---

For Shine Assist and Shine Implement partnership inquiries, please contact:

(Further clicks reveal more marketing efforts using Zero-to-Five Funding Opportunity (in one case) availability in Ohio (Shine Implement); and typical “it takes a nonprofit to run a for-profit program” combo also found in the marriage/fatherhood curricula marketing fields.  Those two (Assist and Implement) it says started only in 2012 and 2014; the idea being to fill up Early Head Start classes and use the nice, new programming…).

A for-profit approach to Head Start (May, 2011 in the Hechinger Report)In 1998 Congress passed a law that opened the door to for-profit companies, and changes to the program proposed last year might lead more companies to take advantage of the opportunity.

Running a Head Start center tends to be an altruistic endeavor: Operators often must rely on donations and volunteers to make ends meet. Acelero, headquartered in New York City, is the first and so far the only large-scale for-profit Head Start operator in the country …

Besides earning profits, Acelero’s leaders are also intent on introducing education reforms popular in K-12 settings into Head Start. The New Schools Venture Fund, which invests mainly in charter school networks, has also invested in Acelero, and one of the fund’s administrators sits on Acelero’s board.

Yet Acelero’s CEO, Aaron Lieberman, a Yale graduate with an interest in the sort of market-based education reforms that have fueled the charter school movement, believes he has found ways to turn profits from one of the country’s longest running anti-poverty programs…

Lieberman, who grew up in Arizona, began his career in Head Start when he was a college senior at Yale majoring in English. He had worked summers at a camp for disadvantaged children from New York City, where, he said, “You just saw kids make unbelievable gains and progress.” In 1994, he taught in a Boston Head Start center while launching a nonprofit called Jumpstart, which hired college students to work as tutors in Head Start programs. In 2000, Lieberman left Jumpstart to pursue a long-time goal: running Head Start centers himself.

Image filename: Johnson-foundation-wingspread-22charting-new-waters22-and-expanded-school-mental-health-banner-1-of-5-on-home-page (actually this screen was subtitled “NAVIGATING new waters” and the next (not shown) “Charting” new waters — about the water supply.

Image Filename: …combating-infant-mortality22-and-expanded-school-mental-health-banner-3-of-5-on-home-page

Image Filename: ….healthier-environment22-and-expanded-school-mental-health-banner-4-of-5-on-home-page

Image filename: …stronger-communities22-with-samuel-c-johnson-quote-and-expanded-school-mental-health-banner-5-of-5-on-home-page

---

Meanwhile, after The Greenbook Initiative, another conference IN 2007, called the WINGSPREAD CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND THE FAMILY COURTS (<==search this phrase to see in how many circles it is quoted) with some of the same players being held in Racine, Wisconsin, continues along the lines of “domestic violence differentiation” and shows the alliances among the network continued well into the 21st century.

Again, let’s take us through the turn of the 20th/21st century into its second-generation, continued privatized control of the court system through foundation-funded nonprofits, and foundation-sponsored (with federal agency support) conferences as well:

1999 NCJFCJ publishes “The Greenbook.” 2000-2007 pilot demonstration projects called “The Greenbook Initiative”.  2007 the Wingspread Conference in Racine, Wisconsin (note:  AFCC is also showing a home address of Madison, Wisconsin).  March, 2008, two well-known (to be) AFCC members (Nancy ver Steegh and Clare Dalton) write up the report.  Posted here at NCDSV (which is a mainstream DV organization also receiving HHS support); Footnote 7 of this lists the attendees.

May, 2008, it is published in the (AFCC/Hofstra University-published) Family Court Review, the professional journal AFCC started in the first place, in a 139-page issue dedicated entirely to domestic violence! (Found at OnlineLibrary.Wiley.com):

REPORT FROM THE WINGSPREAD CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FAMILY COURTS Authors Nancy Ver Steegh, Clare Dalton  Published Date 14 May 2008

Family Court Review July 2008 from OnlineLibrary.Wiley.Com site; the last word of abstract (not shown in this crop) is simply “groups.” Work groups.

 

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR THIS JULY, 2008 ISSUE, which ranges from Page 431-570: (each article has “Abstract” “Article” “Pdf” and “Request Permissions” sub-links.  Because I provided the main link from which Table of Contents can be accessed and to save vertical space, I’m omitting those under each Chapter/ Article in the quote:

SPECIAL ISSUE: Domestic Violence

1. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORS (pages 434–436) Kelly Browe Olson and Nancy Ver Steegh

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00212.x

2. BEYOND POLITICS AND POSITIONS: A CALL FOR COLLABORATION BETWEEN FAMILY COURT AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE PROFESSIONALS(pages 437–453)Peter Salem and Billie Lee Dunford-Jackson

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00213.x

3. REPORT FROM THE WINGSPREAD CONFERENCE ON DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND FAMILY COURTS (pages 454–475)Nancy Ver Steegh and Clare Dalton

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00214.x

4. DIFFERENTIATION AMONG TYPES OF INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE: RESEARCH UPDATE AND IMPLICATIONS FOR INTERVENTIONS (pages 476–499)Joan B. Kelly and Michael P. Johnson

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00215.x

5. CUSTODY DISPUTES INVOLVING ALLEGATIONS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: TOWARD A DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO PARENTING PLANS (pages 500–522)Peter G. Jaffe, Janet R. Johnston, Claire V. Crooks and Nicholas Bala

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00216.x

6. QUESTIONS ABOUT FAMILY COURT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE SCREENING AND ASSESSMENT (pages 523–530)Loretta Frederick

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00217.x

   DIVORCE AND THE FAMILY COURT: WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE? (pages 531–536)Desmond Ellis

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00218.x

7. “IT’S IN THEIR CULTURE”: FAIRNESS AND CULTURAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (pages 537–542)Sujata Warrier

   Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00219.x

   ---

   Notes

   1. WHAT’S GOOD FOR THE GAYS IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER: MAKING HOMELESS YOUTH HOUSING SAFER FOR LESBIAN, GAY, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER YOUTH (pages 543–557)Ernst Hunter

      Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00220.x

   2. FAMILY CARE COMMITMENT DISCRIMINATION: BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN WORK AND FAMILY (pages 558–570)Lindsay Taylor

      Version of Record online: 14 MAY 2008 | DOI: 10.1111/j.1744-1617.2008.00221.x

 

Unlike the introduction, most of this post focuses more on the international involvements and on the foundation/nonprofit factors involved in this ONE initiative, as well as my deep concern to see so little public discussion of this, and subsequent initiatives” being strategically advanced to alter the nature, focus, and practices of the US family court system, and the civil AND criminal handling of criminal matters, specifically where one individual perpetrates major harm upon another involving serious injury, and as repeated year after year, with long-term consequences to all involved.

