Mukti Australia Inc.: mini charity review for donors

This review, published on 5 December, has been temporarily withdrawn.  MA told me today (7 December) that when they sent their comments, some ‘for publication’ and others for me, their hope was that we would continue our discussion before the review was published.  Having now been told of that wish, I have reopened the discussion, and I expect to be able to republish the review within the next week.

International Teams Ministries Australia Incorporated: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of International Teams Ministries Australia Incorporated (IT) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is IT registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • Not to be confused with the International Teams Ministries Australia Incorporated as the operator of a PBI. This charity was automatically created by the ACNC to recognise IT’s deductible gift recipient International Teams Australia Sydney Refugee Team.
      • Since IT has not taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions, the second charity must submit its own AIS.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a NSW incorporated association (Y2915020).
    • IT operates in Queensland as well as its home state of NSW. It also has an invitation to give on the internet.
      • It does not have the registration necessary, an ARBN, to operate interstate.
      • It has a fundraising licence only in NSW. Six other states, including Queensland, have a licensing regime[1].
    • The name Sydney Refugee Team – on Facebook for instance – is not registered.

What does IT do?

Does IT share the Gospel?

  • Via some of its missionaries, no doubt.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.

What does IT spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • There is insufficient disclosure to make this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No
    • But the ‘Give’ section on the website incorporates the tax-deductible fund International Teams Australia Sydney Refugee Team (see ‘Is IT registered?’, above).

Is IT’s online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (two weeks before the deadline, five and a half months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now 11 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • The financial information should be for IT only, not the group.
    • No outcomes are given.
    • A business name is missing.
    • The wrong type of financial statements is given.
    • ‘Employee expenses’ only includes wages.
    • Why aren’t missionaries counted as employees?
    • ‘Donations and bequests’ doesn’t match the Income and Expenditure Statement
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • The cover has a subheading ‘Consolidating Sydney Refugee Team’, but this is not explained anywhere.
    • The Report is still missing a statement of cash flows.
    • The statement of changes in equity is titled Income and Expenditure Statement.
    • The Income and Expenditure Statement uses a long out-of-date format, and consequently omits ‘Other Comprehensive Income’.
      • There no Notes. For instance, what is the second largest income item, the unusual ‘Global Services Funding’ ($127K).
      • $68K for two full-time and two part-time employees?
    • In the Detailed Balance Sheet –
      • Why ‘detailed’?
      • ‘Web design and development at cost’ an intangible, is misclassified.
      • The non-current ‘Provision for Web site (sic) upgrade’ is questionable as a liability.
    • The number of Notes has been increased from one to three, but this is still well short of the number required.
      • And the two added this year merely duplicate information in the financial statements.
    • The Report again includes an extra statement, again not marked as being unaudited, and again without explanation.
    • The Statement by Members of the Committee is again undated.
    • The Report is still a ‘special purpose financial report’, but the directors again don’t explain why they thought that normal financial statements are not necessary.
    • The inclusion of a Compilation Report tells us that the accounts were prepared by the auditor (reviewer). This person is again Michelle Glossop, a member of the Institute of Public Accountants, working for Parramatta Accountants & Tax Agents.
      • The Compilation Report is again unsigned.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • A deficit of 1% if income was converted into a surplus of 3%.
  • No obvious concerns with the financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • She concluded that
    • ‘Based on our review, which is not an audit, nothing has come to our attention that causes us to believe that the financial report of International Teams Ministries Australia (sic) does not satisfy the requirements of Division 60 of the Australian Charities and Not-for-Profits Commission Act 2012 including: (a) giving a true and fair view of the registered entity’s financial position as at 31 December 2015 and of its financial performance and cash flow for the year 12 months (sic) ending on that date and (b) complying with Australian Accounting Standards to the extend (sic) described in the notes; (sic) and division 60 of the ACNC Regulation 2013’
    • Re-read the information above on IT’s financial reporting and make up your own mind on the validity of her conclusion.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • No. There is only one director under ‘Responsible Persons’, and there is one business name missing.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • ‘Where Most Needed’
  • ‘Specific Worker’
    • ‘Other Worker’ + 15 individuals/couples (including four in ‘National Office’)
  • ‘Specific Project”
    • ‘OTHER Project’
    • ‘Nea Zoi, Athens’
    • ‘RenovArte Café, Mexico’
    • ‘Rroma-Workers Network’
    • ‘StreetLight, Sydney’
    • ‘Sydney Refugee Team (tax deductible)’
    • ‘Threads of Hope, Athens’

Who are the people controlling IT?

  • The people shown on the website here.
  • It are still only showing one of these people under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register. And it’s still the Public Officer, a person who is not automatically on the board.

To whom are IT accountable?

  • Membership of Missions Interlink claimed on the website, for instance here. Confirmed.
    • Missions Interlink is an organisation that has standards with which IT must comply[2].
  • IT is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Citylife Church Inc: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Citylife Church Inc (CC) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback[1]?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is CC registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • Not to be confused with the other organisations with the same name:
      • Citylife Church Incorporated, a NSW association.
      • Citylife Church (a business name of Northern Suburbs Assembly of God)
      • Citilife Church Inc (not registered as a charity)
    • Or with the one with almost the same name:
      • Citylife Church International Inc, a NSW association.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a Victorian incorporated association (A0026171A).
      • CC doesn’t have CityLife Church registered as a business name, so must use its full name. Maybe including its website and its Facebook page?
    • CC doesn’t have any fundraising licences. It is exempt in the state in which it operates. Whether it requires a licence in the other six states that have a licensing regime depends whether they think that seeking donations on the internet is ‘fundraising’.

What do they do?

  • See under ‘Connect’ and under ‘Grow’ in the main menu on the website.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing found.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • The expenses are not classified to allow this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No
    • But under ‘Give’ in the main menu, both ‘Outreach’ and ‘Building’ options are tax-deductible giving. This is because CC is collecting for another charity.

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned on the first page.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (a little over five months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now eleven months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Almost. No outcomes are given[2].
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • For a very large church (Melbourne’s largest?), one on multiple sites, and with a large welfare ministry, and a large school, the directors’ claim that CC is not a reporting entity is implausible. Although they do not give any reason for this decision, a decision that results in financial statements that do not have to comply with all the Accounting Standards, what they are effectively saying is that CC has no users, past and prospective, who rely on normal financial statements to make decisions.
    • The Financial Report does not give the full picture of the CC operation. CC has three active ministries that are run via separate charities:
    • There is also Open House Christian Fellowship Inc, a Large charity that is, since 2013, being taken over by CC. Isn’t it also controlled by CC?
      • In the current reporting of this relationship, have all the financial consequences have been included?
    • Only the ‘Board of Elders’ (the committee) is mentioned under ‘Related Party Disclosure’.
    • CC discloses a contingent asset of $4.48 m. A contingent asset is one whose existence is in doubt. That’s not the situation here. Aren’t revenue and assets therefore understated by $4.48 m?
    • Kingdom Investments has lent $6.00 m to Waverley Christian College at call.
      • Why are they classified as being due beyond 12 months?
      • As a public ancillary fund, Kingdom Investments can only help deductible gift recipients. Was the loan made to Waverley’s Building Fund?
    • The presentation of income in the Statement of Income and Expenditure and Other Comprehensive Income is confusing and neither complies with the Accounting Standards nor matches what is shown in the Statement of Cash Flows.
      • CC continue to disclose ‘Revenue for General Reserves & KIF’ ($3.00 m) without explanation. It is the source of the revenue, not its destination that needs to be disclosed here.
      • CC continues to use the acronym ‘KIF’ without explanation.
      • ‘Other expenses’ $847K is broken down, but ‘Ministry expenses’ $1.06 m is unexplained.
      • ‘The unusual ‘Expense from General Reserve ($413K) is still unexplained.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • With the understanding that the Report, without the inclusion of the other subsidiaries, only shows half the picture:
    • The $5.94 m received from Open House Christian Fellowship Inc last year was followed up with another $400K this year.
    • Reserves are $3.55 m less than liquid assets.
    • CC keeps at least $340K of the donations for missions unspent.
    • No obvious concerns with the financial structure.
    • ‘Tithes and offerings’ rose from $8.25 m to $8.43 m, perhaps because members of CC are required to tithe [clause 3.1, the constitution].
    • Consider the effect of the other matters mentioned under the last question.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’[4] opinion. But
    • in continuing with the engagement, he again implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements (see above).
    • See ‘Financial Report 2015’ above.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Almost – the trading name is not included.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • ‘General’
    • ‘Tithes’
    • ‘General Offering’
    • ‘Church Building Fund’
    • ‘World Impact (Missions)
      • ‘Partnership in Missions’
      • ‘Other’
    • ‘Other’
  • ‘Nations’
    • ‘Partnership in Missions – Missions Worker’
      • ‘Please specify’ (no drop down menu)
    • ‘Partnership in Missions – Other’
      • ‘Please specify’ (no drop down menu)
  • ‘Outreach’
    • (‘Kingdom Investment Fund’) ‘My gift for where most needed’ (Tax-deductible)
  • ‘Building’
    • ‘The Story Building Project’ (tax-deductible)
      • This is said to be tax-deductible through the Kingdom Investment Fund. The Fund, as a public ancillary fund, can only donate to deductible gift recipients. Who is the eligible recipient?

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but they listed under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register.

To whom are CC accountable?

  • Not mentioned on the website, but a part of CC, its ‘World Impact Dept (sic)’ is a member of Missions Interlink. (It is strange that membership continues to be in this name, the name of an entity that doesn’t even have an ABN.)
    • Missions Interlink is an organisation that has standards with which members must comply[5].
  • Plus CC is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. Of course, accountability and proper governance is vital. Isolated authoritarian leaders cause dysfunction, often leading to abuse and hurt and …”. From a sermon by the Senior Leader of CC.
  2. Plus the trading name, but such names are of no practical effect nowadays.
  3. A third, Citylife Community Initiatives Incorporated, appears to be unrelated to CC.
  4. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  5. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Acc International Missions Ltd: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Acc (sic) International Missions Ltd (ACCIM) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is ACCIM registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
      • Not, as the ABN record still says, an ‘Other Incorporated Entity’.
    • It has the necessary provisions in its constitution to allow it to omit ‘Limited/Ltd’ on the end of its name.
    • ACCIM operates in all seven states that have a fundraising regime, and has an invitation to give on the internet. No fundraising licences are held[1].

What do they do?

  • ACCI Missions is the missionary sending and support agency of the Australian Christian Churches movement.
    • This is on an ‘About’ page on ACCIM’s website (www.accim.org.au) that starts by describing the work of the unregistered charity ‘ACCI’. Further down it identifies ACCI as being composed of ACCIM and another charity, Acc International Relief Inc. (Relief). (Relief also has its own website, www.accir.org.au, a website that does not include information about ACCIM.)
      • The combination of the two ‘Acc International’ organisations has been formalised in a business name for ACCIM, ACCI Missions & Relief. See, for instance the ‘Donate’ page on the ACCIM site.
  • Per the Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015:
    • The principal activities of ACC International Missions Ltd during the financial year were: • To recruit, enable, support and send field workers to Australia and foreign countries to establish self-governing, self supporting and self propagating (sic) churches and preach the Gospel in Australia and other nations around the world; • To provide pastoral support, direction, vision and strategy for field workers as they prepare for ministry and minister overseas; • To work in synergy with local congregations within the Australian Christian Churches movement and assist them to fulfil the Company’s vision; and • To otherwise fulfil and follow the missionary objects of the Australian Christian Churches.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes

What impact are they having?

  • No information found.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • The expenses in the Financial Report are not classified to allow this calculation.
  • If we define ‘direct’ as overseas grants, the AIS 2015 shows that it cost $1.48 m to raise and send $1.83 m.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No
    • Which is contradicted by the information under ‘Donate’. Here ACCIM collects for Relief as well.

Is their online giving secure?

  • If it is, we are not told on the first or second giving pages.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (one day before the deadline, six months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now nearly 11 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Not quite no outcomes are given.
  • Financial Report 2015: Probably. But
    • Despite the website picture of an organisation that combines ACCIM with Relief, there is no mention of Relief as a related party.
      • Does one control the other? Or both are controlled by Australian Christian Churches?
    • ‘Employee benefits expense and other associated costs’ are $431K here but $1.12 m in the AIS 2015.
      • ACCIM has 68 employees (62 full-time and 6 part-time). With Assuming that part-time averages 50% of full-time, even the larger figure for benefits gives only $17K per employee.
    • There is again no explanation for the creation of a provision for missionary repatriation but not for ‘support’ or ‘insurance and medical’.
    • ‘Disbursements to missionaries and projects’ are $2.53 m here compared to $1.83 m for ‘Grants and donations…for use outside Australia’ in the AIS.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Last year’s surplus of 7% of revenue was turned into a deficit of 1%.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion.
    • To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Almost – ACCIM still must select an Entity Subtype.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • Many – via a somewhat confusing set of pages and tiles:
    • The first set of tiles:
      • OneLife Partnership’
        • A form for churches
      • Make a Tax-Deductible Donation’
        • This takes you to Relief’s website. (ACCIM does not have tax-deductible status.)
      • Event Offering’
        • This is an ‘ACCI’ event, i.e. a joint ACCIM and Relief event.
      • Haiti Emergency Appeal’
        • This takes you to Relief’s website.
    • The second set of tiles:
      • Regular Giving’
      • ‘Missionary Support Pledge Form’
      • Support a Missionary’
        • A list of 86 – not 183 as the introduction says – missionaries
        • The list includes Relief workers
        • Make a Single Gift’
        • Current Appeals’
          • This takes you to Relief’s website. (ACCIM does not have tax-deductible status.)

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • The listing under ‘Our Board of Directors’ on the website has only one name in common with the list under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register. (There is a much better match to Relief’s list.)

To whom are AC accountable?

  • Membership of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has standards with which it must comply[2], claimed on the website. Confirmed.
  • ACCIM is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Empart Inc: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Empart Inc (Empart) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback[1]?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is Empart registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a Victorian incorporated association (A0034935L).
    • It is using the name Empart, but this is not registered in Australia.
    • Empart operates in all states.
      • It doesn’t have registration necessary to carry on business interstate (an ARBN).
      • It doesn’t have any fundraising licences[2].

What do they do?

  • Contrary to the impression given by the website (‘What we do’ in the main menu) and their Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015[3], Empart is not itself involved in good works; it is a fundraiser for two (maybe more) Empart organisations in India. (Not Nepal as they continue to report to the ACNC.)

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found. (Nor on the work in India.)
    • An ‘impact report’ comes up twice in a site search using Google (site:empart.org), but both give a 404 error.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • The functional (except for ‘Employee benefits expense’) classification of expenses in the Financial Report does not allow this calculation.
  • However, from the disclosure of ‘Grants and donations made…’ in the AIS 2015, and defining ‘direct’ as 100% of that money[4], we can see that it cost $1.18 m to raise and send $1.03 m to India.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • The ABN register says no.
    • Which is contradicted under ‘What we do/Sustainable solutions’ on the website:
      • Empart has specific projects that qualify for tax deductible giving. These projects all provide ongoing sustainable solutions to long term problems…. For more information please phone the office on 03 9723 9989 or use the Contact menu.
        • The reconciliation is at the bottom of that page:

This means that you will be giving your money to Empower, not Empart.

Is their online giving secure?

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (two months before the deadline, four months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over ten months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • No outcomes are given.
    • The financial statements are again described incorrectly.
    • None of the ‘Gross Income’ figures match the accounts. Nor the ‘Non-current loans’ figure.
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • There is no disclosure of the money sent to India.
      • From my internet research last year, I found the following organisations associated with Empart, and therefore organisations who could be recipients of the money:
      • From the returns lodged with the Indian Government, we can see that Australian donors’ money was received by the last two of these.: CFI Ministries in Chandigarh and CFI Charitable Trust in Orissa.
        • The returns submitted by these two organisations, when combined, show that approximately $770K was received in the year ended 31 March 2014, and $644K in the year ended 31 March 2015. This compares to $1.22 m and $1.04 m recorded by Empart for ‘Grants and donations made…for use outside Australia’. You might ask them why there is such a difference.
        • Whatever the amounts, it is a concern that, per the auditor [his ‘management letter], ‘no formal reconciliations were received from the India office regarding how the monies received were disbursed.’
    • There is no disclosure of related parties. (Arguably on the grounds of a ‘true and fair view’, but if not that, then because the ACNC expects it.)
      • Even though Empart collects donations on behalf of Empower, they share an office, and that five out of Empower’s six directors are directors of Empart, there is no mention of the relationship.
        • It appears that Empart controls Empower, so why no consolidation of the accounts?
      • What is the relationship to the Indian organisations?
    • The Statement by Members of the Committee is again undated.
    • In the Income Statement
      • There is still no disclosure of ‘Other comprehensive income’. (They are using a long out-of-date format.)
      • If the donations collected for Empower are included, revenue is overstated.
      • $758 K ‘Other Income’ in a total of $2.22 m (34%) is too much to be left without explanation.
      • $721K ‘Other Expenses from ordinary activities’ in a total of $2.22 m is too much to be left without explanation.
      • Empart has not restarted depreciation of ‘fixed assets’ after being told that they needed to. Their explanation in Note 1 shows a misunderstanding of the applicable Accounting Standard. The auditor again didn’t agree, but let it pass.
      • Contrary to the Accounting Standards, buildings have never been depreciated.
    • In the Balance Sheet
      • The $829K in ‘Cash Assets’ is modest compared to the amount of cash that is held by the two recipients of the Australian donations in India: $1.81 m. (It was almost double this last year.)
        • With an organisation that is required to model Jesus as Lord and Saviour to the poor and oppressed of India, it would be legitimate for you to ask Empart why they hold this much.
      • The auditor couldn’t check the Fixed Assets figure against the asset register because it was still not up-to-date.
      • Despite the auditor pointing out last year that a valuation of the buildings was at least two years overdue, one was still not performed.
      • The recording of $976K ‘Designated Giving’ as a liability does not match the recognition policy for donations.
      • The repayment terms for the loans are not disclosed. No part is shown as current, implying that no repayments are due within the next year. Yet repayments were made last year.
        • The auditor again noted that the documentation for the Private Loans was still deficient.
    • In the Notes to the Financial Statements
      • Several of the usual ones are missing.
      • The directors again state that the Report is ‘prepared on a cash basis’. The contents of the financial statements do not support this assertion.
      • The directors, with the agreement of the auditor, have elected to prepare special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements. This choice, a choice that means that not all the Accounting Standards have to be followed, is only correct if no user, present or prospective, is dependent on standard financial statements to make decisions. For an organisation that operates all over Australia, had a turnover of $2.22 m, has nine employees, and calls for donations on its website, this is stretching plausibility.
        • The directors do not give a reason for their choice.
    • In the Statement of Cash Flows
      • The non-interest operating cash flows ($2.49 m) are still described incorrectly as being from people to whom credit sales have been made.
      • ‘Amounts written back equity’ is included without explanation.
    • The directors have again included a copy of the audit ‘management letter’. The letter includes the suggestion not to include it.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • The surplus as a percentage of revenue declined from 3% to just over zero%.
    • And the surplus is overstated due to the omission of depreciation on buildings.
  • Current (short-term) assets are only 92% of current liabilities.
    • This negative working capital position was worthy of a comment by the auditor in his ‘management letter’, but by neither the directors nor the auditor in the Financial Report.
    • The calculation assumes that the ‘Loans’ and ‘Private Loans’ totalling $695K are correctly classified as non-current rather than current. But we know from the auditor’s ‘management letter’ that he was unable to check the terms of the ‘Private Loans’.
  • Retained earnings are low.
  • Empart again says that no employee entitlements or other provisions are due beyond 12 months.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’[6] opinion. But
    • in continuing with the engagement, he again implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements (see above).
    • See ‘Financial Report 2015’ above.
    • You might wonder how, with him identifying so many gaps and lax procedures, as disclosed in the ‘management letter’, the auditor could still give a clean audit opinion. Here is one explanation.
    • The amounts paid to the auditor are not disclosed so we can’t check whether he again prepared and reviewed the Financial Report[7].

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Yes

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • ‘General support’
  • ‘Transforming Communities’
  • Transformation Centres’
  • ‘Field Worker’s Support’
  • ‘Field Worker’s Kit’
  • ‘Bike for a Worker’
  • ‘Schools and literacy programs’
  • ‘Women’s ministry’
  • ‘Sewing Centres’
  • ‘Children’s ministry’
  • ‘Children’s Homes’
  • ‘Mercy Homes’
  • ‘Wells’
  • ‘Community Public Toilets’

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but they listed under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register.
  • In having eight (seven last year) Committee members rather than six, Empart is contravening its constitution.

To whom are Empart accountable?

  • Membership of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has standards with which members must comply[8], is claimed. Membership confirmed.
  • Plus Empart is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. ‘About us/Management policy’ on the website: Empart is a non-profit organisation that is committed to maintaining a high level of accountability and transparency.
  2. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  3. Which description is unchanged from last year, right down to, for example, the number of women who have graduated:
    • Indigenous church planters, pastors and leaders are trained to have a holistic approach to ministry by providing social development programs that meet spiritual and practical needs. THE HOW: Establish Education Centres and Schools Education Centres and Schools provide literacy and numeracy programs to disadvantaged children to break the cycle of illiteracy, poverty and despair. Under Indian law it is required that every child under the age of five attend school. In practice, this is impossible to enforce by the government, and many children work to help provide for their families. Currently Empart has six Education Centres and sixteen Schools. The schools range from kindergarten to equivalent Year 10 Vocational Skills Training Program Empart’s vocational skill training is presently centred on the ‘Sew & Sow’ Project. Currently there are 17 training venues, with 801 women having graduated, and a further 216 in training. Empart estimates that further 5,000-7,000 women will graduate over the next 15 years. The program provides a 6-month diploma course where poor women are taught to make traditional Indian clothes as well as embroidery and soft toys. At the end of the course, each woman is presented with a treadle or hand operated sewing machine (locally made) at a graduation service. With the ability to generate an income, these women gain dignity and status in the community, along with the security of knowing that they can provide nourishing food, a good education and (sic).
  4. That is, ignoring the fact that there would some costs of administration after it arrived in India.
  5. Is it this CFI Ministries, this US one operating in India, or some other organisation?
  6. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  7. The independence of the auditor is crucial to donor confidence, so the auditor can only legitimately do this work if two conditions are met: (a) it is ‘routine and mechanical in nature’, and (b) he reduces the self-review threat to an acceptable level [APES 110.290].
  8. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Global Interaction Inc: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Global Interaction Inc (GI) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

When sent a draft of this review, they said that, because I had been unwilling, with my first review, to extend the publication date by two plus months to allow it to be considered at their next board meeting, that “We therefore (sic) unwilling to participate in your “review”

Is GI registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • The directors are also the directors of the charity Service Fellowship International Inc. There is no explanation of this connection.
    • Although not disclosed anywhere, GI is an ‘affiliated body’ of the Baptist Union of Australia. Although, as an affiliate, GI has its own board, the members are appointed by Union organisations. So, it is effectively controlled by the Union.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a South Australian incorporated association (A361).
    • GI’s head office is in Victoria, and it has offices in four other states. It doesn’t have registration necessary to carry on business interstate (an ARBN).
    • GI operates in six of the seven states that have a fundraising licence regime. And seeks donations on the internet. It doesn’t have any fundraising licences[1].
    • It is using the name Global Interaction, but this is not registered in Australia.

What do they do?

  • Generally:
    • Global Interaction partners with Australian Baptists to see growing, vibrant faith communities emerge among least-reached people groups.
  • Specifically:
    • We are committed to serving you and your church by:
      • Sharing expertise to help you develop dynamic and focused mission strategies, locally and globally
      • Providing excellent resources for you to grow in understanding and passion for global mission
      • Creating spaces to explore calling, including: Global Xposure mission exposure experiences, Unearthed young adult networks, Events to engage with cross-cultural staff
      • Providing opportunities to serve among least-reached people groups
      • Equipping, training and supporting cross-cultural workers

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Via their missionaries, yes.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.
    • The last Annual Report on the website is for 2013.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • If we define ‘direct’ as ‘Cross-cultural missions’, then it cost $2.79 m to deliver $2.41 m.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • The ABN register says no.
    • This is contradicted in the ‘Give’ section of the website. In the FAQs it says
      • This depends on which cross-cultural worker or project you support. Contact the cross-cultural worker or Global Interaction for more detailed information.
        • There is no explanation on the website for how this is possible.

