Global Aid Network Incorporated: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Global Aid Network Incorporated (GAN) an organisation that invites the public to donate to it, and that is connected, through Robert Rawson, to the CMA Standards C0uncil, Christian Management Australia’smajor new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

(Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 1 April 2017, the ACNC contact responded the same day to say that what I had written wasn’t true, and requested that publication be deferred until he returned to the office in three weeks. Upon his return he said that there was nothing that needed changing and declined the opportunity to submit a comment for publication.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • Other registrations:
    • GAN is a New South Wales incorporated association (NSW INC9880886).
      • It doesn’t appear to be connected with the private ancillary fund Global Aid Foundation and its trustee Global Aid Foundation Pty Ltd. Or these entities that are not charities: Global Aid Warehouse Pty Ltd and Global Aid Zone Incorporated.
    • GAN trades under the name GAIN, but this is not a business name. And unavailable – ASIC says that it is identical to two names that are already registered.
    • GAN operates, per the ACNC Register, in New South Wales. It also raises money on the internet. It has a fundraising licences in NSW, but not any of the other six states that have a licensing regime[1].

What does GAN do?

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Although not being included under ‘About us’, it appears, from this newsletter, and this description of what humanitarian aid means to them, that they do share the Gospel.

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 statements have been lodged – it is voluntary for GAN – but the financial information in the AIS 2016 shows that $87K was spent to give $35K in grants.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • If security is mentioned, it is after you enter your personal details.

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

  • ‘Join a Medical Mission Team in 2016 (sic) – $3000’
  • ‘Sponsor a Medical Mission Team member – $1000’
  • ‘Provide solar lighting for one house in Bihar, India – $500’
  • ‘Purchase medicine for Medical Missions – $200’
  • ‘Contribute to rebuilding in the Philippines following Typhoon Haiyan _ $100’
  • ‘Donate a different amount’

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (four and a half months after their year-end).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016): Almost – no outcomes are reported.
  • Financial Report 2016: Yes
    • As a Small charity, no Financial Report is required, and GAN has not chosen to lodge one voluntarily.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • No Report, but from the AIS 2016:
    • ‘Other revenue/receipts’ are 75% of income, ‘Donations and bequests’ the other 25%
    • ‘Other expenses/payments’ are 2.5 times ‘Grants and donations made…’ (all overseas).
    • Surplus as a percentage of revenue was 7%.
    • Assets are 2.9 times liabilities.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • NA

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

  • Yes.
    • But Global Aid Network is neither a trading name or a business name, and the other name they list, (GAIN) Australia is not a business name (and not quite the trading name either).

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register:
    • Taciano Bantatua
      • Is it this Taciano Bantatua?
    • Phillip Anthony Cuming
      • Is it this Phillip Cuming?
    • Allan Drew
      • Is it this Allan Drew?
    • William John Hodgson
      • Is it this William Hodgson?
    • John Joseph
    • Jiji Skariah
    • Robert Rawson
    • Robert is a director of Christian Ministry Advancement Ltd, the organisation that is introducing a set of standards for Christian organisations, compliance with which will allow display of the CMA Standards Council seal.

To whom is GAN accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And to the New South Wales regulator of associations.
  1. Opinions vary on whether an internet invitation qualifies as ‘fundraising’.

Prison Fellowship Australia: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Prison Fellowship Australia (PFA), an organisation that invites the public to donate to it, and that is connected, through a director, John Peberdy, to the organisation that is planning to accredit ‘Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

(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 it responsive to feedback?

  • I sent a draft of the review on 5 April 2017. They did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • PFA is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • It is entitled to omit ‘Limited/’Ltd’ from the end of its name.
  • It operates, per the ACNC Register, in all eight states of Australia. It has offices in six states. It also fundraises via the internet. However, it has a fundraising licence in only two of the seven states that have a licensing regime[1].

What does PFA do?

  • ‘Across Australia there are over 1000 volunteer men and women visiting prisoners, running programs in prisons, organising camps and providing Christmas presents for prisoners’ children, supporting ex- prisoners when they are released, playing sports, running in-prison Bible studies, and providing many other services.’ [https://prisonfellowship.org.au/prison-fellowship-australia/].

Do they share the Gospel?

  • The PFA mission is ‘To share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with prisoners, ex-offenders, and their families.’

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.
    • The website has only two references to impact.

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?

  • It says so on their ABN record, but there is no mention of it on their website.

Is their online giving secure?

  • If security is mentioned it is after you have entered your personal information.

