TEAR Australia: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of TEAR Australia (TEAR), an organisation that is one of the first three organisations to be accredited by 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.’

(For last year’s review, see here.)

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • The comments that they wanted published have been included below.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • TEAR is a public company, a company limited by guarantee[1].
  • TEAR has a fundraising licence in five of the seven states that have a licensing regime. As it is accredited by AusAid, it is exempt in the ACT, but no reason was found for the lack of a licence in Victoria.

What does TEAR do?

Do they share the Gospel[2]?

  • No.
  • Here’s their answer to the FAQ ‘Does TEAR fund evangelism’?
    • No. TEAR’s policy is to finance the relief, development and advocacy activities of organisations who are motivated by their faith in Christ, and by their desire to demonstrate the depth of God’s commitment to justice, to mercy, to the poor. We do not fund proselytizing activities, but we rejoice and celebrate when we know of people whose lives have been wonderfully and beautifully enriched by the embrace of God in Christ. But we will not support any attempt to misuse relief and development activities to manipulate people into the church. We believe such attempts lack integrity, result in poor development, and dishonour the One who is our motivation.
      • TEAR implies that proselytizing as part of relief and development is automatically an attempt ‘to manipulate people into the church’. It’s not. In fact, there are many Christians who argue that development without sharing the Gospel is automatically an incomplete solution.
      • Ministry comment: ‘TEAR works hard as a Christian organisation to learn from the mistakes of past aid and development practice by many well-intentioned Christian NGOs, churches, and mission agencies which have hurt the church and communities they are trying to serve.  TEAR aims for best practice in the ways it undertakes its mission in light of its calling in the body of Christ and kingdom of God.  A useful reference for deeper understanding of TEAR’s ethos can be found by accessing “When Helping Hurts” by Brian Fikkert and Steve Corbett.’
        • Reviewer’s response: When Helping Hurts says this about sharing the Gospel: ‘A host of contextual issues determine the best manner and the appropriate time to present the gospel verbally, particularly in militant Muslim or Hindu settings. But without such a presentation, it is not possible for people to be personally transformed in all their relationships, which is what poverty alleviation is all about [Kindle Locations 1262-1264, Moody Publishers].

What impact are they having?

  • To measure impact one needs a ‘theory of change’. TEAR has one.
    • It appears from this that the results at the end of the TEAR process are not the changes in the beneficiaries in the community, but the changes in the ‘four “pillars” or prerequisites of change’ in that community.
  • There are two reports of impact on the website, both done prior to the new definition of impact:
    • Impact Report – Livelihoods and Food Security
      • This shows the number of people impacted in various categories of impact in 2013-14 across all projects having ‘a proportionately significant element of livelihood and food security sectoral work.’ Here is an example of the information for each category:
        • CASH FOR WORK/ DIRECT ASSISTANCE (2832 people)

Cash for work, or direct assistance is appropriate in areas of extreme poverty, disaster recovery, or where there is only a small money-based economy that can be leveraged for growth. Such direct assistance provides short-term livelihood benefits and can be used as a foundation for longer-term economic strengthening at a household or community level.

        • The assumption is therefore that there were net benefits to each of the individuals receiving this assistance.
    • Impact Report – Sector Analysis for Basic Health
        • Like the above, but for health in 2014-15.
    • One would think that ‘effectiveness’ would also have something to say about impact. And as the abstract for the Effectiveness Report 2015-16 says, it did in previous years:
      • This report is a departure from previous Effectiveness Reports that have sought to quantify aspects of TEAR’s work in more detail. While measuring the impact of our work continues to be important, TEAR’s primary role is to work closely with partners to support them, and help them develop their own work. To do this effectively requires us to learn so we can pass on that learning to our partners. This report therefore highlights some of the key ways that TEAR has learned over the past year and how it hopes to use this learning to improve its own practice and core business of supporting partners more effectively.

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

  • The item ‘Accountability and administration’ is 7% of expenses (8% of revenue).
    • 7% is the figure they quote in the Annual Report and on the website.
    • This figure does not include all employee expenses.
      • Employee expenses are not disclosed in the accounts. From the AIS 2016, they are 19% of expenses.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Yes

Is their online giving secure?

  • eway is used, so yes.

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

  • Unless you choose from the ‘Useful Gifts’, none.
  • ‘Useful Gifts’: choose from six categories:
    • Build a Village’
    • ‘Community’
    • ‘Education’
    • ‘Good food’
    • ‘Good health’
    • ‘Water & Sanitation’
    • Ministry comment: ‘Donors are able to direct giving to any of TEAR’s projects (not just those listed in your summary), and donors who give via phone are specifically asked if there is a particular project they would like to fund, with suggestions offered based on the caller’s indications.’

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (five months after their year-end, a month later than last year).