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned on the first two pages of the donation process.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (one and a half months before the deadline, four and a half months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over ten months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • No outcomes are given.
    • None of the ‘Expenses/Payments’ figures match the accounts.
  • Financial Report 2015: Questionable
    • The directors, with the agreement of the auditor, have elected to prepare special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements. This choice, a choice that means that not all the Accounting Standards have to be followed, is only correct if no user, present or prospective, is dependent on standard financial statements to make decisions. For an organisation that operates in seven states, collected $3.72 m in donations, had 56 ‘cross-cultural workers’, and calls for donations on its website, this is stretching plausibility.
      • The directors do not give a reason for their choice.
    • ‘Employee expenses’ are $2.95 m in the AIS 2015. This is for 67 employees (AIS 2015). ‘Employee benefits’ are $2.16 m in the Notes, with the explanation ‘Benefits paid to employees in Australia (excluding outback Australia missionaries’). Are there a many non-outback employees in Australia as this? Where are the benefits to those who are outback?
    • If donations continue to be recognised on receipt (Note 1.e), why are cash donations $636K greater than donations revenue?
    • The relationship to Service Fellowship International Inc (SFI) is (still) not disclosed.
      • It was strong enough for GI to forgive a $563K loan to SFI last year.
      • The same directors serve on both boards. Who controls whom, or are both controlled by the same organisation, the Baptist denomination?
        • The question of consolidation is not addressed. In either company’s accounts.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • The deficit as a percentage of revenue was decreased from 26% to 12%.
  • No obvious concerns with the financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion. But
    • in continuing with the engagement, he again implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements (see above).
    • To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Almost – ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • The choices via the tiles
    • ‘Where most needed’
      • ‘Not tax deductible’
      • ‘Tax deductible’
    • ‘Cross-cultural worker’
      • Choice of 56
    • ‘People Group’
      • Choice of nine
    • ‘Project’
      • Choice of 67
  • An extra choice via the menu:
    • ‘Give to the Dare to Believe Appeal’
      • ‘Not tax deductible’
      • ‘Tax deductible’
      • ‘Other’

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • These people shown on the website. And listed under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register.

To whom are GI accountable?

  • The memberships shown here:
    • Christian Management Association’s governance symbol. Now superseded.
    • Missions Interlink, an organisation that has standards with which members must comply[2]. Membership confirmed.
    • Fundraising Institute of Australia (FIA) ‘Organisational Member’. No such membership found.
  • Plus GI is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Morling College Ltd: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Morling College Ltd (MC) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is MC registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • Although not disclosed in the Financial Report, MC is ‘owned’ 100% by the Baptist Union of NSW. It appoints the MC board.
  • There are three other ‘Morling’ charities with the same address and email as MC:
  • MC is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • As it appears to have the necessary provisions in its constitution, MC is entitled to omit ‘Limited/Ltd’ when it uses its company name.
  • Other registrations:
    • MC has an internet invitation to give and operates in NSW. It does not have a fundraising licence there, or in any of the other six states that have a fundraising licence regime[1].

What does MC do?

  • “Morling College is the Baptist Bible & Theological college of NSW & ACT, training pastoral and related ministries in NSW & ACT churches.”

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Not to those who haven’t already heard it.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found on the website.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • The expenses are not classified to allow this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Even though MC’s ‘Entity subtype’ with the ACNC is ‘Advancing Religion, yes, at least per MC’s ABN record, you can.

Is their online giving secure?

  • GiveNow.com.au is used, so yes.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged on the last day, six months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over 10 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • No outcomes are given.
    • The business name is missing.
    • Only one of the ‘Gross Income’ figures match the accounts.
  • Financial Report 2015: No.
    • There is no audit report.
    • There is no explanation why the three charities they control are not consolidated, that is, included in the MC accounts.
    • The $8.48 m grant received from Morling Foundation Limited continues to be misclassified in the Statement of Income and Comprehensive Income.
    • ‘Commitments for Capital Expenditure’ of $7.00 m are disclosed without any comment on how they are to be met.
    • There is no explanation of the $9.86 m asset ‘Construction in Progress’.
    • The accounting for reserves described in the Notes is (still) contrary to the Accounting Standards.
    • The Note on related parties does not identify the relationship between MC and those related parties.
    • $45K ‘Prior year adjustments’ are again included in both accrual and cash reports without explanation.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Working capital (current assets less current liabilities) is 30K negative.
  • The library is not capitalised, that is, all purchases are expensed.
  • No obvious concerns with the longer term financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • (No audit report is included in the Financial Report.)

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Almost – the business name (Morling Vocational College) is missing.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • ‘…Morling Foundation’
  • ‘The Morling Postgraduate Scholarship Fund’ (also the Morling Foundation Ltd)
  • There is no explanation to potential donors for why their money is sought when the Foundation already has $17.06 m of current assets (including $12.49 in ‘Cash and cash equivalents’)

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but listed under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register.

To whom are MC accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website, but they are members of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has a set of standards with which MC must comply.
  • MC is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.

Open Doors Australia Inc.: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Open Doors Australia Inc. (ODA) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is ODA registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a NSW incorporated association (Y0226403).
    • It has the necessary registration to carry on business outside NSW (ARBN 164 482 731).
    • ODA operates in all seven states that have a fundraising licence regime. It is exempt in NSW, but has no licence in the others[1].
    • It is using the name Open Doors, but this is not registered in Australia.

What do they do?

  • No description found.
    • The website is about Open Doors internationally, not ODA.
    • The AIS 2015 is meant to be about the local organisation, but it too appears to be about the international presence.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • If they are a fundraising (including promotion and advocacy) organisation, and I think they are, then no they don’t share the Gospel.

What impact are they having?