 

Regarding: “Effective Intervention in Domestic Violence & Child Maltreatment Cases: Guidelines for Policy and Practice, by Susan Schechter and Jeffrey L. Edleson, PhD”

February 6, 1999

This publication, also known as the Greenbook, is the official policy ofthe NCJFCJ and sets forth principles and recommendations for improving the policies and practices of child protection services, domestic violence services, and juvenile courts. The five chapters contained in the Greenbook (Guiding Framework, Foundation Principles and Recommendations, Child Protection System, Domestic Violence Services for Families, and Courts) are outlined in the Executive Summary. For more information regarding the Greenbook Initiative visit http://www.thegreenbook.info/.

Cost: one FREE copy, $5.00 for each additional

That’s nice the NCJFCJ has an “official policy,” however, despite the presence of multiple judges or leaders of the administrative sectors of certain courts on their board of directors, they have no legal right to set policy for courts under the control of state governments.  They do however, have influence in running judicial colleges, trainings, and through associates and affiliations.  But, in the U.S., we are not under national government by private, non-stock, nonprofit corporations with the words “COUNCIL” in their names.  In some forms of government the word “council” (as in “tribal council” has a specific, leadership meaning and role; but not so with the USA overall.

So in making this “official policy pronouncement” it is attempting to exert an influence any judge should know a private association does not have by law.

(From “Executive Summary” Page, they are selling copies of it for $5.00 on NCJFCJ website, although it was supported by these entities and grants, per this executive summary), although the project was already supported by two public grants and by two separate private foundations,  as this next detail transcribed from the cover pages below shows:

This project was supported by Grant No. 90-XA-00031-01, awarded by the US Department of Health and Human Services; Grant No. 90-CA-1627 and Grant No 98-VF-GX-K002, awarded by the Office for Victims of Crime, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice; and the David and Lucille Packard Foundation and the Johnson Foundation.  Points of view or opinions in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the funders.”

A recent search of 990finder came up with 598 results in multiple states labeled “Johnson Foundation” some with first names, added, some without.  Strangely, “The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation” did not come up.  Project with public receipts taking private foundation grants also ought to be required, in the public interest, at a minimum clearly identify the private foundations acknowledged by their correct legal names AND EIN#.

The public already supports both those federal agencies, as well as both the universities named below (Iowa and Minnesota) of the principle authors, as well as the University of Nevada — all public universities, and in addition, tax-exempt being a privilege, they support by making up the difference for whatever tax-exempt foundations (in exchange for significant controls) offer in the way of revenues by being charged waking up, going to sleep, standing up and sitting down, on public media, for the burden of “the Deficit” while the public/private partnerships step in, offer to do, or at least STEER government entities, committing SOME of their revenues (typically far less than 10%) of SOME of their tax-exempt foundations in exchange for reduced taxation on their non-program-related assets which, as assets have a tendency to do, WILL be producing taxable income.

The NCJFCJ’s and its related “Fund” (two different EIN#s)  tax returns are at the bottom of the previous post, Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know).  (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List,” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)  I also have some posts on the NCJFCJ in the first half of 2016, see blog Table of Contents (should be top post on blog) 2016 post.

Executive Summary. (<==Click to See full-sized; the two images above are one page on the Executive Summary).

Omitted from the labeling of Edleson and Schechter in their university affiliations is what departments they were in — which is significant to understanding what approach the Greenbook was going to be taking.  In both cases, it was School of Social Work.  Question:  If the departments within a nonprofit are shown, why was not with which school the two co-authors are associated within major state universities also revealed in 1999?

NCJFCJ is a NONPROFIT, PRIVATE, NONSTOCK CORPORATION

NCJFCJ, despite the presence of the words “Courts” and “Judges” in the title — and the presence of judges, and some administrators of courts on its board over the years — is NOT a government entity under state OR U.S. Federal legislation; it IS, however, a privately controlled business entity ensconced at a public university. It is a nonprofit organized around civil servant employees of government entities at the state level or below, and as a nonprofit (see letterhead) it is ensconced (primarily) at the University of Nevada/Reno.

It claims origins in 1937.  If true, this means that before World War II there were plans to coordinate and consolidate the nation’s courts and treatment of juveniles (i.e., federalization) from outside the governing (legal, elected and appointed) officials apparatus, across jurisdictional lines, and through a mechanism enabling contributions by the private, that is to say, corporate sector (tax-exempt) sector.  I would like to see the evidence that it goes back to 1937, not just the 1970s as the records in Nevada show, however, either way the NCJFCJ which published this, has to acknowledge it represents the official policy of the “NCJFCJ” and not of the nation.

 

 THIS IS ABOUT WHERE THE POST PUBLISHED 11-11-2016 STARTED:

Motto under the logo reads “SAFETY – STABILITY- WELL-BEING.” “Well-Being” is also a specific phrase (sound-byte) which has been incorporated into titles of a trade-marked type of model court (Miami Child Well-Being Court(™)), of Centers within University (Princeton: Center for Child Well-Being; Columbia: Center for Research on Father and Child Well-Being)… In other words, the noun-phrase “Well-Being” usually combined with the word “Child” or “Family”) has a general, common English use, and positive understanding, but among social work, court, and certain other types of  professionals, more application-specific meanings which may miss the public understanding UNLESS they study how these things are organized, set up for pilot programming– evaluation — replication — and promulgation. [end caption by blogger “LGH”]]

I was talking about The Greenbook, and The Greenbook Initiative.  What’s frightening is that The Greenbook Initiative is now over with and its conclusions, results and practices further “baked into” the delivery of protection, justice, intervention (etc.) in US family courts with so very little attention by mothers and their advocates involved in the fights of their lives, attempting to balance personal safety (their children’s and their own) with custody litigation, and being coached on-line to take the “main-line” approach promoted by the basic advocacy options seen nationwide today.

Thereafter, the Family Court Enhancement Project (FCEP) took up the cause along the same general lines and practices, and I have yet to see an consciousness, among the people concerned about the family courts’ treatments of children post-separation from DV, on the significance of the Greenbook Initiative!  

In other words, the information does not seem to have been “processed” by the public, just what is going on in private, among all kinds of “advocates” allowing private financing to determine direction of public institutions such as the courts.  of course public financing is also encouraged for paradigm-shifting and practice-changing (and evaluating), not to mention sustaining the allegedly dysfunctional public institutions in the first place.

I said “allegedly” because, if you read this blog, “dysfunctional” is only in relationship to the ultimate purpose. IF the purpose is alleviating poverty and protecting children (and their caretaking parents) from violence, i.e., keeping them safe and improving the overall “Well-Being,” I feel safe to say, these courts are obviously “dysfunctional.” However when the same cast of characters and organizations speaks of that dysfunction, I have to look honestly at what purposes their practices have been indicating, and whether using the word “dysfunctional” in this context isn’t a form of feigned empathy, i.e., “we’re all on the same page and just want to protect people, and provide justice through the family courts also.”

RE:

Full post title of that Last 3-Section post (with shortlink):Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know).  (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List,” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)

The platform for this post was obviously a discussion of The Greenbook Initiative, which itself is a discussion on the family-court-related topics of how these family courts handle: Domestic Violence, and Child Maltreatment.   But I tend to look at operations, remember this is an “UNcommon Analysis blog.

