P4T Inc: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of P4T Inc (P4T) as an organisation that seeks donations[1]. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(For the situation last year, read the review here.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they responded by email:
    • ‘Thank you for your email. You will note we have made significant progress since we last corresponded, P4T Inc now having gained PBI status from the ACNC and DGR from the ATO. I make the following comments in relation to your draft report…
    • I responded but heard nothing more.
    • Both their comments and my responses have been included below.

Is P4T registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a Victorian incorporated association (A0055403B).
    • P4T operates – according to the ACNC Register – in all states except the ACT. It is registered only in Victoria[2].
    • If it’s ‘carrying on business’ outside Victoria, as it appears to be, then it doesn’t have the required registration (an ARBN).
      • Ministry response: ‘In regards to not having an ARBN, we take the view that P4T does not “carry on a business” outside Victoria. We do however, partner with Churches, organisations and people of goodwill across Australia whose values align with ours in that we want to see justice brought to the world by eradication of human trafficking. We choose to obtain fundraising licences in states where Pingpongathon events take place to err on the side of conservatism.’
        • Reviewer comment: P4T is principally in the business of raising money via the Pingpongathon.  These events occur outside Victoria.  Only if you say that these are not your events – and your website (and your practice of obtaining fundraising licences) certainly gives the impression that they are run in your name and controlled by you – would a reasonable person say that you are not ‘operating’ outside Victoria.  Especially as you declare on the ACNC Register that you operate interstate.
    • A Google search shows that P4T also uses the name ‘Partners for Transformation’. It is not a registered business name.

What do they do?

  • From the AIS 2015:
    • P4T undertook a range of training activities in the Community Development (sic) space. It also again ran the Pingpongathon to raise awareness about Human (sic) trafficking and funds to assist in the fight against the impact of human trafficking.
      • This is almost identical to what was said in the AIS 2014.
      • There is no mention of training on the website.
  • From ‘About’ on the website:
    • The Pong is a dynamic and fun twenty-four hour table tennis event that runs in venues across Australia every October. Participants sign up to play for a minimum of three hours of table tennis at their venue of choice and invite their family/friends to sponsor their efforts….In 2015, The Pong became a truly national event with venues in all Australian states. 1,500 participants at 41 venues raised $203,000.
      Venues included churches, schools, sporting clubs, open air community spaces & a local pub!
      While keeping the original vision of the Pong strong (engaging the hearts of boys and men as advocates on issues of trafficking and exploitation), The Pong opened up to the direct participation of girls and women for the first time.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

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?

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned on the page where you enter your information (the second page)

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged 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 10 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Not quite. No outcomes are given.
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • Ministry response: ‘I’m not sure on what basis you make the assertion that “it is highly questionable that P4T would agree to provide a financial report tailored to your needs if you asked them for one”.  Most of our donors are either:  a. very small (donating amounts from $1 to $500 through having relationship with people participating in the Pingpongathon, who would not rely on our financial statements to make their donation), or  b. where we have a strong relationship, in which cases we provide whatever financial accountability that is required by that relationship.’
      • Reviewer response: The Accounting Standards are the basis for my comment.
    • Neither the Statement of Financial Performance nor the Movements in Equity financial statements comply with the Accounting Standards.
      • Ministry response: ‘Your interpretation of the Profit and Loss statement ignores the transfers to reserves. As our fundraising activities are held in the Sept to Nov period, some funds are carried over at Balance date in the reserves for both our beneficiary organisations, and as working capital to fund next year’s Pingpongathon costs through until the following September when the next round of fundraising events are held. The Net profit after transfers to reserves represents a better measure of what we are holding back…which is very little.’
        • Reviewer comment: My interpretation is based on the Accounting Standards.
    • The Notes of (sic) the Financial Statements are missing many Notes.
    • It is highly questionable that P4T would agree to provide a financial report tailored to your needs if you asked them for one.
    • The directors’ belief that P4T is not a reporting entity is therefore open to serious challenge.
      • Ministry response: ‘Since donor engagement is relational, we are of the view that Special Purpose reports are appropriate and cost effective for the size and nature of our organisation.’
        • Reviewer comment: ‘Relational donor engagement’ – unless you mean the willingness to provide tailored financial information – is not the criterion for special purpose reports. (Nor is cost effectiveness.)
    • There is no mention of related parties (an ACNC expectation).
    • The directors (again) don’t describe the financial reporting framework they have used, that is, how they chose the accounting policies.
      • Ministry response: Having turnover less than $250,000, P4T is not required to lodge its financial statements with the ACNC. The fact that we do so voluntarily is an indicator that we wish to be transparent with potential donors.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Last year’s surplus, already healthy at 16% of income, was increased to 26%.
  • No obvious concerns with the financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion. To take the right amount of comfort for this finding, please read here and here. But
    • In accepting the engagement, he has implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose statements.
    • He has omitted one of the financial statements from the scope of his audit (and referred to two others by the wrong name).
    • See the points above under ‘Financial Report 2015’.

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

  • Yes

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

  • An unspecified number of ‘fundraisers’.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but you can see who they have listed with the ACNC under ‘Responsible Persons’ here.
    • They are one short compared to what is required by their constitution.
      • Ministry response: [This] ‘is inaccurate. The constitution states the Association must have at least 5 members. Those 5 are listed as responsible persons with the ACNC.’
        • Reviewer comment: ‘The Constitution states that “Subject to section 23 of the Act, the committee shall consist of (a) the officers of the Association; and (b) two ordinary members.’ The previous section says that there are four ‘officers’.

To whom are P4T accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website (or in the Financial Report), but P4T is a member of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has a general accountability regime[3].
  • They are also accountable to the ACNC.

 

 

 

  1. Plus this request was sent in June 2015.
  2. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  3. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Australian Indigenous Ministries Inc.: mini charity review for donors

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

(For the situation last year, read the review here.)

Is AIM registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a NSW incorporated association (INC9882776).
    • AIM operates – according to the ACNC Register – in three states. It is not registered to fundraise in the two that have a licensing regime. Nor in the other five[1].
    • If it’s ‘carrying on business’ outside NSW, as it appears to be, then it doesn’t have the required registration (an ARBN).

What do they do?

  • See the website here (generally), and here (more specifically).

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.

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

  • No Financial Report has been lodged on the ACNC Register.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • No online giving is offered.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • According to the information on the ACNC Register, yes. But that’s because they say that they are a Small charity, and Small charities don’t have to lodge a Financial Report.
    • But last year they were over the limit ($250K) for this classification, so maybe they are again this year?

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • No outcomes are given.
    • They said that they were a Basic Religious Charity, and thus not required to include any financial information. But they don’t qualify.
  • Financial Report 2015: If they are indeed a Small charity, yes.
    • No Report was lodged (see two questions above).
    • AIM have to produce audited financial statements, both under their constitution and as members of Missions Interlink (see the final question below), so feel free to ask them for a copy.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • NA

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • NA

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

  • No
    • ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank.
    • Unless they are in contravention of their constitution, then there are at least another seven names that should be under ‘Responsible Persons’.
    • By the name of the ‘Governing document’ (under ‘Charity’s Document’), AIM Field Practice 022015’, you would think that they had not lodged their constitution. However it’s in that document (pages 3 to 15).

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

  • None given.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, and it is highly likely that the two people on the ACNC Register, under ‘Responsible Persons’ here, are not the complete committee.

To whom are AIM accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website, but they are members of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has a general accountability regime[2].
  • They are also accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

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

 

 

  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.

SIM Australia: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of SIM Australia (SIM) 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.)

Is SIM registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • SIM controls another charity, SIMaid Trust, that is also registered as a charity. The Trust’s figures are included with those of SIM in its Financial Report (see below)[1].
    • SIM also consolidates two other organisation, International Christian Fellowship and Africa Evangelical Fellowship[2].
  • Other registrations:
    • As a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
      • It is permitted to omit ‘Ltd/Limited’ from its name.
    • According to their ABN record, not registered for GST. There’s GST in the accounts, so must be a mistake.
    • SIM has a licence to fundraise in all seven states that have a licensing regime.

What do they do?

  • See their website, here.
  • More succinctly, in the Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015 on the ACNC Register:
    • SIM Australia has been empowered by God to facilitate people, prayer and funds for Christ’s global mission. Praise God that in 2015, 196 SIM Australia missionaries and associates partnered with national believers and churches to share Christ’s love in 30 countries.
      • Comparing what they said in their AIS 2014, it appears missionaries increased by 77 – or does the 196 include inactive missionaries? – but without an increase in countries.
      • They also have members, associates and teams. See the AIS 2014 for last year’s figures.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic under either ‘impact’ or ‘outcomes’ found on the website.

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

  • If we define ‘direct’ as all the costs to do with the missionaries, plus ‘Project Expenses’, the figure is 19% of expenses.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No
  • But you can if you give for one of the development projects run by SIMaid Trust.
  • SIM also promotes giving via Steer Incorporated.

Is their online giving secure?

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged on the last day allowed, 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 12 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No.
    • The financial information is for the group, not SIM.
    • ‘Employee expenses’ do not include missionaries.
    • No outcomes are given.
  • Financial Report 2015: It contains all the required statements and reports, but
    • Despite the title, the Statement of Comprehensive Income is again missing the comprehensive income section.
    • Most of the other issues raised last year remain.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • They increased the surplus as a percentage of income from less than 1% to 6%.
  • ‘Cash’ and ‘Financial Assets’ represent 12 months’ revenue.
  • No obvious issues with either short-term or long-term financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[3].

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

  • Yes

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

  • ‘Missionaries’ – 196 according to the AIS 2015
    • If you give to a missionary this way, does that go to the missionary, or to SIM who then pays the missionary a set amount?
  • ‘Projects’ – six (four of which are tax deductible)
  • ‘Where Most Needed’
  • ‘Heaven Sent Gifts’ – 16 gifts

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • According to the website, these people. According to the list on the ACNC Register though, under ‘Responsible Persons’, also Robert Cole (although as the Secretary, that’s probably incorrect).

To whom are SIM accountable?

  • Compliance with the standards of Missions Interlink[4] is claimed. Membership confirmed.
  • AEFS is also accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they sent this response:
    • Thank you for sending through your updated review. The review was very helpful in identifying several aspects of our reporting which we agree need to be addressed. We are making appropriate changes. I would also want to reassure you that SIM strives to be completely transparent and positive in our response to feedback. As always we encourage existing and potential prayer and financial supporters of SIM projects and missionaries to direct any concerns, complaints or questions to the National Director.

 

 

  1. SIM has not taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions. This means that its subsidiary must lodge accounts, something that it hasn’t done.
  2. Said to be dormant, no explanation is given why they remain registered 27 and 18 years after being taken over.
  3. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  4. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Australian Fellowship of Evangelical Students (AFES) 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.)