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

  • Prison Visiting’
  • ‘Angel Tree’
  • ‘The Prisoners (sic) Journey’
  • ‘Sycamore Tree Project’
  • ‘SLAM’
  • ‘Change On The Inside’
  • ‘Camp for Kids’
  • ‘Darwin’
  • ‘Where Most Needed’

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (six months after their year-end).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): No
    • The description of activities is not particularly about 2015.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • Their business name is missing.
  • Financial Report 2015: No.
    • The directors have again adopted the lower standard special purpose financial statements.
      • It stretches credulity to suggest, as the PFA directors do, that an organisation with $1.70 m turnover, 15 employees, 1075 volunteers, and that has offices in six states[2], had ‘no users who are dependent on general purpose financial statements’.
    • Note 1 first says that the financial statements cover PFA ‘as an individual entity’ then, two paragraphs later, says that ‘the report covers (PFA) as a consolidated entity, made up by the following entities:
      • Prison Fellowship Queensland
      • Prison Fellowship National (sic) Territory
      • Prison Fellowship Western Australia
      • Prison Fellowship New South Wales
      • Prison Fellowship Tasmania
      • Prison Fellowship South Australia
      • Prison Fellowship National Office
      • Prison Fellowship Victoria
        • All these entities have an ABN except for ‘National Office’.
        • Four of them are in the former name of PFA, Prison Fellowship of Australia (emphasis added).
    • Consolidation fits with the fact that the Articles of Association [clause 60A], require ‘Each State Council’ to produce “a balance sheet and profit and loss account’ for their AGM.
    • But
      • There is no mention of Councils on the PFA website.
      • There are seven state entities above but only six ‘State contacts’.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • A 16% decline in revenue was more than compensated for by a 37% reduction in ‘Employee benefits expense’. This helped to turn a negative 3% return on revenue into a positive 4%.
  • The ratio of current assets to current liabilities was increased significantly (from 1.9 to 2.8).
  • Long-term financial structure appears sound.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • Although he gave a ‘clean’ opinion, the auditor, Matthew Hung of rdl.accountants,
    • agreed with the directors’ decision that there are no users (present or prospective) who are dependent on general purpose financial statements (see ‘Financial Report’, above), and
    • left in the accounts the confusion over the connection between PFA and its state bodies.

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

  • Almost – their business name is missing.
    • The governing document is still missing the Memorandum of Association though.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • The nine people shown here on the website.
  • Who are also shown under ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register:
    • David Cormack
    • Shane Ellery
    • Peter Hall
    • David Maxwell
    • Daryl Myatt
    • Steven Nicholson
    • Vera Ou-Young
    • Michael Wood
    • John Peberdy
      • John is a director of Christian Ministry Advancement Ltd, the organization that is introducing a ‘major new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’
    • There are 14 directorships recorded for the name ‘John Peberdy’, and 11 for ‘Peter Hall’. And the register only covers charities, not all not-for-profits, and no for-profit organisations. Therefore, if after eliminating the charities that don’t belong to the PFA director, you are left with their total being more than a handful, it would be legitimate for you to question whether their ability to discharge his fiduciary responsibilities is threatened.

To whom is PFA accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And, as a company, to ASIC.

 

 

  1. The licence in NSW is in the name Prison Fellowship of Australia, a NSW entity. The licence in Queensland is in the name Prison Fellowship of Australia Queensland Council; the law in this area is not straightforward – is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ for instance? – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. AIS 2915.

Access Ministries: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of The Council for Christian Education in Schools trading as Access Ministries (Access), an organisation that invites the public to donate to it, and that is connected, through John Peberdy, to Christian Ministry Advancement Ltd’s ‘major new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

(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 it responsive to feedback?

  • They were sent a draft of the review on 4 April 2017. They did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • Access is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • It is entitled to omit ‘Limited/’Ltd’ from the end of its name.
  • The main name under which it trades Access Ministries, is a (registered) business name.
  • It operates, per the ACNC Register, only in Victoria. It is licensed to fundraise there.
    • It also fundraises via the internet. It does not have a licence outside Victoria[1].

What does Access do?

  • See the description here.

Do they share the Gospel?

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.
  • There is a 2009 study on the impact of chaplains in schools, and some anecdotal reports of impact in the Annual Review 2015, and elsewhere.

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.
  • The Annual Review 2015 reports in an infographic that 27% of the expenses were indirect (page 10).

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes

Is their online giving secure?

  • There is no mention of security.

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

  • Donate to our current appeal’
  • ‘General Donations’
    • ‘Gift for Christian programs in schools’
    • ‘Other’
  • ‘Chaplaincy Donations’
  • ‘SRI Partnerships’

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (five months after their year-end).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): No
    • The description of activities is not particularly about 2015.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • Three business names are missing.
    • The figure for ‘Interest’ is wrong.
  • Financial Report 2015: No.
    • The directors have again adopted the lower standard special purpose financial statements.
      • It stretches credulity to suggest, as the Access directors do, that an organisation with a $11.00 m turnover, more than 200 staff, 1000 volunteer instructors, and 1900 donors[2], had ‘no users who are dependent on general purpose financial statements’.
    • Note 1 (p) says that
      • Funds held by local Chaplaincy Support Groups are not shown in the company’s assets, nor is the income and expenditure of the Support Groups consolidated into the parent company. The activities of the Support Groups are controlled by local governance committees. There were 54 Support Groups at 31 December 2015 with net assets totally $3,150,638 (2014: $3.399,322).
        • Despite these Chaplaincy and Wellbeing Support Groups being an integral part of Access’s operation, the acknowledgement of the parent-subsidiary relationship, and the collection of donations by Access for the Groups, the directors again give no reason for this decision.
        • Inclusion of these net assets would increase Access’s equity by 213%.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • Although he gave a ‘clean’ opinion, the auditor, M.A. Cunningham of Grant Thornton, agreed with the directors’ decision that
    • there are no users (present or prospective) who are dependent on general purpose financial statements, and
    • the transactions and balances of the 54 Chaplaincy and Wellbeing Groups need not be consolidated.