It should be by now commonplace to comprehend not only the vitality of admitting that there IS a “Public/private” powerful network which blurs the lines between government and business, but also the importance of knowing at least some basics on how it’s operating.

Speaking of the network overall, it does have SOP (Standard Operating Procedures) or should I say as the term goes, “practices” which can be observed in motion — when you observe the moving parts.

The network itself, when it goes public and on-line with content of conferences, or pilot projects, or studies, is discussing subject matter (content), and its own moving parts in terms of that subject matter.  What they are NOT discussing in common, meaningful language for the public good, is who are the speakers?

Some of these “speakers” are parts of government (federal, mostly), and others are private corporations, non-stock, with boards of directors, earning their revenues from SOMEWHERE, and until it’s determined whether or not (and ideally how much) is also from its own government “partners,” we outside observers have no way to discuss, other than as passive audience, that conversation or conference after the fact, or talk about what it symbolizes in the larger picture.

What I do differently is take a different perspective.  I observe the speakers as moving parts not just in the agenda being promoted, but in the larger, economic perspective, and using terms that better reflect the existing power structures in this country, economically.

WHEN DISCUSSING ANY PURPOSE or PROJECT of ANY Public/Private partnership (which obviously The Greenbook Initiative was) failing to observe the moving parts[ in this case part of what’s moving is some mouths are flapping, figuratively speaking.  Communications are posted on-line] (starting with naming them)  is like trying to analyze the performance of a car with reference ONLY to the fuel, and no consideration for the fuel delivery parts, and above all, by looking at an individual vehicle, what type of activities it seems to be geared for (whether off-road, racing, reduced fuel consumption, speed, or sex appeal).

And of course never considering that the vehicle exists for financial profit, not loss to its manufacturers in addition to whatever benefits it provides the end-users.

In this case, the Greenbook Initiative partners declare they are analyzing the moving parts of a vehicle arbitrarily named  (in essence) “Child Maltreatment and Domestic Violence:  Guidelines on What To Do About It” with a view towards fixing identified problems.

In my posts, instead of jumping on that moving train, that bandwagon, I analyze the Greenbook Initiative Partners (and some of the employees) as a class of mechanics working on something I have a right to regard as MY car — public institutions, the courts the law enforcement, in regards the laws, in this country.  I also analyze, or at least point out, they are recipients of public funds.

What the publications and proposals (and pilot projects) of The Greenbook Initiative do, as shown on the website pages (other than reveal so many flaws and in general a disrespect towards the public for such flawed presentation of even their own partnerships names), and for those who pay attention, some inbred relationships among the various partners,  is to have some public theater in discussing the delivery vehicles of “civil and criminal justice systems” vis a vis, what else:  Domestic Violence and Child Maltreatment.

I say is there for posturing — adopting a posture, which I’ll summarize as:  

“We Care, and We Admit There’s a Problem”

“As the problem-solvers, “We’re On It.”

“Being neutral, objective, and having subject matter experts, we also are only following the natural conclusions of our project studies in designing the pilot initiative.”

This posture is designed to set the public at ease and discourage them from asking questions like — what’s really going on here; who are these groups, who are their partners, and how much of OUR MONEY (public funds) was spent on this?

One quick way to lead to even more valuable informationi s attempting to find that out from the website itself.  As I recall, I showed on “that post” on the bottom third, that a listing of which USDOJ grant was involved in The Greenbook (itself) resulted in a grant name which couldn’t be found.  For one, the USDOJ/OVW doesn’t post grant numbers in their records of grantees, grant titles, and amounts received when.  That’s a real red flag.

THE THREE SECTIONS OF ‘”WHAT I JUST SAID”

(PRIOR POST):

The three sections, roughly speaking about one-third of the length.  Each one would be a medium-sized post.  Not including the introduction, these are labeled (the blue-bordered boxes added here for easier identification; not in original post):

First, 

(1) Greenbook Initiative “Evaluation Partner,” Avon-heiress-based, +/- Billion-Dollar Assets, Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (“EMCF”), and Its Other Friends and Sponsors besides FVPF & NCJFCJ.

• Preface Section — what is “EDC, Inc.” doing here as Evaluation Partner? Their focus is international development, and their funding is also international in origin as an UNESCO-designated “Associate NGO” and a USAID-designated “Private Voluntary Organization” (Volunteering after the $159M/annual contributions, that is??)
• This section precedes the detailing of Edna McConnell Clark Foundation.

The list of GreenBk Initiative Partners:  Excepting the Federal Agencies at the top, here’s where “EMCF” fits in:

UNDER THIS SECTION, just referencing “What’s EDC, Inc.” doing here? and its funders, even though providing links for continuation posts, became such a substantial part of the post, that I announced (flagged) where the “ECMF”  drill-down as yet another Greenbook Initiative Evaluation Partner… as shown in the next red-bordered box… was about to start.

Between that subsection and the ECMF Drill-down, (not to minimize section 2 and 3 below it), some heavy “artillery” for breaking down this subject matter in its bottom-line reality, was delivered in a single post.  Please consider yourself warned to watch these organizations as actors, and as memberships of a network of actors located in the US but with global development-oriented connections and intentions.

Concluding the extended section about (1) “EDC” and (2) Greenbook Initiative (webmasters?) inability to properly label parts of two federal agencies, and now beginning the drill-down on EMCF:

(1) EDC split-off continuation post, again: Do You Know Your EDC (EIN#04-2241718 in Massachusetts)?  Or Why It Became a Greenbook Initiative ~Evaluation Partner~ Alongside ICF International and the NCSC? If Not, Pls. Look Now! (<==Link will lead to this post when it is published; before then WordPress may make a “best guess” redirect)

(2) Further relevant information on the Federal Agency weird nomenclature used by Greenbook Initiative webmasters (or whoever put together information for the “partners” page), again, continued because, as I said above, Too much detail for this post, subsidiary to my other points, I’ll stow it on a separate post, called The Greenbook Initiative Federal Partner HHS/CDC/==>NCIPC<== (established ca. 1993, its New Director’s IVAT-dispensed Linda Saltzman Memorial Award, + SAVIR+ The Safe States Alliance.

---

 Prepare yourself to break new ground in basic understandings, and to be looking at images of tax returns with the idea you also put your face in front of the same information, full-sized, and think seriously about what it is telling you!  I also look at collaborators with EMCF and at least one of its subcontractors, as I recall, below.  This is still part of “Section (1)” of this post…. and a very interesting one, I believe.

Not included in even that red-bordered box identifying a sub-section of “Section 1” of my post, but it certainly is on that post now– is substantial additions on EDC international funder “The Bernard van Leer Foundation” with some background on it and its apparent current Executive Directors.