Is AFES registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
      • It is permitted to omit ‘Ltd/Limited’ from its name.
    • AFES operates (according to the ACNC Register) in all eight states. From their statement in the Financial Report 2015 (see below) that the figures for ‘areas’ are included in the figures for AFES, it is reasonable to conclude that AFES raises funds in most, if not all, states. It also has an internet invitation to donate. While it has a fundraising licence in NSW, it doesn’t have one in the other six states that have a licensing regime[1].

What do they do?

  • See their website, here.
  • More succinctly, in the Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015 on the ACNC Register:
    • Teaching university students about the bible and training them to do this with other students.
      • This is the same as last year, so not helpful as a description of 2015’s activities.
      • The contents of the Annual Campus Report, required of all ‘Student Presidents’, gives a good idea of the activities of AEFS on campus:
        • How many main meetings do you run per week?
        • Average number attending main meetings per week (total)
        • How many small groups do you run per week?
        • Average small group size
        • Average number attending small groups per week (total)
        • How many from your campus went to NTE [National Training Event] last year?
        • NTE Mission last December: Church attended/No. in team/What did you do on mission
        • Conferences/camps – give details of events your group ran/attended last year

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing under either ‘impact’ or ‘outcomes’ found on the website. (Or in the ‘Annual Report’, i.e. the Financial Report 2015.)
  • Other things being equal, how do you choose between, for instance, The Australia Navigators Ltd and AEFS?

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

  • There is insufficient disclosure to calculate the split between the direct cost of the workers in the universities (the ‘mission’), and the other costs.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • They use BPOINT, the Commonwealth Bank’s secure payment gateway, so yes.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (the AIS was lodged five months after their year-end, the Financial Report one and a half months later, a little late).
    • 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 12 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Almost. No outcomes are given.
  • Financial Report 2015: It contains all the required statements and reports, but
    • The Statement of Comprehensive Income, has ‘comprehensive’ in the title but the comprehensive income section is (again) omitted.
    • The Statement of Changes in Equity is (again) incorrectly titled as a mixture of income and equity.
    • The Statement of Cash Flows (again) has classifications that are not consistent with the Accounting Standards.
    • (Again) there is no explanation of the relationship between the two trust funds in Note 14 and AEFS.
    • Most of the issues in the What’s left at the end of the year… and What was earned… sections in last year’s review remain.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • They doubled the surplus as a percentage of income, from 4% to 8%.
  • Cash and cash equivalents and financial assets represent approximately seven months of revenue.
  • No obvious issues with either short-term or long-term financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[3].

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

  • Yes

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

  • An unspecified number of campuses and ‘staff workers’.
    • The universities at which AEFS are represented are listed here (native English speakers), and here (non-native speakers).

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but you can see the current list on the ACNC Register under ‘Responsible Persons’.

To whom are AEFS accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website (or in the Financial Report), but they are members of Missions Interlink[4].
  • AEFS is also accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

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

 

 

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward – for instance, is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. The directors have said that this is a Basic Religious Charity; I would question whether it meets the criterion of not being able to be registered under any other Entity Subtype than ‘Advancing Religion’. The classification means that no financial information need be provided to the ACNC.
  3. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  4. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Tahlee Ministries Inc: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Tahlee Ministries Inc (TM) as an organisation that depends on the public for funds. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(Last year the Missions Interlink membership was in the name Tahlee Bible College, a business name of TM. Here’s last year’s review of that charity.)

Is TM registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • TM has another ABN in its name. That TM is not a charity though.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a NSW incorporated association (Y2385120).
    • TM operates – according to the ACNC Register – only in Queensland. It therefore does not need an ARBN registration to carry on business interstate.
    • The NSW Act governing fundraising does not apply to TM.[1]
      • And it would only have to register in the other six states that have a licensing regime if they held that the invitation to give on the internet was ‘fundraising’.
    • There are two other charities operating from the same address and with the same Responsible Persons as TM:
      • Tahlee Bible College
        • This is an unincorporated entity.
        • TM’s constitution defines the College as ‘the trading name for training and education programmes of the organisation’.
        • The Business Names Register says that this name is owned by TM. However, neither of TM’s ABN records show this.
        • The College was seven months late in submitting its AIS 2014 last year, and is now nearly four months late in submitting its AIS 2015.
      • Port Stephens College
        • This is an unincorporated entity.
        • The Business Names Register says that this name is owned by TM. However, neither of TM’s ABN records show this.
        • The College was seven months late in submitting its AIS 2014 last year, and is now nearly four months late in submitting its AIS 2015.
    • There are also two TM charities that have had their registration revoked by the ACNC:

What do they do?

  • See their website, here.
  • What they actually did in 2015 is not available because they have not submitted their AIS 2015 yet.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found in a search of the website on ‘impact’ or ‘outcomes’.

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

  • The Financial Report 2015, for the year ended 31 December 2015, has not yet been lodged.
    • Even if we wanted to use the financial statements for the previous year, this would not be possible because the ones for the year before that have been lodged instead.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No.
    • You can, however, get one for a donation to either of the two funds that belong to Tahlee Bible College.

Is their online giving secure?

  • NA.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • No. Nearly four and a half months overdue.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Nothing has been lodged since 3 February 2016, and that financial report was for the year ended 31 December 2013.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • No Report yet.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • No audit report yet.

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

  • No. Reporting is well overdue, and, at least according to the ACNC, so is the selection of an Entity Subtype.