  • No information found.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • If we define ‘direct’ as ‘Grants and donations…’ in the AIS 2015, then it cost $2.08 m to deliver $3.20 m.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned on the first two pages of the donation process.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (one day before the deadline, six months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over ten months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Not quite – no outcomes are given.
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • The directors say that ODA is not a reporting entity. But it is implausible that none of ODA’s 9,000 supporters, plus other users, present or prospective, are dependent on normal (general purpose) financial statements to make decisions.
      • The directors still don’t give a reason for their decision.
    • Clearly the bulk of the $5.28 m of expenses didn’t go to serving persecuted Christians in Australia, but nowhere is it disclosed to whom the money was sent.
    • The Income Statement still includes the equity balance and omits ‘Other comprehensive income’.
      • The result of trading in ‘books and tapes’ is still incorrectly shown.
    • Many of the usual Notes are missing.
    • The Balance Sheet shows $1.07 m of ‘commitments’, but these are nowhere described.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • The surplus as a percentage of ‘Support and Revenue’, i.e. income, was increased from 3% to 8%.
  • No obvious concerns with the financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion. But
    • in continuing with the engagement, he again implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements (see above).
    • To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Almost – ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • ‘Make a Donation’
    • ‘Worldwide Ministry – Where most needed’
    • ‘India – Women’s Training Seminars’
    • ‘Iraq Appeal’
    • ‘Blackout – Open Doors Youth’
    • ‘Other (Specify below)’
    • ‘Walk to Water’
  • ‘Gifts of Hope’
  • ‘Web Store’
  • ‘Give Beyond Your Generation’ (bequests)

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but the ACNC Register lists them under ‘Responsible Persons’:
    • Mark Bennett
    • Michael K Gore
    • Robert Guy
    • Darryn Keneally
    • Ken Pridmore
    • Robert Reeve
      • ‘Robert Reeve’ sits on eight (8) charity boards. Other not-for-profits, and of course businesses, are not included on the Register. If these positions are all held by ODA’s Robert Reeve, and if he is a part-time director, you can reasonably ask if he has the time to do justice to all those positions.

To whom are ODA accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website, but ODA is a member of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has standards with which it must comply[2].
  • ODA is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Operation Mobilisation Australia Ltd: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Operation Mobilisation Australia Ltd (OM) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…didn’t respond.

Is OM registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
    • There are two other charities with the same address, phone number, email addresses and directors as OM: Om (sic) Australia Inc, and Om (sic) Overseas Aid Fund. This indicates that OM controls these charities.
      • The first is the trustee of the second[1].
      • OM seeks donations for each of these charities on its website.
      • OM has not taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions.
  • OM is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • As it appears to have the necessary provisions in its constitution, OM is entitled to omit ‘Limited/Ltd’ when it uses its company name.
      • But not the abbreviations ‘OM Australia’ or ‘OM’, as they do on the internet.
  • Other registrations:
    • OM has an internet invitation to give and operates in six of the seven states that have a fundraising licence regime. It doesn’t have a licence to fundraise in any of them.[2]

What does OM do?

  • On the right-hand-side here.
  • Or as the AIS 2015 puts it: ‘Recruiting, training and caring for missionaries.’

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.
    • It appears that the ‘Field Missionaries’ are not employed by OM. ‘Employee benefits expense’ was $1.4 m, an amount that matches the Australian workforce[3]. By whom are they employed then?

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing found on the website.

What do they spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • The expenses are not classified to allow a calculation of how much was incurred on ‘recruiting, training, and caring for missionaries’.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Not to OM.
    • But yes, if you give to one of the two charities that it controls (see above).

Is their online giving secure?

  • PayPal is used, so yes.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged on the last day, six months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over 10 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • No outcomes are given.
    • ‘OM Australia’ is not a registered name.
    • The three business names are missing.
    • The wrong type of financial statements is specified in Section E.
    • The figure for ‘Interest’ does not match the figure in the accounts.
  • Financial Report 2015: No.
    • There is no mention of their two subsidiaries.
    • Current liabilities are four times current assets without comment by the directors or the auditor.
    • Where’s the cost of the missionaries?
    • ‘Other expenses’, that is, unidentified expenses, are 21% of the total.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Remembering that, with the exclusion of their two subsidiaries, the Report shows only half the picture:
    • They increased surplus as a percentage of income from 3% to 4%.
    • Current (short-term) liquid assets cover less than one months’ revenue.
    • Working capital (current assets less current liabilities) is strongly negative.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • Although he gave a ‘clean’ opinion[4] this should be considered in conjunction with the information under ‘Financial Report 2015’, above.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Not quite – the three business names are missing.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • ‘$10 Challenge, Give to Under Supported Staff’
  • ‘Give to Refugee Crisis Appeal’
    • Six choices
  • ‘Give to Other Projects and Appeals’
    • Six projects
  • ‘Give to OM Australia’
    • ‘One-Off’ or Monthly
  • ‘Give to An OM Worker’
    • 90 ‘workers’, including the 20 serving in the Australian head office (see above).

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • The Board are shown here. And under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register.

