors, State Courts (NCSC), Judges (several, but one entity similar, but not identical to the others focused on two types of courts: juvenile and family (FYI, juvenile came first historically)  would be the NCJFCJ), State Legislatures (NCSL), Attorney Generals, Mayors (US Conference of Mayors),  AND organizing memberships, conferences, and soliciting partnerships from corporations, they are in effect re-organizing and restructuring government itself, but “behind the scenes.”


(RE:  MENTAL HYGIENE/HEALTH/ILLNESS promotion/advocacy; NAMI/TMAP topic, cont’d.):

I”ll color this section light-green background.

Read the rest of this entry »

Written by Let's Get Honest

June 30, 2017 at 8:00 pm

Posted in 1996 TANF PRWORA (cat. added 11/2011)

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

%d bloggers like this: