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

That Page:

Title probably should’ve read “1996” — not sure why I put in 1998 at the time. PRWORA was passed in 1996.  Certain fatherhood-related, Congressional resolutions, etc. were also passed in 1998 and 1999 while the nation was changing its entire Social Security Act funding (and along with it, distribution methods for child support) in the years after 1996. [//LGH 2020 comment]

Two images (snapshots of a few paragraphs each) from my 2017 Page, next below, give more content.  I also see on review that this page dealt more with the NGA, while today’s post with the NFI.  On seeing substantial overlap (i.e., the ‘NFI’ part I’d obviously planned to transplant here a few months ago), I’m going to remove it from the 2017 page to be replaced with a link here. //LGH 20May2020.

(These links refer to the post from which two (fuzzy) screenshots below came:)
at shortlinks for pages use a capital “P” as in “http://wp.me/PsBXH-4qs.  By contrast, short-link for this post would be “http://wp.me/psBXH-c80“.  I usually provide just the last three characters as I more often write posts than pages…

AGAIN,

For this post, recognizing the acronyms “NFI” (see title) and “NGA” (for ‘National Governors’ Association,’) and “QIC-NRF” (the “Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers” — searchable on this blog, and my post on misleading* terms including “QIC”) would be helpful to know.  

*Why are such terms”mis-leading”?  When it comes to tracking public funds to their private (or other public) grantees or other independent contractors, to the extent this information is supposed to be made available to the public, it’s the ENTITIES that must file and to read what they filed, you must find their names to look them up.  A program (including a non-entity “Center” at some large institution such as a university — or federal/state department) is not an “entity.”  See “example” section, next, but the concept in this paragraph (stemming from the “QIC-NRF” term) continues after the marked section with a few images.

Some business entities are named “Center” “Institute” or “Initiative” (such as the NFI), but the use of those words on a website does not automatically represent a business entity, particularly those within universities.  Sometimes a similarly named nonprofit exists, most times it does not.

CAN YOU TRACK THE MONEY OR GET SOME FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THIS?  CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHO STARTED IT?  WHAT, REALLY, IS IT?

Example:  developingchild.harvard.edu (Harvard’s Center on the Developing Child; I blogged a year or two ago, several drill-downs because several organizations were funding it).

It’s so “normal” and good for sales to characterize a project, a collaboration, or a program as if it had real (corporate) personhood when it doesn’t, if you’re in that business or listed positively on their websites.  The basic process is distraction. — reframing any issue.  In this, Harvard’s great reputation is a plus, but thinking about how large Harvard’s endowment already is (one of the largest around) (or how late in its history it and other Ivy Leagues admitted women as undergraduates, or to some of its graduate programs, too), would be a negative, including for the many (also famous) sponsors of this “Center.” In the center (fine print, bottom links) is also a “National Council on the Developing Child” (as opposed to a CENTER on it?).  From its website (<~~link just provided), it self-characterizes as a multi-university collaboration, later (abstract from a “retrospective report“) simply a “group” and the project as translating science for the lay public and policymakers (specific fields of science listed among the members, including psychology alongside neuroscience, immunology, and specific medical fields):

For the past decade, a diverse group of distinguished scientists has worked to translate complex research about early brain development into language that is scientifically accurate, highly credible, understandable to nonscientists, and useful to public decision makers. Across the United States and around the world, in both public and private sectors, the work of the National Scientific Council on the Developing Child has helped change the conversation about providing young children with a healthy, safe, and nurturing start in life.”

[Notice the three icons: “Relationship (adult**/child/abacus)” – Brain – Gov’t Building.” The woman in photo is not necessarily a mother, although the child is clearly a toddler.

In very, very fine print at the bottom of the report (as well as on its title page) it’s mentioned that this National Council is in fact an initiative (not its own fiscal entity) of the Center on the Developing Child at Harvard, which “Center” isn’t an entity either.  Harvard is.  Think you can find this center’s activities (and private grants supporting them) within Harvard’s overall financial statements? (if available), or on any part of an associated tax return (for Harvard)?

---

The intent is (basically) to affect early childhood of the nation’s children based on their shared scientific understanding of what makes for “successful” children, and a Core Story (helped by “Frameworks Institute”) of Child Development — AND sponsored by a series of foundations, which I also (after discovering this center) looked up and blogged at least some of the more unique and less well-known ones, the intent is that this collaborative science should rule over and run public policy — based on how distinguished, diversed, and scientifically accurate the funded scientists (esp. Jack Shonkoff) and collected interests represented here.  It’s also part of the continued attempts to blend in the more generalized fields of psychology and education with the more innately respected fields of neurology and medicine, which can be seen by looking more carefully at the people listed on the “retrospective report” in two columns, with “Former” not identified on that page as to what their PhDs were in.

---

With such intents, corresponding accountability should exist.  The practice of university sponsored “Centers” with collaborating private backers is routine; the practice of providing fiscal accountability to the public (whether it’s a private or public university, often federal grants are involved) is not.   The word “center”is routinely over-used.

---

In blogging earlier, on this “Developing Child” center (and associated funding foundations I also discovered and posted that a million dollars of grants over just three years went to a fake/non-existent entity which listed the wrong state on the tax return (grantor organization: “Alliance for Early Success”).   A million dollars may not seem like much if you’re Warren Buffet or one of his descendants, or the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur foundation (both involved), but to most of us this is not “chump change” — a small amount to be mis-placed.  What it did indicate, however, is an accounting gap.  And I found it by doing something deliberately “dumb.”  One tax return said they granted (repeatedly) to another, so I looked it up, and found a “dead end.”  No such entity. So where did that money go instead? (Off-the-record, most likely).

For the public, when it comes to accounting for where governments’ tax receipts go (the justification for ongoing taxation, right?), what really counts is at the accounting level –and for that, you need an “entity” unless they are dealing with under-the-table cash, trading favors (at what point does this become just “bribes”?) or intangibles.

When websites at universities like Harvard talk big, drop names (LOTS of names, whether of the scientists or the sponsoring entities, also many of them big names, but play “hard to get” about specifics — with home and other pages full of white space [the Harvard Center on the Developing Child], big pictures, icons, repetitions sound-bytes, and more links to more narratives or solicitations (and not links to numbers, and NOT what we need to know for accountability for groups seeking to influence something as nationally funded as “early childhood” (child care, head start, etc.)), that’s a problem, and it also signifies more where it came from…

National Fatherhood Initiative EIN# 23-2745783 tax returns FYE 2016-2018 (which is FYs 2015-2017. Where’s tax return for FY2018, then? I’m looking May, 2020) shows about ½ million-dollar increase in (gross) assets.

For people who will actually crack open a tax return and think about its contents, I’ve provided several years of the NFI’s below, but this time did not call attention to the internal inconsistencies (for example, on Form 990 FY2011 (ending Sept. 30, 2012) between its Part VIIA, showing total Trustee/Officer/Director etc. total salary and checks off three “officers”, and where that same figure is supposed to be (but on the year I checked, wasn’t) incorporate) into Part IX, Statement of Expenses, Line 5.  

The amount off was that year’s CEO’s salary: $116K (not including the ex-President Roland Warren’s $135K).  Part IX, Line 5 showed no entry of any amount where this amount should show.

I see (running yet another update on the NFI EIN#) that for FY2016, the only paid officer is Christopher Brown ($172K) and FY2017  ($149K) and that main reported program service revenue is not revenue from actual program services but from sales of over $1M (for both years) which belongs on a different line in the tax return, as indicated when a negative amount for “cost of goods sold” appears (both years) under “Part VIII Revenues, Line 2 (for “program service revenues,” not  where it belonged, under the line-item (IRS form lists) inventory, which line is towards the bottom, Lines 10a (gross) b (cost of goods) and c (net).  

Putting the million dollars (main revenue) of NFI from those years where it belongs, however, would leave “program service revenues” (it seems, properly) blank, and reveal (for anyone who looked that far) that in fact it’s not really providing any program services, but just recording enough grants to be tax-exempt and selling product tax-exempt at over a significant markup (early years showed 100%).

How is that a legitimate tax-exempt purpose? It’s not a grant-maker (primarily), not a service-provider, it’s an entity with a website that sells product, with well-paid officers, and that doesn’t even fill out its own tax returns right.

I also found (then, now, and as ever) its subcontractors being themselves major U.S. Government grantees or participants (ICF International, The Advertising Council) and in general plenty of aspects of this single 501© organization (such as its legal domicile being in Pennsylvania, which I know to be a state that doesn’t require annual, or even frequent, filings of business returns, despite a Maryland address) and it being in the public relations and clearinghouse business overall — for “fatherhood,” of course, ah, …interesting.

Somehow this doesn’t communicate that well on Twitter…or ANY short-form media platform without a wrapt (or captive) audience.  But, I provided at least the links.

(Post title again):

[Reviewing my most recent posts in draft status today, I chose this one and published as written with few changes.//LGH 20May2020. First image shows “AFCC” under “ChildWelfare.gov/organizations/….  The Child Welfare Info Gateway has plenty of “father-focused” connections. Protecting children’s mothers and children from dangerous fathers doesn’t seem to figure high on this website’s “To-Do” list]. 

The National Fatherhood Initiative isn’t the largest of the HHS responsible fatherhood grantees around, but its leadership was among the original instigators of that funding.  

Just a reminder:  it’s a private tax-exempt incorporation which must file tax returns.  Using the word “national” is just a name and may or may not relate to how “national” it is.  The part that’s really “national” involved here is the U.S. federal government whose welfare appropriations are national in scope and which runs regional operations, i.e., has regionalized the USA down from 50 states and territories/islands (see Region 9) to just ten regional offices and its own administrative parts, with which local states are encouraged to deal to develop relationships with (especially) tax-exempt private community organizations and state and local jurisdictions. (More at Footnote “HHS Organization in its own words and pictures”)

NFI’s  name continues to come up on federal websites, and when people here are casting around for the name of SOME “fathers’ rights” organization, not having researched from the federal grants angle or any concept of size, age, or position on the networks, this one’s name is easy to remember and may get quoted.

In fact the real “fathers’ rights” entity to be most concerned about, in my opinion, is the U.S. Congress which voted these appropriations into place in the first place.  And elite groups like the National Governors’ Association which think it’s OK to outsource not only the provision of government services to “places where the sun don’t shine” but also the decisions on what services those should be in places where, for most of us, “the sun don’t shine,” i.e., the private roundtables where “pay to play” (or even show up), often remote from the geography governed, is the name of the game.

Recently I was looking at the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) Children’s Bureau’s information service, “ChildWelfare Information Gateway” where the “NFI” was listed, and I’ve known for years that its influence on a “QIC-NRF” (Quality Improvement Center for Non-Resident Fathers) listed on the same gateway existed, which I blogged.

As it turned out, the family court-focused association “AFCC” also was listed there (see above annotated image)

And, NFI’s tax returns do show “government grants,” while the HHS database “TAGGS.hhs.gov” I know has shown some direct grants to this organization.

So, for this post, on January 23, 2020, I removed a section of National Fatherhood Initiative tax returns and some previous discussion with a view towards re-blogging and for other media platforms, from my PAGE (not post) first published April 27, 2017.  

I hope as a teaching example it may alert people to government privatization and to pay closer attention to nonprofits involved in causes of interest and evaluate them based on their provided (or, if not provided where should be, on that) “financials.” The time invested will be not be wasted!

Again, where this information (below, most of it) used to be:

The “NGA is the “National Governors’ Association” which unlike some “associations” similarly named, isn’t actually a 501©3 nonprofit, but an “instrumentality” of government.  BUT, it owns one, called the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.  

The NGA came to my attention at some point for having promoted a statement, which I could personally attest to, on how domestic violence impacts a person’s ability to self-sustain; i.e., it has economic fall-out ramifications.  

Imagine my surprise to later (at some point in my long commute through the family court system, early 21st century California-style) to discover the same NGA promoting “responsible fatherhood” and state-level, statewide “fatherhood initiatives” as far back as 1994!

So, the above page deals more extensively with the NGA as it’d come across my path again during a time when I was studying national networks of non-profits focused on education reform (both political parties).  The topic came up …. education (as a field) and psychology (as a field) and the family courts (as a forum) are connected.

So are plenty of the major foundations who’ve chosen to “invest” in the same long-term, and whose tax returns too often, in too large numbers (millions of dollars at a time) often showed symptoms of “money missing in action” as, these days, standard practice / business as usual and etc.

Over the past few years I’ve been noticing the “premier family court association” (AFCC) having already spread its wings — or nets — and solidify its connections cross-continent, across national borders, and particularly across some very large oceans (the Atlantic, the Pacific).

While people in different countries have coordinated “domesticviolencespeak” and “familycourtreform — just needs more training and awareness about domestic violence (or “abuse”) — they’re ignoring key differences in the structure of government (including the courts) AND in the financing and reporting about the financing of government.

The UK does not have an income tax as the USA does.  From everything I can tell so far, nor does it have expectation that its charities will provide their tax returns or any equivalent of the Form 990 (if there be such a thing) on-line or at the charities’ offices, to the interested public, such that the public could follow a paper (or electronic trail) from their taxes and fees, to and through government to recipients, and have any expectation of … “connecting the dots,” in the sense that audits must connect the dots between claimed revenues and expenses, and receipts for them, and the subsequent reporting of balances.

I find my Twitter explorations (account) is having to repeatedly point out to others overseas the unique aspects of how the United States of America chose to “take down” single mothers and screw over their own population financially through the private tax-exempt sector which exacerbates class and wealth differences, perpetuates them (while claiming to be concerned to do the opposite) and — most critically to what’s supposed to be some sort of accountability within government — makes financial accountability for tax receipts in attempts to keep government (1) honest and (2) representative of an INFORMED and RESPONSIBLE public (“citizenry,” if you will).

**The overall reasoning was to reduce dependence on welfare — targeting, Daniel Moynihan Report of 1965-style and “naturally,” single-mother households because of the national debt, where the CAFR system (which ALL legislators have access to and copies of for at a minimum, their own states, and — certainly — the federal government) shows that the collective owned assets of the USA are among the largest on the planet.

MY INTENTS IN THIS POST:

I hope showing this in shorter form will communicate to both “Americans” (referring to USA residents and citizens) who are voluntarily or just ignorantly still clueless about how our own (1) federal government and (wherever each person lives) (2) their own state governments operate:*** requires looking at both the statement from the grantor —  “We gave XYZ$ in (fiscal year, or sometimes exact date) ABC to LMNOP [corporation or government]” and at the named grantee.  And that looking is not just worthwhile — it’s vital.  It’s probably the most important responsible step you can take as a citizen to move out of “clueless/ignorant” (whether or not angry or passionate about a cause) into “informed/a resource” and demonstrating willingness to acquire information for the purposes of leverage — for the benefit of us all.

**That is, what actually happens to the [accounts of] money we provide for it and how is it reported — where is it NOT being reported when it should be;

Knowing how to look up a grant claimed to have been donated either by at least a federal government department (HHS, DOJ, DOE, DOL, etc.), or by a BIG (Let’s say, multi-million-dollar or billion-dollar) tax-exempt organizations is knowing how to get some background information on not just the stories being reported, but on the organizations (media) reporting them.  It will increase comprehension of the BUSINESS of government and how BUSINESSES influence government.

I also believe it will reduce stupidity, which is a dangerous condition if too widespread.

Two key types of documents for nonprofits (that have to report to the IRS) should be sought.  Generally, for most tax-exempt foundations substituting their work for government services (i.e., active in public/private partnership or agreements), there should be a Form 990 (or Form 990PF) AND independently audited financial statements.

Both are needed, especially when the ownership of so many nonprofits run more than one, and consolidated their financial statements into one, and so will have discrepancies to account for between the tax return and the statements.

Understanding that — after a fashion — BOTH government entities (unless blended or a component unit of some other entity) AND private tax-exempt entities (which are not exempt from reporting: some are, which types,  IRS.gov describes) MUST produce independently audited financial statements, and the private ones, Forms 990 too, should communicate to all that providing accounts is the norm and “just maybe” when assessing programs services, or the rationale for any programs or services, people ought to go look for (and at) some of their accounts as a first stop on the voyage of discovery on “how things work.”

And, the NFI (formed first in 1994 and referenced in the subject matter of today’s main pdf):

(1) ANDY SCHOKA CHAIRMAN (2) SHANE COKER DIRECTOR (3) FREDRICK REGE DIR ETO R (4) ROB SIEDLECKI DIRECTOR (5) MAGGIE SPAIN DIRECTOR (6) ROLAND C WARREN DIRECTOR (7) CHRISTOPHER BROWN PRESIDENT (only one with salary, and it was $135K)

And another on this Kansas SRS event.  Unfortunately  annoying popups require a “Continue to Article” and answering a single survey question before the article displays for reading.

SRS Secretary Siedlicki resigns Dec. 15, 2011, in “CJOnline.com” by Tim Carpenter.

THE [Topeka] CAPITAL-JOURNAL
The embattled top administrator of the Kansas Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services revealed plans Thursday to resign at the end of December and return to Florida.Rob Siedlecki, who pressed for introduction of controversial marriage and fathering programs at the massive state welfare agency, was hired less than one year ago by Gov. Sam Brownback…. Personnel decisions, budget cuts and reform policies pushed by Siedlecki placed a spotlight on SRS.

His long-delayed Senate confirmation in March was especially heated, with Republicans and Democrats questioning the selection.

Closure of SRS offices throughout the state generated conflict, with several communities deciding to pay the state to keep local offices intact. Advocacy of faith-based initiatives caused unease in social welfare circles. Hundreds of SRS employees took voluntary retirement this fall.

Senate Minority Leader Anthony Hensley, D-Topeka, said actions by Siedlecki during the past year confirmed his belief the governor made a mistake. Hensley was the lone senator to vote against Siedlecki’s confirmation.

“From day one, I didn’t feel he was qualified to run SRS,” Hensley said. “I never felt comfortable with his leadership.”

Hensley said Siedlecki suffered when an interim legislative committee in November challenged a plan to move juvenile justice programs to SRS. Committee members assailed abandonment of the existing model operated by the Juvenile Justice Authority.

“Brownback is doing what I call damage control because of a very controversial Cabinet appointment,” Hensley said.

…Footnote “HHS Organization in its own words and pictures”

Anyone could click through HHS.gov “About” page; these images may help visualize it some.  I’ve done this before on the blog, but these snapshots were taken in January, 2020…unless otherwise captioned (which the first few are:  2017; I seem to have been taking these images for a March 6, 2017, post “Understand Statewide CADV Funding“.(short-link ending “-62M”) .. which you should!  The post dealt with HHS distribution for abuse-prevention organizations, generally viewed as helping women (and children); however, the amounts donated separately under the OASH’s Office of Minority Health to a single (Ohio) university outweighed them.)  That full title, copied from the post, is:

Understand Statewide “CADV” Funding (CFDAs 93591, 93592, 93671, and 93136 grants to Statewide Orgs) But Also Check Out “Family and Community Violence Prevention” (93910) in all its Male/Minority-focused Wealth — Over $99M to One Recipient under ONE Principal Investigator, Spanning 10 years — and Glory   This post reviews them, and who’s been getting them.

(Previous image I see was taken March 16, 2017.  Hasn’t changed much since.)

Image details a topic I was writing on about March 2017; see annotations above. the “OpDivs” and Program Offices under them are good to be aware of by name.//LGH Jan. 2020

---

[Image dated March 6, 2017, probably previously posted on this blog] [Note “REGIONAL HEALTH ADMINISTRATIONS | REGIONS I-X” and that this chart is under the OASH (Office of Assistant Secretary for Health)]](no attached pdf this is so easy to find on main HHS.gov website) under OASH, showing (partial image) Office of Minority (and Women’s, next to it) Health. There are more offices not shown in the image.

---