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

  • Almost – there are three business names missing.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • Per the ACNC Register:
    • Elida Brereton
    • Stephen Dickins
      • Is it this Stephen Dickins?
    • James Hall
    • Grant Lawry
    • Lisa McDonald
    • Peter Rawlings
    • Jorg Selhorst
    • John Peberdy
      • John is a director of Christian Ministry Advancement Ltd, the organization that is introducing a ‘major new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’
    • There are 14 directorships recorded for the name ‘John Peberdy’, and 10 for ‘Elida Brereton’. And the register only covers charities, not all not-for-profits, and no for-profit organisations. Therefore, if after eliminating the charities that don’t belong to the Access director, you are left with their total being more than a handful, it would be legitimate for you to question whether their ability to discharge his fiduciary responsibilities is threatened.
    • Access is still non-compliant with its own requirement to have a minimum of ten directors.

To whom is Access accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And, as a company, to ASIC.

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward – is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ for instance? – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  2. Sources, in turn: Financial Report, AIS 2015, Annual Review 2015, Annual Review 2015.

Youth With A Mission (Perth) Incorporated: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Youth With A Mission (Perth) Incorporated (YWAMP) an organisation that invites the public to donate to it, and that is a member of Missions Interlink, ‘the Australian network for global mission’.

(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 it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 3 April 2017, they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • It also controls another charity, Youth With A Mission (Perth) Incorporated As the operator of a PBI (YWAMPBI)
    • Here’s the ACNC’s explanation:
      • Organisations that are the operators of a Public Benevolent Institution (PBI) or Health Promotion Charity (HPC) were provided with a new ABN to make clear which part of the organisation is a registered charity and which part is a PBI or HPC. As both are registered entities with the ACNC, they have their own reporting obligations. You can choose to lodge separate annual reports via the ACNC Charity Portal or you can apply to group report by submitting Form 4B: Request group reporting.
        • Distinguishing PBIs (and HPCs) from charities does not fit with what the ATO says.
      • YWAMP has not taken advantage of group reporting.
      • There is no mention of ‘public benevolent institution’ or ‘PBI’ on the YWAMP website.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a Western Australian incorporated association (A0822268A).
    • YWAMP uses the names Youth With A Mission Perth and YWAM Perth. It has neither registered as business names.
      • YWAM has a trademark for the first name.
    • It operates, per the ACNC Register, in Western Australia. It also raises money on the internet. It has no fundraising licences[1].

What does YWAMP do?

  • Described here.
  • The ACNC Register says that YWAMP operates in ten overseas countries. It made no overseas grants, but perhaps these are the countries to which ‘mission trips’ were made?
  • YWAMPBI: I can find no information on the PBI.
    • Its Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015) has the same description of activities as YWAMP’s.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes. See the section just above.
  • YWAMPBI: Being a PBI, I suspect not.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.
  • YWAMPBI: Nothing found.

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

  • The financial statements that were lodged have been withheld from the Register by the ACNC at YWAMP’s request.
    • There is no reason given for the suppression, and the reason is not available to the public. This just leads us to speculate as to the nature of the information that has caused the ACNC to decide that the harm that may be caused by its publication ‘outweighs the public interest in publishing the information’.
    • The loss of transparency is mitigated by the fact that the statement withheld relates to a year-end that is now over two years ago.
    • Their membership of Missions Interlink requires them to “have available for its members and supporters a clear and appropriate financial statement which has been approved by its auditor [Standards Statement, 4.1]. So just ask.
  • YWAMPBI:
    • The ‘Financial Information’ section in the AIS 2015 has all zeros.
    • The Financial Report is YWAMP’s Financial Report.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes, both for YWMP as an organisation (since 22.09.2016), and for a donation to its fund, Youth With A Mission Western (Perth) Inc School Building and Maintenance Fund (since 1.07.2000).
    • How did such an overtly evangelising organisation like YWAMP get endorsement as a Deductible Gift Recipient?
    • How was the DGR status granted when YWAMP doesn’t have the required revocation clause in its constitution?
    • There is no mention of the Fund on the website.
  • YWAMPBI: Yes, if you give to its fund, Youth With A Mission (Perth) Inc Donation Account.

Is their online giving secure?

  • Security is not mentioned.
  • YWAMPBI: NA – no separate website, and no option on YWAMP’s website to give to the PBI.

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

  • ‘Donation or Gift’
  • ‘Student’
  • ‘Staff’
  • ‘Other’
  • YWAMPBI: NA

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes
    • But three months late.
    • And, at the request of the ACNC, for the year-ended 31 March 2015, not 2016 as is normal for other charities.
  • YWAMPBI: Yes
    • But three months late.
    • And, at the request of the ACNC, for the year-ended 31 March 2015, not 2016 as is normal for other charities.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): No
    • Three important figures in the ‘Financial Information’ section do not match those in the financial statements.
    • The activities are not specific to 2015.
    • No outcomes are reported.
  • Financial Report 2016: No[2]
    • It stretches credulity for the directors of a charity with a turnover of $6.15 m, multiple training courses, a large staff, 6K followers on Facebook, and a public invitation to give, to conclude that there are no stakeholders, either present or prospective, who are dependent on general purpose financial statements to make decisions about the organisation.
  • YWAMPBI:
    • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): No
      • The activities are not specifically those of the PBI
      • No outcomes are reported.
      • Their fund is not an ‘Other name’.
      • The financial statements that are attached are not those of the PBI.
      • The ‘Financial Information’ does not match what is shown in the financial statements.
    • Financial Report 2016: No – it is YWAMP’s Financial Report.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • No Report is available via YWAMP’s Register entry – the Report was received but the ACNC, at YWAMP’s request, have withheld the information.
  • However, there is a Financial Report for YWAMP on the PBI’s entry:
    • Income: $6.15 m.
      • Donations 408K
      • Over a million dollars:
        • ‘Outreach Fees’ $1.84 m
        • ‘Tuition Fees’ $1.54 m
        • ‘Staff Fees’ $1.34 m
    • Expenses: $5.09 m
      • Zero ‘Employee expenses’. Elsewhere in the AIS they report zero employees. How does YWAMP do what it does?
      • No ‘Grants and donations…’.
      • Over a million dollars:
        • ‘Outreach Expenses’ $1.67 m
        • ‘Rent’ $1.46 m
    • Assets $19.56 m
      • ‘Cash’ $2.00 m
      • ‘Property, Plant & Equipment’ $17.48 m
        • ‘Land & Buildings at cost’ $15.94 m: why so much rent then?
    • Liabilities $5.87 m
      • ‘Interest Bearing Liabilities’ (due beyond 12 months): $4.49 m
  • YWAMPBI: The report that has been lodged is that of YWAMP.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a qualified opinion, that is, not a ‘clean’ opinion.
    • The qualification is because the directors of YWAMP have ‘determined that it is impracticable to establish control over the collection of cash donations prior to entry into its financial records’.
      • If most other charities can establish these controls, what stops YWAMP?
  • He also implicitly agreed with the directors’ decision that YWAMP is not a reporting entity, thus allowing them to produce the lower standard special purpose financial statements.
  • YWAMPBI: NA

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

  • Yes
  • YWAMPBI: Yes

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • The ACNC Register says that YWAMP has a board of one, Caleb Brownhill. However, as he is the Public Officer, it is possible that he is not a responsible person, and therefore should not be listed here.
    • The constitution[3] requires a minimum of three officers.
  • YWAMPBI: Caleb is again the only one listed.

To whom is YWAMP accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And to the Western Australian regulator of associations.
  • YWAMPBI: to the ACNC.

 

 

  1. Opinions vary on whether an internet invitation qualifies as ‘fundraising’.
  2. Submitted but not available to the public because they applied, and the ACNC agreed, to withhold the Report. Their Financial Report is available on the Register entry for YWAMPBI.
  3. Marked ‘Information withheld’ on the Register, but available on YWAMPBI’s Register entry.

Citylife Community Care Inc: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Citylife Community Care Inc (CCC) an organisation that invites the public to donate to it. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 30 March 2017, they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

What does CCC do?

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.
    • It describes itself as a ‘faith-based organisation’, not Christian, or Christ-centred.
      • It does say, though, that ‘Our counsellors are competent in using various trusted and proven therapeutic approaches informed by Christian principles.

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?

  • The way the expenses are classified does not allow this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes

Is their online giving secure?

  • If security is mentioned, it is after you enter your personal details.

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

  • None.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (five and a half months after their year-end).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): Almost – no outcomes are reported.
  • Financial Report 2015: Only if
    • You agree with the directors that CCC has no users, present or prospective who need general purpose financial statements for their decisions about CCC.
      • The directors don’t give a reason for saying that CCC is not a reporting entity, and therefore able to produce the lower standard special purpose financial statements.
    • There is no Note on related parties (an ACNC expectation).

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • Surplus as a percentage of revenue declined from 2% to 1%.
  • Working capital declined marginally, but is still strongly positive (440%).
  • Long term capital structure is sound.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[2].

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

  • Yes

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register:
  • Assuming the ‘Position’ shown is correct, this number of directors is two short by the constitution.