To whom are OM accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website, but they are members of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has a set of standards with which OM must comply.
  • OM is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. The first is an incorporated association, the second an ‘Other Unincorporated Entity’.
  2. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  3. There are 33 employees declared in the AIS 2015, but only 20 shown under ‘Head Office Team’; presumably the others are in interstate offices.
  4. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

Pioneers of Australia Inc.: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Pioneers of Australia Inc. (PoA) as an organisation that seeks donations online. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(To see the situation last year, read this review.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they…did not respond.

Is PoA registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • You would not know it from their entry in the ACNC Register, nor from their accounts, but the people who run PoA also run at least another four charities, all with the same directors, the same office, and the same email addresses:
      • Pioneers Ministries Foundation (PMF). The website linked in the introduction (above) combines, almost seamlessly, the operations of both PoA and PMF. (There are only three references to PMF.)
      • Action Partners Inc.
        • There are only three references to this charity on the website, all in accounts of the history of ‘Pioneers’.
      • Asia Pacific Christian Mission (Png) (sic) Inc
        • Four references only, three in historical accounts.
      • South Pacific Partners Inc
        • Only one reference, history.
      • You would have to read the privacy statement on the website for an explanation. This confirms the connection between PoA and PMF, and adds other unspecified entities to the mix:
        • “Pioneers” refers to Pioneers of Australia Inc, Pioneers Ministries Foundation and other entities of the Pioneers consortium.
          • ‘Consortium’ is not a grouping recognised by the charity regulator. It allows group reporting, but PoA has not taken advantage of this. (Nor, if the relationship is the other way around, has PMF.)
      • PoA doesn’t consolidate, that is incorporate the transactions of the others in its accounts. These other entities are not even mentioned in its Financial Report (see below).
        • Nor do these entities mention PoA.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a Victorian incorporated association (A0035283T).
    • Neither of the names that it uses on the internet, Pioneers Australia and Pioneers of Australia, are registered.
    • It has the registration necessary to operate outside its home state (ARBN 080211730).
    • PoA operates in all seven states that have a fundraising regime, and has an invitation to give on the internet. But it has no fundraising licences[1].

What does PoA do?

  • Their Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015 says that they ‘Employ, train and facilitate workers in Australia and overseas’.
    • ‘Workers’ should be seen in the context of the mission statement on the website:
      • Pioneers mobilises teams to glorify God amongst unreached peoples by initiating church planting movements in partnership with local churches.” The terms used here are defined on the same page.
    • At the time of the AIS 2015 they had 25 employees, and since there are 28 employees in the Australian team now, and PMF said it didn’t have any, this implies that somebody else is employing the people who are working overseas.

Does PoA share the Gospel?

  • No

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.

What does PoA spend outside the costs directly incurred in delivering the above impact, that is, on administration?

  • If we define ‘direct’ as ‘Employment & ministry’ plus ‘Mobilisation’, then the figure is 29%.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is PoA’s online giving secure?

  • NA. (Although there is an online giving facility on the website, it appears from the breakup of their revenue in the accounts (Note 3), that none of the money given online goes to PoA.)

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (on the second last day, seven months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over 16 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Not quite
    • ‘Other Income’ doesn’t match the accounts.
    • No outcomes are given.
  • Financial Report 2015: Questionable
    • There’s no mention of PMF and the other three charities, so if PoA controls them, then, no, it doesn’t comply.
    • Even if control is by one of these other four charities, the relationship should be disclosed:
    • $1.04 m ‘Employee expenses’ (25+ employees) but zero non-current assets without explanation.
    • 98% of revenue are ‘grants’. There is no explanation of this item, counter-intuitive for a Christian charity that is ‘advancing religion’.
    • There is no explanation for the non-standard item ‘Employment & Ministry’ (67% of expenses).
    • $152K in the unexplained ‘PI levy’.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • There was a surplus of a little above zero again this year.
  • There are no non-current assets.
  • There is minimal equity.
  • All this suggests that part of the financial picture is missing.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[2].
    • Re-read the information above on PoA’s financial reporting and make up your own mind on the validity of this.

If a charity, is their information on the ACNC Register complete?

  • Not quite – ‘Phone’, ‘Website’ are blank.

What choices do you have in how your donation is used?

  • NA. (Although there is an online giving facility on the website, it appears from the breakup of their revenue in the accounts (Note 3), that none of the money given online goes to PoA.)
  • If you are happy to donate to the unregistered ‘consortium’, these are your options:
    • ‘Fiji Cyclone Recovery Fund’
    • ‘Give to a Global Project’
      • ‘Aid & Relief Projects’
        • 10 projects with Pioneers Ministries Foundation
      • ‘Special Funding’
        • ‘Unexpected needs’
        • ‘The cost of preparing to go overseas’
        • ‘Customised giving to a particular ministry’
      • ‘Ministry Projects’
    • ‘Give to a Pioneer Worker’

Who are the people controlling PoA?

  • Not shown on the website, but listed under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register:
    • Graham Conway
    • Ian Fryer
    • Malcolm Gill
    • James Gow
    • Jessica Grozsek
    • Patrick Lok
    • Timothy Macready
    • Timothy Myers
    • Timothy Silberman
    • Judith Simcoe-Fitzmaurice

To whom are PoA accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website, but PoA is a member of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has standards with which it must comply[3].
  • PoA is also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  3. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.