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

  • No online giving facility, but presumably you could choose from at least these areas:
    • …we are dependent on the Lord for the provision of our needs. This includes providing for all the Tahlee staff members, the continuing maintenance of the property and the day-to-day operating expenses. We are thankful for every financial support that God brings to us through His people.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • They are not mentioned on the website, but you can see them on the ACNC Register.

To whom are TM accountable?

  • Not claimed on the website, but they are a member of Missions Interlink.
    • One of the directors of TM (and the other two TM charities), John Anderson, is part of the National Leadership Team and on the board of Missions Interlink (Australian Evangelical Alliance).
  • As a registered charity, they are accountable to the ACNC.

Are TM responsive to feedback?

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

 

 

  1. Because it is a prescribed organization by regulation. (Excludes section 48)

Far East Broadcasting Co (Australia): mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Far East Broadcasting Co (Australia) (FEBC) 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.)

Is FEBC registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • Although FEBC has produced financial statements that include one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, FEBC Overseas Fund, it has not taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions[1].
  • Other registrations:
    • As a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
      • It is permitted to omit ‘Ltd/Limited’ from its name.
      • FEBC is a fundraising vehicle that operates (according to the ACNC Register) in all eight states. It also has an internet invitation to donate. Seven states have a fundraising licensing regime. It is exempt in NSW, but has a fundraising licence in only three of the other six[2].

What do they do?

  • ‘What we do’ on the website is not about FEBC, but the international FEBC organisation generally. For what they did in Australia in 2015, see the AIS 2015:
    • In the last financial year, FEBC Australia office (sic) has worked hard to effectively communicate needs, relay stories, share prayer points and write up project submissions to raise financial support for overseas projects… (The remainder of their description is about the worldwide FEBC ministry rather than Australian activities.)
  • FEBC is an organisation that promotes prayer and raises money ‘to support the [FEBC] work overseas’.[3]

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

What impact are they having?

  • Contrary to the description of their largest expense, ‘International Programs’, FEBC is not directly involved in any projects – it merely collects money for others.

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

  • The cost of raising and sending the money is 23% of expenses.
    • It would be reasonable to ask them why it would not be more efficient for you to send your money direct to wherever FEBC sends it.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No, not to FEBC.
  • But you can if you give to the charity that it controls, FEBC Overseas Fund.
    • It currently has one project (see What choices do you have…), below.
    • The trustee is a company controlled by FEBC, FEBC Custodian Limited. How FEBC is receiving donations for a fund for which it is not the trustee, and where the trustee is not included in the consolidated accounts, is not explained anywhere.

Is their online giving secure?

  • They have the ‘Norton secured’ seal, so yes.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged 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 over 12 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • Much of what is under ‘activities’ is about the FEBC organisation overseas.
    • No outcomes.
    • ‘Grants and donations…’ shown as $127K instead of $1.31 m.
    • There is no evidence in the Financial Report that FEBC operated overseas, or sent money to the 23 countries are listed under ‘Operates in (Countries)’.
  • Financial Report 2015: Doubtful
    • There are more than 4000 recipients of the monthly newsletter, all over Australia, and this and other efforts generates more than $1.63 m in donations. The directors, via their decision, once again, to produce the type of financial statements that do not have to comply fully with the Accounting Standards (special purpose statements), are effectively saying that any of FEBC’s stakeholders, including the newsletter recipients, are able to command the preparation of a financial report tailored to their needs.
    • No explanation is given for including both a Statement of Financial Performance and an Income Statement.
      • Only one can be part of the financial statements that are subject to the Accounting Standards, yet both have been audited, and neither comply.
    • Directors’ Declaration
      • FEBC is exempt from the NSW Charitable Fundraising Act 1991. Why then do the directors declare that ‘The provisions of the NSW Charitable Fundraising Act have been complied with’?
    • Statement of Financial Performance
      • The sub-heading ‘Accumulated Funds’ does not make sense.
      • ‘Other expenses…’ comprise 84% of the expenses but there is no explanatory Note.
      • The part of your donations that was sent overseas for beneficiaries is not shown.
      • There is no Other Comprehensive Income section.
    • Balance Sheet
      • Only one of the changes in the designated funds is included in the equity section of the Balance Sheet.
      • The equity balance in the Balance Sheet doesn’t match the balance that in the Statement of Changes in Equity.
      • How was the liability ‘Interest Free Loan’ repaid without the movement of cash?
      • Why are ‘field staff’ not included as employees?
      • The treatment of ‘Financial Assets’ is not compliant with the Accounting Standards.
      • ‘Land and Buildings’ consist of two properties in Caringbah.
        • How was the combined cost only $93K?
        • Should one be classified as investment property?
    • Statement of Cash Flows
      • The Change in the Fair Value of Financial Assetsin the Statement of Cash Flows doesn’t match what’s shown in the Balance Sheet.
    • Notes to the Financial Statements
      • There is no explanation of the choice of a ‘special purpose financial report’ as opposed to the type that the stakeholders need in order to make their decisions.
      • Compliance with the ACNC Act is not the only reason to produce financial statements; they are also required by the FEBC constitution.
      • It is not the ACNC Act that requires the financial statements to be distributed to the members.
      • As a not-for-profit entity, is FEBC really compliant with International Reporting Standards?
    • Income Statement
      • 77% of the expenses was for ‘International Programs’.
        • Where the money was sent is not disclosed. (Note 18 says that FBC ‘remits those funds to colleges’, but this doesn’t seem right.)
      • The expenses ‘Community Education’ and ‘Fundraising Costs’ are not defined. The definition of the former in the Annual Report refers to some costs that could easily be called fundraising costs.
      • A note says that ‘Direct and indirect costs have been allocated using an activity based absorption costing approach.’, but no explanation of this approach is given.
      • The Annual Report (page 13) says that their ‘activity based absorption costing approach’ includes ‘Showing details of FEBC Australia’s international programs either by program or by country’. These details are not in the Financial Report.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Last year’s deficit of 7% of revenue was reduced to 1%.
  • FEBC hold over a year’s worth of revenue in ‘Cash’ and ‘Financial Assets’.
  • Financial structure, both short and long-term, appears sound.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[4]. However,
    • in accepting the engagement, he implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose rather than general purpose financial statements (see above),
    • he has not identified the financial reporting framework used, including the type of financial statements (see above),
    • he includes compliance with the Charitable Fundraising Act in his opinion when FEBC is exempt from that Act, and
    • he has not included one of the obligatory paragraphs

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

  • Almost. ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank. And did FEBC operate in all 23 countries listed under ‘Operates in (Countries)?

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

  • Quite a few, presented a little confusingly on the website.
  • Under the ‘Donate’ button in the main menu, there, is other than being able to write in the name of a tax deductible project, only one.
    • A search of the site results in only one tax deductible project.
      • This is a project run by Global Development Group (GDP).
        • GDP is not a Christian organisation, and would not be allowed to share the Gospel via such projects anyway. How then can this project meet the objects of FEBC: ‘To be a distinctively Christian organisation, communicating the love and knowledge of God for all people…’?
  • But to ‘donate’ is not the only way to give. Under ‘Get involved’/ ‘Ways to Give’ in the main menu, there are, in addition to the Donate button again, these three options:
    • ‘Give a radio’
    • ‘Give to a project’
      • Seven projects (on of which is a radio, which is also a gift (see below), and a separate option (see above)
    • ‘Give a gift’
      • Nine options
      • These are also available under ‘Get involved’/’Gift catalogue’.
  • The Annual Report mentions two other categories that are not offered on the website:
    • ‘Where most needed’ (page 7), and
    • ‘Field Staff Support’ (page 11) that doesn’t appear on the website.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but you can see the current list on the ACNC Register under ‘Responsible Persons’.

To whom are FEBC accountable?

  • They’ve got the FIA ‘Organisational member’ seal, the logo of ‘FEBC International’, and the logo of Global Development Group towards the bottom here, but not Missions Interlink.
    • But they do claim such a membership, confirmed here[5], in the Financial Report:
      • FEBC is a member of Missions Interlink and complies with the Financial Standards set out in the MI Standards Statement.’
    • The ‘FIA’ is Fundraising Institute Australia. Members must comply with its fundraising standards. FIA membership confirmed.
    • FEBC International is ‘an interdenominational radio network ministry, which brings the love of God to the world by broadcasting the gospel of Jesus Christ.’[6] Organisationally it is also a company in Singapore that provides services to the national organisations, including FEBC. There doesn’t appear to be any accountability involved.
    • Global Development Group is a charity, an “Australian-founded non-government overseas humanitarian development organisation”. FEBC is not accountable to it.
  • FEBC is also accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

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

 

 

  1. There is also FEBC Custodian Limited, the trustee of the Overseas Fund. No reason is given for excluding this subsidiary from the accounts.
  2. The law in this area is not straightforward – for instance, is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  3. FEBC Annual Report 2014-15, page 3.
  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.
  6. FEBC Annual Report 2014-15, page 3.

Barnabas Fund (Australia) Limited: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Barnabas Fund (Australia) Limited (BFA) 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.)

Is BFA registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
      • It does not have the necessary provisions in its constitution to allow it to omit ‘Ltd/Limited’ from its name.
      • BFA is a fundraising vehicle that has offices in three states (see the next question) and also operates (according to the ACNC Register) in the other five. It also has an internet invitation to donate. However, it does not have a fundraising licence in any of the seven states that have a fundraising licensing regime[1].

What do they do?

  • ‘What we do’ on the website is not about Australia, but the international organisation generally. For what they did in Australia in 2015, see the AIS 2015:
    • Barnabas Fund Australia continues to raise funds from its Australian supporters (Churches, individuals, businesses) to assist fellow brothers and sisters in Christ who have been persecuted for their faith. Funds raised in Australia anr (sic) sent to the Barnabas Aid International Uk (sic) office where it is held and finally distributed to projects around the world, primarily to countries that are mainly Islamic. Barnabas Fund Australia has an office in QLD that employs 4 staff and occasiobaly (sic) casual staff to process donations, send out thank you letters. We also have a NSW office that employs 1 person and a couple of casuals. We also have a WA employee who runs a home office.Our bi monthly(sic) magazine is printed in Brisbane and sent to our supporters around Australia (over 32,000). Petitions are sometimes produced to promote a country that is in desperate need and these are signed by supporters and other individuals.
      • You might legitimately ask them why it would not be more efficient for you to send your money direct to the UK company.
  • For what they are doing this year, if their plans came to fruition, see the AIS 2015 again:
    • We intend to get involved with Australia’s intention to bring in around 12,000 refugees from the Middle East. This will be by the provision of finances and practical help once they arrive in Australia.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

What impact are they having?

  • Contrary to the description of their largest expense, ‘Charitable projects worldwide’, BFA is not directly involved in any projects – it merely collects money for ‘Barnabas Aid International Uk’ (sic).
    • Although BFA, via the governance of the UK organisation, has a say in the selection of countries and projects, any impact from the use of your money is outside their control.
    • The recipient’s financial year is not the same as BFA’s. They show the receipt of GBP2,523,290 from Australia in the year ended 30 April 2015. This is $4.59 m at 31 October 2014 ($4.92 m at 30 April 2015). $5.03 m was sent by BFA transfer for the year ended 30 June 2015.
    • Some of your donation – 8% in the current year – is returned to Australia as ‘reimbursements’.

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

  • The cost of raising and sending the money to is 24% of that money.

Can you get a tax deduction?

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned on the first page under ‘Donate’.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (but lodged six months 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 15 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Apart from the absence of outcomes, and one incorrect figure in the Income Statement, yes.
  • Financial Report 2015: Doubtful
    • BFA continue to produce the type of financial statements that do not have to comply fully with the Accounting Standards (special purpose statements). This is based on their belief that there are no users, either current or prospective, who are dependent on its financial statements to make decisions. The corollary of this belief is that BFA is saying that any of its ‘stakeholders’, including the 32,000+ people from all over Australia who together contribute over $5 m, are able to command the preparation of a financial report tailored to their needs.
    • The charity they control, The Trustee For The Barnabas Relief Education and Development Fund, is not mentioned, let alone consolidated.
    • They continue to be in contravention of the Accounting Standards in not depreciating their buildings. (Despite saying in Note 1 that they do.)[2]
    • The description of their borrowings, borrowings that are 72% of assets, does not justify their classification as non-current liabilities rather than current liabilities[3].
    • Related parties, both the relationships and the transactions, are not disclosed. For instance, the borrowings (see above) are from a related party.
    • ‘Resources’ are sold but there are no inventories in the Statement of Financial Position.
    • Despite Note 1 saying that ‘freehold land and buildings are shown at their fair value’, they are described in the Statement of Financial Position as ‘At cost’.
    • Note 1 says that buildings are depreciated; Note 6 says that this is too hard.
    • The policy for designated donations and bequests is that they are recognised as ‘prepaid income’ (Note 1), but there is no such item in the Statement of Financial Position.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Last year’s surplus of 4% of revenue was turned into a 1% deficit.
  • ‘Cash and cash equivalents’ have fallen well below the desired three months’ ‘cash operating expenses’.
  • Retained earnings are only 3% of revenue, and a little over three times the deficit.
  • The directors thought it necessary to question whether the going concern assumption was still valid.
  • If the borrowings should be reclassified as current liabilities (see above), then this question because even more pertinent – those liabilities would then be 2.7 times current assets.
  • The directors decided that the going concern assumption was still correct. This was because ‘Barnabas Fund (BF)…will continue to provide financial support’. No information is given to support this belief.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion.
    • However, he didn’t mention the threat to the going concern assumption. He should have at least included an Emphasis of Matter paragraph.
    • And in accepting the engagement, he 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. BFA is, at least according to the ACNC, long overdue in selecting an ‘Entity Subtype’. And ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank.

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

  • The drop-down menu has 145 projects. You can see a description of each, by category, here.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but you can see the current list on the ACNC Register.

To whom are BFA accountable?

  • Although not claimed on their website, they are accountable as a Member of Missions Interlink[4].
  • They are also accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

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

 

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward – for instance, is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. Note 6 says that this is because it is too hard, but last year’s review gave them a simple solution.
  3. Last year’s review pointed out to them that the current-non-current distinction is not about what the lender says; a liability has to be classified as non-current if BFA ‘does not have an unconditional right to defer settlement of the liability for at least twelve months after the reporting period’ [AASB 101.69, www.aasb.gov.au.]
  4. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

CRC Churches International Australia Inc: mini charity review for donors

Mini review of CRC Churches International Australia Incorporated (CRC) as an organisation that seeks donations[1] and is, under its old name (see below), a member of Missions Interlink. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Is CRC registered?

  • As a charity, no. At least not in that name. There is a registered charity called Christian Revival Crusade National Council (CRCNC), and according to the CRC website, The Christian Revival Crusade is the former name of CRC.
    • CRCNC has an ABN – otherwise no charity registration – but despite that record showing that CRCNC is an ‘Other Incorporated Entity’, no incorporation could be found in that name.
    • There is however a South Australian incorporated association (number A1283) in CRC’s current name.
    • It appears therefore that both the charity record and the ABN record are in the old, and therefore wrong, name.
  • Other registrations:
    • CRCNC operates – according to the ACNC Register – throughout Australia. It is not registered to fundraise in any of the seven states that have a licensing regime.
      • The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
    • If it’s ‘carrying on business’ interstate, as it appears to be, then it doesn’t have the required registration (an ARBN).

What do they do?

  • ‘About’ on the website says that
    • CRC Churches International, previously known as The Christian Revival Crusade, is an established pentecostal denomination that started in Australia, has expanded throughout the Asia Pacific, and now encompasses a global vision.
  • More specifically, these are its ‘departments’:
    • ‘Evangelism’
    • ‘Missions’
      • This department has its own website, and although it trades under the name CRC Missions International, this is not a registered business name.
    • ‘Training’
      • This department is called CRC College of Ministry. This is a registered business name of CRC.
    • ‘Ministry to Youth’
    • ‘Ministry to Children’
    • ‘Church Planting’
  • What they did in 2015 should be in the AIS 2015. However, that has CRC’s mission, not its activities.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Not themselves, but presumably their churches do.