To whom is CCC accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And to the Victorian regulator of associations.
  • To Citylife Church (as a wholly-owned subsidiary).
  1. Opinions vary on whether an internet invitation qualifies as ‘fundraising’.
  2. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS): mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of NSW Service for the Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture and Trauma Survivors (STARTTS), an organisation that invites the public to donate to it, and that is connected, through Richard Menteith, to the CMA Standards C0uncil, Christian Management Australia’smajor new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

(Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 30 March 2017, they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • STARTTS is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • Not, as its ABN record shows, an ‘Other Incorporated Entity’.
  • There are three other charities with STARTTS in their name:
    • South Sudan STARTTS (should have ‘Limited’/’Ltd’ on the end)
      • It operates from the same address as STARTTS.
    • Friends of STARTTS Inc. (Y 10372-04 Associations) (shouln’t have the last part)
      • Donations to STARTTS go to this charity, not STARTTS, it operates from STARTTS’ premises, and the ‘Charity Address for Service’ is the email of one of the directors of STARTTS.
    • STARTTS Clinical and Facilities Trust
      • It operates from the same address as STARTTS, the ‘Charity Address for Service’ is the (work) email of one of the directors of STARTTS, and it shares two directors with STARTTS.
    • The financial statements are only for STARTTS, and although the Notes says that there are related parties, they are not identified. But does STARTTS control at least the last two charities?
  • STARTTS trades under the name ‘STARTTS’, but they have not registered the name.
  • STARTTS raises money on the internet. It has no fundraising licences[1].

What does STARTTS do?

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.

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?

  • The way the expenses are classified does not allow this calculation. (The information it too out-of-date anyway.)

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes

Is their online giving secure?

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

  • None. It all goes, without explanation, to another charity, Friends of STARTTS Inc.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • No (two and a half months overdue; last year they reported six months late).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): No
    • Most of the figures in the ‘Income Statement’ do not match those in the Financial Report.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • ‘NSW STARTTS’ is not an ‘Other name’.
  • Financial Report 2015: Yes (except that it is well out-of-date).

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • Too out-of-date to be relevant.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • Too out-of-date to be relevant.

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

  • Yes. But
    • ‘NSW Startts’ is neither a trading name nor a business name.
    • ‘Responsible Persons’ is incomplete.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • The 11 people here:
  • None of whom are the (two only) responsible persons shown on the ACNC Register:
    • Lachlan Murdoch
    • Richard Menteith
      • Richard is a director of Christian Management Advancement Ltd, the organisation that is introducing a set of standards for Christian organisations, compliance with which will allow display of the CMA Standards Council seal.
    • The constitution requires a minimum of eight directors.

To whom is STARTTS accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And, as a company, to ASIC.

 

 

  1. Opinions vary on whether an internet invitation qualifies as ‘fundraising’.

Reventure Limited: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Reventure Limited (Reventure), an organisation that is connected, by the directorship of Jame Lewis, to the CMA Standards Council, Christian Management Australia’smajor new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 28 March 2017, they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • Reventure is a public company, a company limited by guarantee.
    • It does not have the necessary provisions in its constitution to allow it to omit ‘Limited’/’Ltd’ at the end of its name.
  • Reventure has a fully-owned subsidiary, Converge International Pty Ltd (Converge) a private company.
    • Converge has not registered the name it uses, Converge International.
  • No information was found to indicate that Reventure seeks donations from the public.

What does Reventure do?

  • In its own right: here.
  • Via its subsidiary: here.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Although Reventure has a statement of faith in its constitution (although not on its website), it appears that it doesn’t share the Gospel – ‘Gospel’, ‘Jesus’, and ‘Christ’ do not appear on either website.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing found, for either entity.

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

  • The information is not presented to allow this calculation – for either entity.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • NA

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

  • NA

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (two weeks late, seven and a half months after their year-end)

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016): No
    • Most of the figures in the ‘Comprehensive Income Statement summary’ do not match those in the financial statements.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • ‘Reventure Limited’ is not an ‘Other Name’.
  • Financial Report 2016: Yes. Consolidated financial statements, Reventure and its wholly-owned subsidiary Converge.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • Profit as a percentage of revenue declined markedly, from 7% to 0.2%.
  • Working capital (current assets less current liabilities) improved slightly, but is still negative at 0.84.
  • Goodwill is 81% of the non-current assets.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[1].

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

  • ‘Phone’ is blank – but this is not compulsory information.
  • ‘Website’ is blank, but they don’t have to disclose it to the ACNC if they don’t want to.
  • ‘Reventure Limited’ is not an ‘Other Name’.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

To whom is Reventure accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And, as a company, to ASIC.
  • Converge: to ASIC.

 

 

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

Common Life: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Common Life, an organisation that has a board member, Jame Lewis, who is a director of the charity responsible for the CMA Standards C0uncil, a ‘major new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 27 March, they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • Not incorporated.
  • One of the directors, Jame Lewis, is the holder of the business name Common Life.
  • No information was found to indicate that Common Life raises funds from the public.

What does Common Life do?

  • Per their last Annual Information Statement (AIS 2015):
    • Providing support to others in their Christian faith.
  • Per their constitution:
    • Common Life is an independent, ecumenical foundation dedicated to developing alternative expressions of Christian life and mission.

Do they share the Gospel?

  • It appears not.

What impact are they having?

  • No information found.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • NA – none offered.

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

  • NA

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • No. Their AIS is over two months overdue.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • No.  Their AIS is over two months overdue.
  • Their last submission:
    • Annual Information Statement 2015 (AIS 2015): Not quite – no outcomes are reported.
    • Financial Report 2015: Yes.
      • Common Life’s status as a ‘Basic Religious Charity’ means that not only does it not need to submit a Financial Report, but nor does it have to complete the ‘Financial Information’ section of the AIS.
      • There is no requirement in its constitution for financial statements.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • NA

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

  • No information is available.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • There is no evidence that Common Life produces financial statements.