It became immediately obvious that one priority of the Bernard van Leer Foundation was promoting Early Childhood Education (with certain others based in Belgium, Switzerland, Germany, Italy, perhaps the UK (Ireland — I don’t have it memorized without looking again) and within the US, a strangely-named foundation with a parent foundation (so-called; not shown as a “related foundation” on the US tax return) called “King Baudouin Foundation USA, Inc.“

The other evident connection to the Executive Director of the Bernhard van Leer Foundation, listed on the website, was with the WEForum, or “World Economic Forum,” founded shortly after WW II.   The activity and tax returns of the King Baudouin Foundation USA, as well as what it’s doing (moving millions to help Africa, as propounded, primarily back to Europe) reveals a strong Belgian connection (as well as with The Netherlands) which I don’t think should be ignored, particularly with the recent history of Belgium in atrocities involving corporate profits — major, multinational corporations — in Central Africa directly connected with a form of “colonizing” the USA and planned communities for the workers in developed countries.    It is overall, very interesting, and I have follow-up material also.

That information is a good part of why, considering what I wanted to continue posting of this material, a “REVIEW” post like this seemed to be a good idea before moving on more to the international aspects which — it’s clear enough – are ALREADY involved with having private input into the US Department of Justice-funded initiatives and programming, i.e., as shown in the Greenbook Initiative.

This comes from the private sector, and the public sectors, our elected and appointed officials, have worked long AND hard to train the public to expect this arrangement as a normal way of doing business. It HAS been normalized, but as I will say repeatedly — it is intended to standardize, internationalize, and break down political jurisdictional boundaries.  Rather than doing this by blunt force and out in the open, the approach — Fabianism, essentially — has taken place over time, but absolutely in a well-coordinated fashion.  Those coordinating it already had consolidated operations (and wealth) primarily by the 1950s, in reality, although they seem ever open to receiving yet more wealth.

For an example of some of the EMCF (translation: EMCF is a major tax-exempt foundation backing some high-profile non-profits which have been fronting “replicable models” of neighborhood takeovers, that is “development” according to a top-down, outside-in model sold as the exact opposite, total assets have been +/1 $1 billion, as a “player” at the federal level in more than one way) drill-down includes looking at just one year of its Independent Subcontractors paid over $50K (as per the Form 990PF stipulation that the top 5 in that category are to be identified.

Notice:  If any group chooses, and can afford, to pay, say 50 or even 25 subcontractors $100K or even $300-$500K each, the IRS Form 990-PF guarantees that such organizations could operate 90% (if they had 50) or 80% (if they had 25) in complete privacy as to who they were affiliated with, only showing the top 5.  Mathematically speaking, the more wealth and cashflow any entity has, the more it has an ability to conceal who it’s been dealing with from at least the on-line tax-return viewing public (and possibly, though I don’t  know for sure, the IRS).  I doubt that audited financial statements would force revealing names of individual contractors over $50K, but rather group the expenditures by accounting purpose, as a single line item.

I thought that the EMCF “Operating Expenses” were unusually high and so looked more closely at their chosen subcontractors.  The first one, “Investure” in Charlottesville, VA, was not discussed in my last post, but I remember this one turning on some major mental lights of comprehension the first time I looked in some detail at the role of EMCF on this Greenbook Initiative, not knowing at that time, much about the foundation.

See next box, I’ll use red borders again; this is a quote from the post shows that image and names the subcontractors, as I color-coded the image (by subcontractor) the other day.

So, regarding those $16M operating expenses, let’s take a look:

 

• Investure in Virginia
• MDRC in NY
• LWP, LLC in Boston
• Bridgespan Group in Boston
• Social Finance, Inc. in Boston

Total of just those five (5) is over $9M, but there are a dozen more, unidentified subcontractors, paid over $50K each (which is the cutoff limit). So who is ever told who they are?  The IRS?  Anyhow, out of $16M operating expenses, we are seeing $9M plus-some going to certain subcontractors, and $3.7M for Investment Management (!!) and then MDRC got over $2M for “Grantee Evaluation” and the other three for Grantee Consulting.  Hmm.

So — Social Finance, Inc. on 77 Sumner Street Boston is operating as a nonprofit and clearly the Pay for Success model has been good to it (this 501©3 only formed in 2011, as a Delaware Corporation).  Mission statement, page 1 – they just wanna help improve the lives of those in need (and do it tax-exempt with handouts)

My post discussed some of the EMCF Independent Subcontractors listed above, but not “INVESTURE,” the largest one at $3.7M.

I see INVESTURE also earned about $3.9M from one of its clients The Commonwealth Fund also recently and discuss it more — but, at the bottom of this post.  However here’s that image:

Showing Major subcontractors for The Commonwealth Fund” (EIN# 13-1635260, in New York), with Investure’s $3.3M outweighing all others listed. See Form 990PF for more info on where major corporate assets are being held under this advice)

For comparison of these two Investure Clients, ECMF has slightly more assets at just under one billion ($1,000,000,000) per its Form 990PF, while The Commonwealth Foundation as a “mere” three-quarter-billion (plus some) ($769,000,000) per ITs last return.  Visually, this is a comparison:

Total results: (n/a). Search Again. Source of wealth:  Avon products (named after an heiress, i.e., not first generation).  Avon Foundation also has been active, after a certain point, in the domestic violence movement, although it seems (as I recall, not re-checked for this post) their primary nonprofit cause was Breast Cancer, sponsoring the walks to stop it.

and another major client listed (founders of Time, Fortune, Life, formed in 1936):

I showed images of the Form 990PF with Investure under Part VIII Subcontractor earning over $3M for ECMF and for The Commonwealth Fund, so here they are (as it appears the ONLY main subcontractor in charge of investments) for Year 2014, Part VIII, the other “types of service” listed are Custodian (BNY Mellon, Everett, MA is the custodian of the assets), Legal counsel (a New York LLP) and General Contractors for, apparently, construction.  So when it comes to managing the assets, Investure, LLC is their main firm.

Image Filename: thehenryluce-foundatn-ein13-6001282-ny-madison-ave-form-990pf2014-part-viii-only-showing-investure-llc-3m-main-manager-scrshot-2016-11-11…

Investure’s mission as stated on their website:

Investure, LLC is a recognized leader in the endowment and foundation investment management industry having pioneered the full-service outsourced investment office model. We are focused on the investment management needs of non-profits serving as the investment office for a select group of prestigious colleges and foundations. Investure currently manages approximately $12 billion* across all asset classes. We seek to build long-term relationships with our clients by bringing the distinct capabilities and advantages of a larger investment office to mid-sized endowments and foundations.* as of September 2015

For more, including some of their other clients (which is also revealing) see at the bottom of this post under the heading “INVESTURE”

Then (second)

This section is basically my take on the Greenbook Initiative as a personal “Stakeholder” (DV survivor, parent, litigant).  To illustrate it, I responded to a Tribute to Susan Schechter, however it would’ve been similar using any number of other examples.