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?

  • There is no single income statement for CRC lodged with the ACNC (see below), but if we define ‘direct’ as the two ‘Grants made’ items in the Income Statement in the AIS 2015, then administration is 28% of expenses.
    • ‘Employment expenses’ are 16% of total expenses.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged a little over five months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for full accounts (see below), and that are more up-to-date than even those available on the website (see below).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • Neither activities nor outcomes are given.
    • The section ‘Financial Information’ does not match the information in the Financial Report.
    • The ‘2015 Financial Report’ that has been attached does not include a financial report for CRC.
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • The Report includes three separate sets of financial statements where there should be just one:
      • Christian Revival Crusade National Council
      • CRC Missions International
      • CRC Training College (CRC College of Ministry)
    • Even if this were acceptable, all three sets are missing two of the four required financial statements, the Notes to the accounts, and a responsible persons’ declaration. Plus the audit report is either deficient or missing.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • NA (see immediately above).

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • NA (see two questions above).
    • The auditor gives a qualified opinion on the first set of statements. Without saying why, he reports that he had to restrict his procedures for ‘voluntary revenue’ to the amounts that had been recorded. This means that the reader can have no confidence that all the money given to CRC made it into the bank account.

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

  • Not quite: ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ is blank.

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

  • Missions, bequests and ‘Donation to Colombo Project’.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but you can see who they have listed with the ACNC under ‘Responsible Persons’ here.

To whom are CRC accountable?

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, they… XXXX

 

 

  1. Here, here, and one request in the shop.

The Bible League Incorporated: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of The Bible League Incorporated (TBL) as an organisation that seeks donations. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

(For the situation last year, read the review here.)

Is TBL registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • The website for TBL has a different name, Bible League International. This is the name of the US organisation[1].
    • The history on the website records that in ‘Bible League Australia and BiblesinAction (NZ)’ merged on 1 September 2012.
      • The New Zealand charity Bible League International New Zealand was registered three months later.
      • But there is no mention of a combined organisation under ‘Global Offices’ on the TBL website, nor in the Financial Report.
      • Each of Australia and New Zealand have their own information on the TBL website.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a NSW incorporated association (Y2857836). (Not, as it says on the Australian Business Register, an ‘Other Unincorporated Entity.)
    • TBL operates – according to the ACNC Register – throughout Australia. It is registered to fundraise in all states that have a licensing regime except for Western Australia and South Australia.
      • The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
    • If it’s ‘carrying on business’ outside NSW, as it appears to be, then it doesn’t have the required registration (an ARBN).

What do they do?

  • Not what the website or the Committee’s Report (in the Financial Report) says – that’s about the international effort. But what is said in the AIS 2015:
    • Fundraising through marketing to supply bibles.
  • See also ‘What choices do you have…?’ below.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

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 ‘Distribution of Funds Received’ then 42% is administration.
    • ‘Employment expenses’ are 25% of total expenses.
    • It would be reasonable to ask TBL why it would not be more efficient for you to send your donation direct to the US organisation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No
    • But if that’s critical for you, TBL say that there may be a solution:
      • However, businesses are able to gain some tax advantages by supporting the ministry through a business sponsorship.

Is their online giving secure?

  • eWay is used, so yes.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (and lodged relatively quickly, two 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 12 months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Not quite.
    • No outcomes are given.
    • Two of the figures in the Income Statement do not match those in the Financial Report.
    • ‘Other names…’ is missing one of the business names.
  • Financial Report 2015: Questionable.
    • The directors have avoided having to comply with all the Accounting Standards by saying that TBL is not a reporting entity. This means that they believe that there are no users, present (including donors from all over Australia who gave a total of $3.20 m), or prospective, who rely on TBL’s financial statements.
      • The directors give no reason for the decision.
    • Except for one person, the directors of TBL are also the directors of Bible League International New Zealand, the New Zealand charity that was registered after the merger of ‘Bible League Australia and BiblesinAction (NZ)’ (see ‘Is TBL registered, above). This is a strong indicator of control by one of these charities, yet TBL’s accounts do not mention New Zealand[2].
    • There is no mention of the fact that this year’s accounts are for 12 months compared to 13 months last year.
    • Related parties are not disclosed.
    • The Statement of Financial Performance (again) doesn’t include ‘Other Comprehensive Income’.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Last year’s strange result of exactly zero surplus or deficit was converted into a 1% deficit this year.
  • No obvious concerns with the financial structure.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion. To take the right amount of comfort for this finding, please read here and here. But
    • In accepting the engagement, he has implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision to produce special purpose statements.
    • He has not complied with the Auditing Standards in assessing the appropriateness of the directors’ choice of accounting policies.
    • He has omitted one of the financial statements from the scope of his audit,
    • See the points above under ‘Financial Report 2015’.

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

  • No:
    • TBL are long overdue, at least according to the ACNC, in selecting an Entity Subtype.
    • ‘Other Name(s) is missing one business name.
    • There is an argument for the country to which donations are sent – the US – to be included under ‘Where the Charity Operates’. And, because of the connection with New Zealand, that country.