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

  • ‘Phone’ is blank (but this information is optional) [Parenthetical information added 14.04.17].
    • ‘Website’ is blank, but they don’t have a website.
    • ‘Email’ is blank but the Street Address is an acceptable alternative to the ACNC (but this information is optional) [Correction plus parenthetical information added 14.04.17].

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Per the ACNC Register (under ‘Responsible Persons’):
    • Peter Angelovski
    • Peter Chapman
    • Wayne Gardiner
    • Helen Rowe
    • Donald Stewart
    • Jame Lewis
      • Jame is a director of Christian Management Advancement Ltd, an organisation that believes that
        • Christian organisations should be the standard-setters in terms of impeccable corporate behaviour.
          • The mission of their committee, the CMA Standards Council, is to ‘help build faith and trust in Christian organisations’, including by allowing organisations who are compliant with a set of standards, formed by the Council, to display the Council’s seal of approval.

To whom is Common Life accountable?

The Council of St. Andrew’s Cathedral School: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of The Council of St. Andrew’s Cathedral School (SACS), an organisation that invites the public to donate to it, and that is connected, through a director, Marcus Judge, to the organisation that is planning to accredit ‘Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

(Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 27 March, they did not respond.

Is SACS registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • SACS controls two other charities, St Andrew’s Cathedral Gawura School (Gawura) and St Andrew’s Cathedral School Foundation Ltd (the Foundation)
    • SACS hasn’t taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions.
    • There is also a third entity, The trustee for The St Andrew’s Cathedral School Choristers, which is not a registered charity.
      • You would expect that SACS produces consolidated financial statements, but there are no financial statements in the public domain, so I can’t check.
  • Other registrations:
    • Although its ABN record says that it is an ‘Other Incorporated Entity”, SACS is not incorporated in the usual sense; it is ‘incorporated’ by an Anglican church law (‘ordinance’) passed by The Synod of the Diocese of Sydney.
    • SACS doesn’t have any fundraising licences[1].

What do they do?

  • A kindergarten to Year 12 school.
    • That’s different in this way.
  • Gawura: a campus for boys and girls from Kindergarten to Year 6 who are of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background
  • The Foundation: ‘The sacs foundation (sic) is the organisation through which financial support for our school is directed’.
    • But as the trustee for various trusts, not in its own name. (Which explains the all the zeros in its financial statements on the Register.)

Do they share the Gospel?

  • Yes
  • Gawura: Yes
  • The Foundation: NA

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.
  • Gawura: Nothing systematic found.
  • The Foundation: Nothing systematic found.

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

  • No financial statements are publicly available.
  • Gawura: No financial statements are publicly available.
  • The Foundation: Financial statements for the trustee are on the ACNC Register, but not for the trust.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes, but only if you give to one its two funds, The Council of St Andrew’s Cathedral School Building Fund and St Andrew’s Cathedral School Library Fund.
  • Gawura: No
  • The Foundation: Yes, but only if you give to its fund (unnamed on the ABN record, but most likely The St Andrew’s Cathedral School Choristers Public Fund.)

Is their online giving secure?

  • If security is mentioned it is not until after you have entered all the information required for the donation.

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

  • On this page, three choices:
    • The SACS Foundation – Gawura Scholarship Fund’
      • Said to be a tax-deductible fund, but this was unable to be confirmed.
    • ‘the St Andrew’s Cathedral School Building Fund’
    • ‘The Phillip Heath Scholarship Fund’
      • No mention of a tax deduction here, but if it is the PJH Scholarship Fund below, then deductibility is claimed but unable to be confirmed.
  • On this page, many choices are offered by The Foundation, all offering a tax deduction:
    • The Building Fund (above)
    • ‘Gawura Foundation’. The link goes to the first page above.
    • ‘PJH Scholarship Fund’. No link.
      • Unable to confirm tax-deductibility.
    • ‘SACS Sports Foundation’. No link when first mentioned but in a later section there is a link to the Australian Sports Foundation.
    • ‘The SACS Rugby Committee’. The link also goes to the Australian Sports Foundation.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged six months after their year-end, a month later than last year.)
  • Gawura: Yes (lodged six months after their year-end, a month earlier than last year.)
  • The Foundation: Yes (lodged a little over five months after their year-end, two months earlier than last year.)