Key  Understandings  re: “The Greenbook”  and  “The Greenbook Initiative:”

Among the KEY understandings about (a) that publication and (b) the resulting initiative are who published it (NCJFCJ) who were its authors (representing what fields of practice and why were these fields of practice being joined together at this time).  Also, what was a more likely explanation for why, among the professionals who would be sharing this information as to recommended “Policy and Practice” when it came to Domestic Violence and Child Abuse (or “Maltreatment”) it was called “Greenbook.” Some of this I believe I already posted on in Year 2016.

WHY, for example, has it been deemed so important to re-classify criminal activity (such as both those categories of harm are) as a social pathology to be treated, with the leading-edge proponent (the other author, a Susan Schechter, a lawyer, (correction, no J.D.; she had an M.S.W. from U Chicago) having died since, in 2004) being Jeffrey L. Edleson formerly of UMN School of Social Work, and now not just back at UCBerkeley, but actually Dean of the School of Social Work over (from my perspective living in this metro nine-county area) “here”?

This link is a 2006 publication, “Past and Present| A  Tribute to Susan Schechter: The Visions and Struggles of the Battered Women’s Movement” by Fran S. Danis, U Missouri-Columbia, as shown at NCDSV.org. Footer reads

Author’s Note: The author acknowledges the helpful feedback of Jeffrey Edleson on an earlier draft of this article.

---

 …and, finally, third section:

(3) The Greenbook and Initiative Front Matter from original Table of Contents Page + (at the very bottom) tax returns of significant Trade Organizations involved in the courts.  I begin by pointing out that the name “Greenbook” was (I am SURE) intended among its users and for the public who might become aware of it, intended to convey a sense of authority and accountability, and by similarity of name, imply similarity of internal control and accountability to a GAO-issued “The Green Book” — an entirely different publication.

Inside the blue borders = quote from the recent post introducing 3rd section:

MATERIAL (“Front Matter”) MOVED REMOVE FROM TABLE OF CONTENTS POST 2014 (but only removed on 10-05-2016) is below this line.

Formatting was lost during the copy & paste; some of which is restored below.

---

***Trade Associations (nonprofits) such as these below.  Consider memorizing the acronyms and getting at least a generic look at their tax returns, websites, and corporate filing histories, and history with maintaining the IRS#s.  There is a pattern, which once seen will make it easier to see in other contexts and organizations. It is almost harder to describe than to see ONCE the evidence is in front of your eyes. I have found, over the years, the first obstacle to understanding is the hardest to overcome — persuading individuals it’s worth their time to actually look at a tax return.  Until not just one or two, but dozens (if not hundreds) are viewed, that understanding will not come vicariously — and a person will NOT be on solid ground explaining it to anyone else.

 I have been doing this for years, and it’s entirely fair to say that over those years I have studied thousands (not hundreds) of tax returns of court-connected corporations and their funders, of domestic violence organizations in the “DV cartel” (my term — and I’m a survivor), of fathers’ rights organizations (often  federal HHS grantees also), and of the huge, privately-controlled tax-exempt foundations (Ford, Rockefeller, Annie. E. Casey, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur, William and Flora Hewlett (of Hewlett-Packard computer wealth), and more, who coordinate efforts through smaller nonprofits and/or funding university centers, to re-align the United States of America’s justice systems, sometimes an entire state at a time (Example:  Models for Change):

Not to mention relationships, conferences, and compromises of individuals’ safety and legal rights, by agreement with each other (for example) and with key organizations funded under the 1994 VAWA (Violence Against Women Act), and organizations, sometimes foundations, sometimes for-profit consultants whose function is to, on an ongoing basis, evaluate (rationalize, based on pilot projects) and “technically assist” (implement) the agreed-upon justice system changes.  

A good example of one such compromise, although not the first, is in “The Greenbook Initiative” (ca. 2000-2008) following the publication of a “The Greenbook” in 1999 by one feminist (?) lawyer Susan Schechter and one professor Jeffrey L. Edleson then working at the School of Social Welfare at University of Minnesota.

There was already a US “Government Accountability Officer” (GAO) term “Greenbook” — I believe this is where the term, relating to the purpose, was taken from although what I’m referring to above is not this one.  Notice this one has a space between “Green” and “Book”:

The Green Book

Internal control helps an entity run its operations efficiently and effectively, report reliable information about its operations, and comply with applicable laws and regulations. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, known as the “Green Book,” sets the standards for an effective internal control system for federal agencies.  

I don’t know so much about that Green Book, but keep reading on that site:

On September 10, 2014 GAO issued its revision of Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government. You can read the press release here. The 2014 revision will supersede GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government: November 1999.

Legislative Authority

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA) requires that federal agency executives periodically review and annually report on the agency’s internal control systems. FMFIA requires the Comptroller General to prescribe internal controls standards. These internal control standards, first issued in 1983, present the internal control standards for federal agencies for both program and financial management.

Amazing, isn’t it, that the Comptroller General didn’t have to prescribe internal controls standards until 1983!  Reminds me of Catherine Austin Fitts’ writings about the state of HUD (quoting a colleague or associate (or simply friend) as having shown surprise at her interest in getting involved, in that “HUD is being operated like a sewer,” i.e., a criminal enterprise, and, separately, Fitts’ commentary on how they were not required to even produce agency (FHA) financial reports giving an account of net assets, liabilities, revenues to expenses, cash flow, etc.   Fitts worked in the Bush, Sr. Presidential administration starting as I recall, 1989. …

I looked this up now (hadn’t for the previous post), and am shocked to read that apparently no update, amendment, or change to this code had been in place since 1950, that is, for over three decades following the end of WWII, no update, despite how the economy must have been expanding (along with federal government, as this was also a period under the ReOrganization Authority granted US Presidents by Congress, up til 1980).  Finishing out the “blue box,” I’m adding a red-bordered box to quote the FMFIA as found on-line at “Whitehouse.gov”  

Please make a note, I am not quoting the most recent version of FM/FIA.  However, I also knowing about it better understood on looking today closer at some USDOJ financial statements.

State, Local, and Not-For-Profit Applicability

The Green Book may also be adopted by state, local, and quasi-governmental entities, as well as not-for-profit organizations, as a framework for an internal control system.

(See also Congress.gov (<==exact link to H.R. 1526) for tracking of the bill/s 90th Congress leading to FM/FIA )

Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982 P.L. 97-255 — (H.R. 1526)

Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982

September 8, 1982

An Act to amend the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 to require ongoing evaluations and reports of the adequacy of the systems of internal accounting and administrative control of each executive agency, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

Sec.1. This Act may be cited as the “Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982”.

Sec.2. Section 113 of the Accounting and Auditing Act of 1950 (31 U.S.C.66a) is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:

(d) (1) (A) To ensure compliance with the requirements of subsection (a)(3) of this section, internal accounting and administrative controls of each executive agency shall be established in accordance with standards prescribed by the Comptroller General, and shall provide reasonable assurances that —

(i) obligations and costs are in compliance with applicable law
(ii) funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against waste, loss, unauthorized use, or
misappropriation; and
(iii) revenues and expenditures applicable to agency operations are properly recorded and accounted for to permit the preparation of accounts and reliable financial and statistical reports and to maintain accountability over the assets.     (B) The standards prescribed by the Comptroller General under this paragraph shall include standards to ensure the prompt resolution of all audit findings.