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

  • The following areas for ‘My Gift to Plant Bibles’:
    • ‘Where Most Needed’
    • ‘India – Church Planting’
    • ‘Australia – Bringing Hope Behind Bars’
    • ‘Ethiopia – Planting God’s Word’
    • ‘Indonesis – Planting God’s Word’
    • ‘Mexico – eNews’
    • ‘India – eNews’
    • ‘Bibles for the Persecuted’
    • ‘Philippines- MICI Magazine’

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website, but you can see who they have listed with the ACNC under ‘Responsible Persons’ here.
  • Except for one, this list is the same as the one on the NZ Charities Register for Bible League International New Zealand.

To whom are TBL accountable?

  • Membership of Missions Interlink, an organisation that has a general accountability regime[3], is claimed on the website. Confirmed.
  • Membership of FIA, an organisation that has a fundraising code of practice, is claimed on the website. But TBL are (still) not in the list of members.
  • They are also accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

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

 

 

  1. There’s a charity with a similar name in Australia, but it’s not related to TBL, being a 100% subsidiary of this US organisation. It receives donations from the parent and after expenses (31% last year) distributes them in the Asia-Pacific region.
  2. It appears from The Charities Register that the accounting for the New Zealand charity is done by TBL.
  3. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

YWAM Townsville Assoc. Inc.: mini charity review for donors

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

Is YWAMTO registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a Queensland incorporated association (IA07865).
    • There is also a ‘Pending’ registration with ASIC with exactly the same name (3771055).
    • YWAM operates – according to the ACNC Register – only in Queensland. It therefore does not need an ARBN registration to carry on business interstate.
    • It does not have a fundraising licence in Queensland. Or in any of the other six states that have a licensing regime.
      • The law in this area is not straightforward – for instance, is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.

What do they do?

  • Click on the ‘What we do’ box on this page.
    • Including ‘See what we do in the community’ just above the footer.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • ‘Exposure to Christian faith and values’ is the sixth of eight things they ‘provide people with’.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found in a search of the website on ‘impact’ or ‘outcomes’.

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

  • There is insufficient information in the accounts to reliably estimate this.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes, both to YWAMTO and to its fund, YWAM Reef to Outback School Building Fund.
    • The page on ‘Tax deductibility’ says that only donations to the Fund qualify for a tax deduction.
      • Which can’t be made online.

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned on the ‘donate’ page.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (but lodged over a month late, seven months after their year-end).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, and especially because the question of whether the going concern assumption was valid this year, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now over nine months ago.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Not quite. No outcomes are given and the wrong type of financial report is specified.
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • One of the four required financial statements, the Statement of Cash Flows, is missing.
    • Many of the usual Notes to the accounts are missing.
    • Statement of Comprehensive Income
      • Comprehensive income is not shown.
      • Equity was increased 43% by an unexplained ‘Retrospective adjustment upon change in accounting policy’.
      • The $2.76 m item ‘Revenue’, 93% of income, is unexplained.
      • The $2.62 m item ‘Other Expenses’, 93% of expenses, is unexplained.
    • Statement of Financial Position
      • ‘Accounts receivable and other debtors’ are 53% of current assets (and 47% of total assets). Bad debts were $16K last year, yet there is no allowance for doubtful accounts.
      • The profit or loss on the disposal of 89% of ‘Property, plant and equipment’ is not disclosed in the audited accounts.
      • 93% of the liabilities are owed to a company said to be a ‘related party’, College of the Nations Limited. The loan conditions are not disclosed.
        • Peter Honeycombe, a director of College of the Nations Limited says it is ‘an entity of Youth With A Mission (YWAM) providing extensive humanitarian services to remote areas of coastal Queensland and Papua New Guinea’.
          • Although clearly having charitable purposes, this company has chosen not to register as a charity, thereby being ineligible for tax concessions.
    • Notes to the Financial Statements
      • The disclosure about the challenge to the going concern assumption (Note 1(d)) is inadequate:
        • Current (short-term) liabilities exceed current (short-term) assets by almost 2 to 1.
        • When combined with minimal non-current assets, this results in a deficiency of equity of $743K.
        • Yet the directors say that the assumption is still valid because the ‘committee members have received a guarantee of continuing financial support’. From whom? What is their obligation? Their capacity?
      • The Accounting Standards that have been followed are not specified.
      • No reason is given for the decision to produce those financial statements that required a lower standard of disclosure.
      • There is no Note disclosing what parties are related to YWAMTO and how.
      • There is no mention of the Building Fund.
    • Independent Auditor’s Report
      • The auditor makes no mention of the threat to going concern. At a minimum he should have included an ‘Emphasis of Matter’ paragraph.
      • He has omitted one of the financial statements and the Statement by Members of the Committee from the scope of his audit.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • Last year’s deficit of 3% of revenue was turned into a 5% surplus.
  • But the financial situation is precarious. See the question just above.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion. (For the meaning see here and here .)
    • But he has allowed the omission of one of the four required reports, the Statement of Cash Flows.
    • Plus, see Independent Auditor’s Report two questions above.

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?

  • Online:
    • ‘Staff’
    • ‘Student’
    • ‘Other’
  • Not online: to the Fund.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • They are not mentioned on the website, but you can see them on the ACNC Register.
  • Currently they are:
    • Jared Hoover
    • Rebekah Hoover
    • Jennifer Rentsch
    • Kenneth Mulligan
    • Robyn Mulligan
      • If either the Mulligans or the Hoovers are related – and especially if both pairs are related – read this caution.

To whom are YWAMTO accountable?

  • They were a member of Missions Interlink a month ago (14 September 2016), but not any longer.
  • As a registered charity, they are accountable to the ACNC.

Are they responsive to feedback?

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