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: Almost – their business name is missing.
    • Gawura: Almost – no outcomes are reported.
    • The Foundation: Yes
  • Financial Report 2015: Yes
    • Because it is a non-government school, neither financial statements nor financial information need be supplied by SACS to the ACNC:
      • The ‘Due Date’ for the AIS 2015 is ‘Not required’.
      • Section E in the AIS 2015 has this message:
        • Financial Information for this charity has been populated through a streamlined reporting arrangement with the Australian Government Department of Education and Training. It therefore may not contain the charity’s complete Financial Information. Further information is available at: acnc.gov.au/nongovschools.
      • Despite the message, there is no financial information. The ACNC will eventually insert figures into the AIS when they are supplied by the Department of Education and Training (DET), but due to a policy decision of the ACNC, the Register will always lack the charity’s financial statements.
      • It’s not as if the SACS doesn’t have audited financial statements. Both their constitution and DET require them. It’s just that the ACNC, unlike for nearly all other charities, doesn’t require them, and SACS has chosen not to publish them voluntarily, either on the ACNC Register or on its website.
      • You can see what DET considers SACS’s key financial figures on the ‘My School’ section of DET’s website.
    • Gawura: Yes
      • The situation is the same as for SACS (above).
    • The Foundation: Yes
      • The statements on the Register are for the Foundation in its own right, not as a trustee. The statement of the trusts that it administers have not been lodged, and are not available publicly.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • NA
  • Gawura: NA
  • The Foundation: NA

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • No audit report is available to the public.
  • Gawura: the report is not publicly available.
  • The Foundation: He issued a ‘clean’ opinion. (But they had no transactions, and held no balances, in their own name.)

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

  • Not quite:
    • ‘Phone’ is blank (but this information is optional) [Parenthetical information added 14.04.17].
    • Their business name, Kirrikee Outdoor Education, is missing.
  • Gawura: Almost – ‘Phone’ is blank (but this information is optional) [Parenthetical information added 14.04.17].
  • The Foundation: Almost – ‘Phone’ is blank (but this information is optional) [Parenthetical information added 14.04.17].

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • The people on the website here.
  • The list of ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register is missing Caitlyn Hurley and Glenn Davies:
    • Brazel Felicity (sic)
    • Andrew Ford
      • This profile says that he finished on the Council in 2017.
    • Catherine Grant
    • Ray Jarratt
    • Marcus Judge
      • Marcus is a member of the ‘Standards Panel’ (or is it the ‘CMA Standards Council’?), a committee of Christian Management Advancement Ltd, an organisation that believes that
        • Christian organisations should be the standard-setters in terms of impeccable corporate behaviour.
          • The Panel’s mission is to ‘help build faith and trust in Christian organisations’, including by allowing organisations who are compliant with a set of standards, formed by the Council, to display the Council’s seal of approval.
    • Ray Minniecon
    • Kanishka Raffel
    • John Scott
    • Kathryn Thompson
    • Ben Waterhouse
    • Jillian Wheeler
      • Is it this Jillian Wheeler?
    • Michael Winram
    • There are 386 (yes 386) directorships recorded for the name ‘Glenn Davies’, 12 for ‘Andrew Ford’, and nine for ‘Kanishka Raffel’.  And the register only covers charities, not all not-for-profits, and no for-profit organisations.  Therefore, if after eliminating the charities that don’t belong to a SACS director, you are left with his total being more than a handful, it would be legitimate for you to question whether his ability to discharge his fiduciary responsibilities is threatened.
  • Gawura:
    • The same people as above, except with the addition of John Collier (twice!).
  • The Foundation:

To whom are SACS accountable?

 

 

  1. The law in this area is not straightforward – is an internet invitation ‘fundraising’ for instance? – and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.

Far East Broadcasting Co (Australia): mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Far East Broadcasting Co (Australia) (FEBC) as an organisation that is a member of Missions Interlink, and 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.)

FEBC is also of interest because it shares a director, ‘The Trust Lady’, Vanessa Hall, with the CMA Standards C0uncil, Christian Management Australia’smajor new initiative, accrediting Christian organisations against a set of standards of good governance, financial oversight, and fundraising ethics.’

Are they responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 24 March 2017, they responded quickly. However, they did not want to either suggest corrections or submit comments for publication.

Is FEBC registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
    • There’s another company with ‘FEBC’ in its name, FEBC Custodian Limited. Note 17 in the Financial Report (see below) says that this company ‘was established solely to act as trustee for the FEBC Overseas Aid Fund(The Fund).
    • FEBC has produced financial statements that include The Fund, but not FEBC Custodian Limited.
      • Despite reporting as a group, FEBC still hasn’t taken advantage of the ACNC’s group reporting concessions.
  • 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, the ACNC Register says, in all eight states. It also has an internet invitation to donate. Seven states have a fundraising licensing regime. It is exempt in NSW, and has a licence in four of the others. In South Australia, it has a licence in the name of The Fund. It has no licence in the eighth, Western Australia, but doesn’t appear to fit one of the exemptions.

What do they do?

  • ‘About Us’ on the website is not about FEBC, but the international FEBC organisation generally. For what they did in Australia in 2016, see the first part of the ‘Description of charity’s activities and outcomes’ in the AIS 2016:
    • In the last financial year, FEBC Australia had (sic) 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.)
  • From pages 9 and 17 of the Annual Report, it appears that the countries listed under ‘Operates in (Countries)’ on the ACNC Register, are the countries to which FEBC sends your donation (after expenses), not where it ‘operates’ as conventionally defined.
  • The Fund: From the AIS 2016:
    • Funds were raised through FEBC Overseas Fund to support the projects in Cambodia and Mongolia, to empower the poor and marginalised to address issues related to health, food, security, income generation, employment, basic education, gender issues, social justice and civil society. Emergency Communication for disaster relief and support. Child protection Indonesia

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No.
    • But they raise money for others that do.