(2) By December 31, 1982 the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in consultation with the Comptroller General, shall establish guidelines for the evaluation by agencies of their systems of internal accounting and administrative control to determine such systems’ compliance with the requirements of paragraph (1) of this subsection. The Director, in consultation with the Comptroller General, may modify such guidelines from time to time as deemed necessary.

(3) By December 31, 1983, and by December 31 of each succeeding year, the head of each executive agency shall, on the basis of an evaluation conducted in accordance with guidelines prescribed under paragraph (2) of this subsection, prepare a statement —

(A) that the agency’s systems of internal accounting and administrative control fully comply with the requirements of paragraph (1); or

(B) that such systems do not fully comply with such requirements. (etc. Read the Rest, too!)

In that section, I speculated that the term “GREENBOOK INITIATIVE” as shown at top of this post (and that one (might have been taking from the GAO “The Green Book,” especially in the sense of setting “internal” guidelines and standards at least regarding the subject matter in question.  I forgot that another alternative they might have been drawing from, which is in fact a whole lot closer in content to the subject matter they are studiously NOT writing up on (“The Greenbook,” and the followup “Initiative”).

For more on that alternate source of the reason for calling the NCJFCJ 1999 publication “The Greenbook Initiative” with a website that is green all over, and a cover apparently that also was, perhaps check out this from http://greenbook.waysandmeans.house.gov.  <==bookmark and further exploration recommended. (I’m not going to “show and tell” this website just now). The website is odd in that you’d expect there to be some sort of footer info on MOST websites, and particularly any government-sponsored one, but this has none — nothing at all.  The links at bottom (Home, 2014 Green Book, Archive, About) lead to more info.

Anyhow towards the bottom of Section 3 of my previous post, I did exhibit several tax returns of the organizations I was discussing, and some I didn’t discuss on the post but probably had elsewhere on the original “Table of Contents” post from which this particular chunk had been removed.

I am constantly thinking, pretty deeply, about these topics, as well as ways to translate the basic material into key points which people  just won’t, can’t, or at least apparently don’t wish to raise in the public square, and in particular on social media over which individuals, as opposed to corporations, have at least (I think…) some more control, despite bloggers getting shut down or intimidated into shutting down from time to time reporting on injustice and violations of due process by those in control of the legal process.

Meanwhile this blog, despite hardly publishing anything for a month, has still been getting visits from various government entities which, I can see why they might be — I’m reporting on them.

Unless people wish to further demonstrate their lack of maturity and regression to that which, allegedly, is so hated — the KKK days — and continue burning effigies of the President-Elect of the United States of America, as I saw on the news regarding Oakland, California last night.  There was even a fake head of Trump on a pike.  “My, what a “nice” generation of adults we have been raising, somewhere…”

RE:

Full post title of this post with shortlink:Who Produced The Greenbook Initiative? And, About NGA, NCJFCJ, AFCC, Council on State Govts (Trade Associations You Should Know).  (Moved from “My Posts-Just the List,” on 10-5-2016, Expanded by 2/3rds and Posted 11/8/2016)

[This few paragraphs will only make sense AFTER that post is read, probably from top to bottom.]

Title updated for accuracy 11/10/2016.  Incidentally, I expanded on the middle third explanation of “EDC” also on 11/9/2016, while in something of a state of shock about a Belgian-connected organization  formed 1997 in Georgia (but located in Rockefeller Center, NYC) funneling millions, including art collections on behalf of “Europe and Africa” to mostly Africa, under the name of a former King of Belgium, and when not busy convening to push early childhood education for all, internationally (targeting the poor), also flying people from Africa (and the USA) to Europe for discussions on “the American-model of fund-raising.”  …

It’s time for people to comprehend what the ROLE of nonprofits is being used to accomplish vis-a-vis “local rule” meaning, by actual countries, and I believe, reconsider whether using the European “White man’s burden” model on low-income families worldwide, including in the USA, is somehow still appropriate just because the white men in control are showing a little more political correctness since, say, about the 1960s…)..Because Belgium was involved, I took another look (in upcoming post on EDC) on the Berlin Conferences of 1884-1888, a.k.a. “The Great Scramble” for Africa in the context of developing one of Great Britain’s first multinationals (which by 1930 had become “Unilever” in re: its founder’s exploitation of a “non-interference” pact among the European nations enabling the then-King of Belgium to sell off Central Africa for raw materials and a work force for this man who later became a “Lord” in his home country, and whose subsequent trust,  the Wellcome Leverhulme Trust (Lever Brothers, Unilever, Lord Leverhulme and planned community “Port Sunlight,”) has, ironically, been used in 2015 to help start a London School of Economics-based “Institute on Inequalities.”

Finally, I got around to looking up the background of the “Royal Packaging Industries” (FundingUniverse on: Royal Packaging Industries van Leer, N.V.) which provided the foundation for the Belgian-based controlling foundation as an INTERNATIONAL EDC-sponsor (Based in the Hague but with a particular interest in Israel) from “FundingUniverse.com,” to find, even though that resource apparently only dates to 1998, still shows the origins of this global packing (industrial and consumer both) got a big break with Shell Oil “back when.”  Combined with no doubt entrepreneurial smarts, and leveraging technology available as it came up, this company managed to stay under completely private control, mostly by family members, until the mid-1990s.

(At Grief.com company history (“Barrels were our business”) I see in the late 20th and early 21st centuries one part of the Van Leer-owned business? was purchased by this American firm which had started out in manufacturing primarily barrels — in which most bulk products were shipped in the late 1800s:

In the latter half of the 1900s, the company transitioned from its keg and barrel heading mills, stave mills and cooperage facilities to the manufacturing of fibre, steel, and plastic drums; corrugated containers; intermediate bulk containers; corrugated products for transit protection; multiwall shipping bags; and containerboard. In 1951, the company moved its headquarters from Cleveland to Delaware, Ohio. Later in the 1960s, we changed the company name to Greif Bros. Corporation.

Greif’s market and product growth has resulted, in part, from various acquisitions. This includes many corrugated container businesses and our containerboard mills. In 1998, we bought the industrial packaging business from Sonoco Products Company, a U.S.-based company, which made Greif the North American leader in industrial shipping containers.

In 2001, Greif purchased Van Leer Industrial, a business based in The Netherlands, from Huhtamaki Van Leer. This acquisition doubled the size of Greif and gave the company an international footprint. Van Leer’s beginnings date to 1919 when Bernard Van Leer founded a small company producing cans and boxes in The Netherlands. The company later became Royal Packaging Industries Van Leer NV and grew to be a global industrial packaging leader.