What impact are they having?

  • Some anecdotal reports in the Annual Report, but nothing systematic either there or on the website.

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 27% of group expenses (up from 23% last year).
  • The Fund: They had no expenses outside the money sent overseas.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No.
    • This is contradicted by the ‘Projects’ page: two projects there are prefaced ‘Tax-deductible project’.
      • The ‘small print’ for each of these projects says that the money goes to a secular organisation, Global Development Group.
    • The Annual Report says that they are investigating
      • Registering FEBC Australia as a public benevolent institution (PBI) to provide another way for tax deductibility for projects and an effective way to relieve poverty and distress to people groups in need across the globe [page 4].
      • How this fits with their mission – Our goal is to communicate the Good News among the nations by media to inspire people to follow Jesus Christ – is not explained.
  • The Fund: Yes

Is their online giving secure?

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

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (lodged a little over four months after their year-end – a month earlier than last year).
    • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year that finished six months ago.
  • The Fund: The same

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2016: No
    • The ‘Financial Information’ is for the group, whereas it should be for FEBC on its own.
    • Much of what is under ‘activities’ is about the FEBC organisation overseas.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • ‘Other income’ does not match the same item in the financial statements.
    • There is no evidence that FEBC operated overseas.
    • The Fund: Almost – no outcomes are reported.
  • Financial Report 2015: No
    • There are more than 4000 recipients of the monthly newsletter, all over Australia, and this and other efforts generates more than $1.47 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, can command the preparation of a financial report tailored to their needs. This is implausible.
    • Despite the statement, on page 18 of the Annual Report, that the international programs are shown by program or country, there is no breakup of the $1.15 m sent overseas.
    • There is no explanation for the inclusion of a second income statement, Income Statement for ACFID purposes, especially when FEBC is not a member of the ACFID (Australian Council for International Development).
    • Income Statement
      • ‘Other expenses…’ comprise 81% 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.
    • Income Statement for ACFID purposes
      • There is no explanation of the terms used.
      • There is no Other Comprehensive Income section.
      • 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.
    • Balance Sheet
      • How was FEBC able to operate an office without any ‘Furniture, Fittings and Office Equipment’?
      • Is the ‘Field Staff Retirement & Resettlement’ figure actually a liability, that is, a present obligation to the field staff? If not, it should be a reserve.
      • If it is a liability, why is it not included in ‘Employee Benefits Provisionss’ (sic)?
      • 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?
    • Notes to the Financial Statements
      • There is no explanation again this year of the choice of a ‘special purpose financial report’ as opposed to the type that the stakeholders need to make their decisions.
    • The Fund: No report required (and none lodged).

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • The surplus as a percentage of income was improved marginally.
  • Working capital is strongly positive.
  • Longer term financial structure appears sound.
  • The Fund: NA

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[1]. 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.
  • The Fund: NA

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

  • Not quite – ‘Phone’ is blank.
    • Did FEBC operate in all 14 countries listed under ‘Operates in (Countries)?
  • The Fund: No
    • The name of the charity does not match the name for the ABN.
      • And if it did then the information would be about FEBC Custodian Limited.
    • ‘Phone’ is blank.

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

  • Quite a few, presented a little confusingly.
  • Under the ‘Donate’ button in the main menu, other than being able to write in the name of a tax-deductible project, there is only one.
  • 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’
      • 10 projects (on of which is a radio, which is also a gift (see below), and a separate option (see above).
    • ‘Give a gift’
      • This leads to the ‘Use Your Gifts’ store, where there are 20 gifts.
      • These are also available under ‘Get involved’/’Gift catalogue’.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • But from the ACNC Register under ‘Responsible Persons’:
    • Peter Ronald Elliott
    • Kuet Qeun Ho
    • Kevin Keegan
    • Kenneth Kingwell
    • Rodney Tant
    • Vanessa Rae Hall
      • Although not shown on this profile, Vanessa is the Chair of the ‘Standards Panel’ (or is it the ‘CMA Standards Council’?), a committee of Christian Management Advancement Ltd, an organisation that believes that
        • Christian organisations should be the standard-setters in terms of impeccable corporate behaviour.
          • The Panel’s mission is to ‘help build faith and trust in Christian organisations’, including by allowing organisations who are compliant with a set of standards, formed by the Council, to display the Council’s seal of approval.
  • The Fund: The same, but without Kingwell.

To whom are FEBC accountable?

  • They’ve got the FIA ‘Organisational member’ seal, the logo of ‘FEBC International’, the logo of Global Development Group, the ACNC ‘charity tick’, and the Missions Interlink logo towards the bottom here.
    • 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.’[2] 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 accountable to the ACNC. (The ‘charity tick’ just says that FEBC is a registered charity.)
    • Missions Interlink has an accountability regime[3].

 

 

  1. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.
  2. FEBC Annual Report 2015-16, page 2.
  3. For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.