Following the acquisition, Greif integrated the identity of its businesses, established a new global brand mark that is used today, and renamed the company Greif, Inc. The company was listed on the New York Stock Exchange in 2002.

Like I’m saying, without some concrete points of reference, the above may not make sense, but after reading among the financials, mutual projects, organization website pages (many), and outside histories of the same, it’s no mystery to me.  The USA has been under colonization as a market for consumption of products made in a slave-based, racism-based, patronizing, condescending, arrogant leadership with NO INTENTIONS of relinquishing control of world markets, or if possible, the world, to “upstarts,” including from countries like the USA with no monarchies (official), peerage (official), but with, nonetheless, an existing separate but nowhere close to equal school system — one for the elites, and one for everyone else.  Talk of eliminating achievement gaps and disparities is NEVER applied, generally speaking, to the elite K-12 schools or colleges, and as in apartheid South Africa, where the concept was to raise “hewers of wood and drawers of water,”]

FOOTNOTE — INVESTURE, LLC:

INVESTURE, LLC (managing Institutional and Foundation Endowments, only formed in 2003, home office Charlottesville, VA

A brief (?) look at Investure, LLC (notice the “LLC” wasn’t even included on the tax return above) at 126 Garrett Street, Charlottesville, VA.  First of all, that’s prime commercial office space for the area; and the 22,000 sf building was up for sale in 2013 as fully-occupied, described on Loopnet as:

Description

Originally build in 1919 as the H.M. Gleason & Co feed and seed warehouse, it provided everything from fertilizer to kitchen cabinets, power mowers to animal feed. In 2005, current ownership acquired and rehabilitated the building, and is now offering the asset for sale at 100% occupancy. || 126 Garrett Street is located just two short blocks off Charlottesville’s historic downtown pedestrian Mall.

It is a nice-looking building being described (above) as “investment.”  The sale was for investment purposes, and the Investure, LLC is one of the tenants, then those prices will be passed on to someone, including potentially, for example, its client “ECMF.”

126 Garrett St, Charlottesville VA (from Loopnet ad), site of Edna McConnell Clark Foundation (which is heavily involved in public/private partnerships with US Gov’t) $3.9M Subcontractor per EMCF tax return, “Investure”

Investure, LLC only formed in 2003.  Not understanding my first time studying it as I do now from seeing the example of ‘Bridgespan” with its origins in Bain & Company (Boston), where start-ups seek to manage investments for certain (chosen) non-profits, with a background of their staff or partners in already having managed major institutional endowments, I can see that this may have copied the Bridgespan model in part.

Anyhow:

Investure.com

Investure was founded in 2003 on the premise that mid-sized non-profit organizations can, and should, have access to the same dedicated investment expertise that larger non-profits enjoy. Our partners come from a long and successful history of endowment management and share a dedication to working with mid-sized endowments and foundations. Our mission is to seek to provide exemplary investment returns and service to our consortium of clients. We have intentionally limited the number of clients we work with in order to provide high-touch, exceptional service to each client, seeking to work more as a partner than as an outside investment firm.

(image filename, per LGH): nvesture Team (Incl Alice Handy 1998-1990 Treasurer of Virginia (!), showing 6 of 8 Partners) See ECMF (subcontractor) and UVIMCO background on sev’l

Investure Partners

The partners’ links have no photos, and combined with anon-captioned group photo, don’t identify which partners (6 out of 8 only) are shown. Overall, the website is classic, reserved, and not revealing too much.  But a consistent link has been to major institutional, particularly college endowment funds.  A quick look through the team partners will show there are also west-coast connections.  FYI Partner “Puja” is also a woman, the rest besides Alice Handy, are men.

The choice of Charlottesville, Virginia is interesting.  From the Wiki, its a city of only about 48,000 people.  It is named after a British Queen.  From the opening Wiki paragraphs, the most relevant and interesting part (from my blogger’s perspective of tracking “entities” and separating public vs. private) is that the city is totally surrounded by Albemarle County and is the “County Seat” but is a separate legal entity.  However, as to US Census, there is a greater metro area.

Metro areas such as LouisvilleKY.gov, City and County of San Francisco, City and County of Baltimore, and others are sometimes influential politically and as to consolidating court or other government operations across jurisdictions, while maintaining nominal political jurisdictions (and related taxes) for their citizens.  These joint-metro jurisdictions then cut (arrange) various sorts of contracts involving the federal government (whom the citizens also fund through taxation and payment of fees for certain services, etc.) under which –fine print readings show — the actual citizens are NOT a party to the contract, and hold no rights under it, either.  That is their danger, too.

Charlottesville, colloquially C’ville or Hooville and formally the City of Charlottesville, is an independent city in the Commonwealth of Virginia. As of 2015, the population was 48,210.^[3] It is the county seat of Albemarle County, which surrounds the city, though the two are separate legal entities.^[4] Charlottesville has eighteen distinctive neighborhoods. It is named after the British Queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz.

The Bureau of Economic Analysis combines the City of Charlottesville with the County of Albemarle for statistical purposes, bringing it’s steadily growing total population to approximately 150,000. Charlottesville is the heart of the Charlottesville metropolitan area, which includes Albemarle, Fluvanna, Greene and Nelson counties.

Charlottesville hosted two Presidents, Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe. While both served as Governor of Virginia, they lived in Charlottesville, and traveled to and from Richmond, along the 71-mile (114 km) historic Three Notch’d Road. Orange, located 26 miles (42 km) northeast of the city, was the hometown of President James Madison. The University of Virginia, founded by Thomas Jefferson and one of the original Public Ivies, straddles the city’s southwestern border with Albemarle. Monticello, located 3 miles (4.8 km) southeast of the city, is a UNESCOWorld Heritage Site. Located on a hilltop overlooking Charlottesville, Monticello attracts thousands of tourists each year.^[5]

I DNR whether it’s North or South of the “Mason-Dixon Line” but see that in 1958, it closed segregated public white schools in opposition to federally-ordered integration.

In the fall of 1958, Charlottesville closed its segregated white schools as part of Virginia’s strategy of massive resistance to federal court orders requiring integration as part of the implementation of the Supreme Court of the United States decision Brown v. Board of Education. The closures were required by a series of state laws collectively known as the Stanley plan. Negro schools remained open, however.^[11]

Historic Court Square

Charlottesville is the home of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory headquarters, the Leander McCormick Observatory and the CFA Institute. It is served by two area hospitals, the Martha Jefferson Hospital founded in 1903, and the University of Virginia Hospital.

The National Ground Intelligence Center (NGIC) is in the Charlottesville area. Other large employers include Crutchfield, GE Intelligent Platforms, PepsiCo and SNL Financial.

The “CFA Institute mentioned, I see, is a global association of investment professionals formed in 1947 (i.e., right after WWII) and by 1962 had a CFA designation.  Started from four different financial analyst societies– from the Eastern half of the USA.  I noticed one Investure person was sporting a “CFA” designation. Its offices, for some reason, including London, Hong Kong, Mumbai, NYC and Charlottesville, but nothing on the west coast of the USA… Click the Wiki link above to see.

Clients page (listed alphabetically) shows their clients lists includes several colleges (which tend to have major endowment funds) and “The Commonwealth Fund.”

You can see those are mostly colleges (that’s all the “clients” listed at Investure.com on that page), however the very fine print of middle row shows, I THINK, ” HENRY LUCE Foundation”, and the next to last, The Skillman Foundation.

Total results: 3. Search Again.

Here’s the Henry Luce Foundation History.  We are talking, publishing industry wealth (Time, Fortune, Life) and a Yale graduate, son of Presbyterian missionaries to China, born there with his brothers and sisters, and a decision to copy some of his colleagues in setting up a foundation.

In 1936, when he proposed to create a foundation like ones other American entrepreneurs had recently launched, Henry R. Luce was only 38 years old but already influential in American life. With his Yale College classmate Briton Hadden, he had founded Time magazine thirteen years earlier, followed in 1929 by Fortune, and in 1936 by Life.

Just for a reminder of those times — Great Depression, Wall Street Crash, Gold-grab by US President, alternation of form of national currency in the US (1933), creation of the Social Security Act (1934), and with the income tax itself not being that old, actually.  With the advent of taxing everyone, including their wages, came of course among those who were looking forward, of course the need and potential to set up specifically tax-exempt foundations to continue to control their family wealth while, quite literally when it comes to the Great Depression, millions in the USA were starving and on soup lines, and subsequently had to be rescued by the New Deal, for which their future offspring would continue to pay over time.***

Moved to a page, this page while published doesn’t show on the blog’s sidebar:

A Brief Reminder of the History of Money, Banking and Other Significant Events When the USA’s (Other) Major Tax-Exempt Foundations Were Being Established [Page added 11-13-2016]

Below, I left behind a few of the links, but not the ones referring to the Scottish era of free banking, the failure of the Ayr Bank, and the fascinating story (still being debated and blogged; I found a 2014 Harvard Dissertation either getting an award, or in competition for it) of Alexander Fordyce and its impact on the times the USA was being set up (the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution being written), along with, of course, our money system.

• Illustrated History of American Money Design (Gizmodo.com, Adam Clarke Estes, posted 4/20/2016).  Included for visual interest more than actual history, although it does reference some key dates.
• A Short History of Money, From Fur to Fiat,
• 8 Things You May Not Know About Money (from History.com). Helpful because it’s so short and gives dates to National Currency Act, points out that the federal government chartering banks had to do with its need to finance the Civil War.
• A Timeline of U.S. Currency from “DailyReckoning.com”

It seems to me that when corporations — which formed the foundations to go with them — understand quite well that the US government may just be grabbing gold or taxing millions — one reason these continue to have wealth to leave for their heirs (down to sometimes the 5th generation –it came up in this blog with the S.C. Johnson foundation, right?) — is that they know how to avoid getting caught in this situation, in part by internationalizing their assets.  Another way profits are maintained is by just not paying their workers too much, and increasing the competition of workers with themselves when it comes to stockpiling assets.  For this to occur, workers/employees AND their families must be appropriately monitored, controlled, and not over-educated to the point they start getting ideas about REAL equality….or for that matter, justice.

Luce made his first major gift in 1935, an endowment at Yenching University in Peking to honor his father’s work, and he intended his foundation as a lasting tribute to his parents, Elizabeth Root Luce and Henry Winters Luce, Presbyterian missionaries and educators who worked in China during the first part of the twentieth century. Their four children – Henry, Emmavail, Elisabeth, and Sheldon – were all born in China.

The Commonwealth Fund  (mission statement — transform healthcare in the US and industrialized countries, esp. for low-income and the vulnerable.)   Commonwealth Fund Foundation History:

The Commonwealth Fund has its origins in the philanthropic efforts of the Harkness family. Stephen V. Harkness began his career in New York State’s Finger Lake region at age 15 as an apprentice harnessmaker. Harkness eventually settled in Ohio and became a successful businessman. He invested early with Rockefeller, Andrews & Flagler in the petroleum refining business and provided funds at a critical moment in the history of the fledgling Standard Oil Company.

Stephen’s wife, Anna Harkness, had a strong civic spirit and believed in encouraging all forms of self-help. In the years following her husband’s death in 1888, she moved her family to New York City where she gave liberally to religious and welfare organizations, and to the city’s major cultural institutions.

In 1918, Anna Harkness founded The Commonwealth Fund with the mandate that it should “do something for the welfare of mankind.” Among the first women to establish a foundation, Anna initially endowed the foundation with a gift of nearly $10 million. The Fund’s first president was her son, Edward Stephen Harkness, who was committed to building a responsive and socially concerned philanthropy and who, over the years, gave generously to the Fund’s endowment. …

History of Fund Work

The Commonwealth Fund’s work in the 1920s led to the development of the field of child guidance and contributed to the emergence of progressive public health departments in communities around the country. From the late 1920s through the 1940s, the Fund supported the construction of rural hospitals meeting high standards of care, and in doing so laid the way for the federal Hill-Burton Act, which in 1946 initiated a program of hospital construction and improvement. Always mindful of the long-term payoff of investments in people, the Fund launched in 1925 an international program—initially called the Commonwealth Fund Fellowships, later changed to the Harkness Fellowships—bringing young professionals from the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, and other English-speaking countries to the United States for extended study and travel. …

…In the 1960s and early 1970s, the Fund continued to contribute to the movement to bring health care to underserved communities, including troubled urban areas. …The Fund also maintained its early interest in youth development in this period by helping stimulate organized youth mentoring programs….

Since 1995, the Fund has concentrated its efforts on helping to address health care coverage and access issues, improving the quality and efficiency of health care, and slowing the growth of health care costs. The foundation underwrote a considerable part of the research underlying the development of the reforms in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and reports of its Commission on a High Performance Health System (1995–2013) helped inform the debate leading up to this landmark legislation. Since 1995, the Fund also has been a leading philanthropic voice promoting modernization of Medicare, developing new payment methods encouraging better and more efficient health care delivery, and delivery models featuring better primary care and care coordination. In all of this work, the foundation has placed a particular emphasis on meeting the needs of vulnerable populations.

The Fund refocused its historic international activity in 1997 with the creation of an international program in health policy and practice, the aim of which is to bring the international experience to bear on the U.S. health care reform debate and to promote exchanges that stimulate health system improvements in economically advanced countries. As a result, the earlier international fellowship program was transformed into the Harkness Fellowships in Health Care Policy and Practice (expanded to include key Western European countries), and the program features an annual ministerial-level international symposium in Washington, D.C.

To ensure that its work reaches the ear of key policy audiences, the Fund expanded its communications program, developed a Washington, D.C. office, and has funded an annual bipartisan retreat for members of Congress who focus on health care issues.

Total results: 6. Search Again.