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016): No
    • ‘Activities’ are not particular to 2016.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • ‘Other comprehensive income’ and ‘Total comprehensive income’ are both understated by $301K.
      • Ministry comment:  [Added 30.05.17 at their request] ‘The Other Comprehensive Income item (and subsequent flow on to Total Comprehensive Income for the Year figure) is not included in the ACNC online report. This is due to negative items for this field not being able to be entered because of a known technical glitch in their system.
  • Financial Report 2015: Yes
    • There are no definitions of the major expenses items.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • The surplus as a percentage of income has decreased from 12% to minus 10%.
    • This was largely due to a decrease in donations.
  • 5.5 months of revenue is held in cash and short-term deposits.
  • Both short-term and long-term financial structure appear sound.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[3].

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

  • ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank, but neither are compulsory.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • These people shown on the website as members of the board:
    • Joanna Betteridge
    • Peter Noble
    • Barbara Deutschmann
    • Brett Gresham
    • Matthew Maury
    • Barry Morris
    • Peter Snowsill
    • Joanna Watts
    • Lauren Bonnet
  • With a swop of Lauren Bonnet for James Burnet, the same people are shown on the ACNC Register (under ‘Responsible Persons’):

To whom is TEAR accountable?

  • As they themselves say:
    • TEAR Australia is fully accredited with The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) which manages the Australian Government’s overseas aid program, and
    • A signatory to the Australian Council For International Development Code of Conduct.
      • They received 33% of their revenue from DFAT.
  • To the CMA Standards Council as an accredited organisation.
  • To the ACNC as a charity, and to ASIC as a company.
  • Ministry comment: ‘In addition to those listed, TEAR also has accountabilities to the Integral Alliance.

 

 

  1. Not, as TEAR says on its ABN record, an ‘Other Incorporated Entity’.
  2. Good living and social concern are important [to the cause of evangelism], but they are not uniquely Christian graces…I’ve met a lot of fine Hindus, Muslims and atheists. Just living the life is not going to bring someone to Christ. There is much more to it than that. We must help people, certainly, but we must also share with them why we are motivated to do so. We must stand against injustice, poverty and need, but we must at the same time point to the One who brings justice and who can meet the deepest need. Until they know our reasons, how can they come to know our Lord?” [Dan Armstrong, the Fifth Gospel: The Gospel According to You, Anzea Books, pp. 13-14.
  3. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

Anglican Aid: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Anglican Aid (AA), an organisation that was one of the first three accredited by 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.’

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 18 May 2017, they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • No.
  • It doesn’t have any fundraising licences (seven states have a licensing regime).

What does AA do?

  • The About page says that
    • Anglican Aid is an overseas relief and aid agency of the Anglican Church of Australia, committed to excel in the provision of Christian aid to vulnerable communities throughout the world.
    • However, this does not match the contents of the website: there are many more activities described than overseas aid. It would be correct if the only charity that they were managing was The Archbishop Of Sydney’s Overseas Relief and Aid Fund, but there are two others.

Do they share the Gospel[1]?

  • There is no evidence on the website that they do.

What impact are they having?

  • A search of the website found no report on impact.

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

  • NA – no financial information is available.

Can you get a tax deduction?

Is their online giving secure?

  • SecurePay is used, so yes.

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

  • Online, on the ‘support’ page:
    • ‘Victims of Violence and Famine in East Africa’
    • ‘Cyclone Debbie Appeal’
    • ‘EOFY Appeal Overseas’
    • ‘EOFY Appeal Australia’
    • ‘Easter Appeal’
    • ‘Syrian Refugees’
    • ‘General Donation’
    • ‘Overseas Ministry’
    • ‘Bunda Girls School Bursaries’
    • ‘Petra bursaries Zimbabwe’
    • ‘Support for Sami’
    • ‘MOCLAM Bible Training’
    • ‘Blessed to Bless (Zambia’s Child)’
    • ‘SOAR China’
    • ‘South Sudan Voices of Salvation’
    • ‘Albert Lamoureux – Mauritius’
    • ‘Growing Hope Myanmar’
  • But there is a different, including more extensive, list via the first FAQ.
  • By mail: none.
  • By phone: not specified.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • NA – they don’t report.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • NA – they don’t report.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • NA

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • NA

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

  • NA

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • The website says that there is a board:
    • The Board of Management, with responsibilities as such under the Corporations Act to govern the Anglican Aid function and organisation, comprises men and women with long seasons of experience in Christian ministry, international mission and business.
      • But AA is not a corporation (company)– in fact it is not officially even a separate entity.
      • Nor are any of the three charities that it manages companies.
    • These are the people listed under this description:
      • Rt Rev PJ Tasker
      • Mrs Emma Penzo
      • Mr David Dennis
      • Is it this David Dennis?
      • Rev Rob Steward (sic)
      • Dr Keith Walker
      • Rev John Menear
      • Rev Canon Peter Rodgers
      • Rev Brett Hall
      • Mr Doug Marr
  • With the correction of ‘Steward’ to ‘Stewart’, these are the same nine directors that comprise the board of the three charities that AA runs.
    • There are 10 directorships recorded for the name ‘Douglas Marr’, 9 for ‘Emma Penzo’, and 8 for ‘Peter Rodgers’.  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 AA 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 their fiduciary responsibilities is threatened.

To whom is AA accountable?

  • Since being accredited with the CMA Standards Council, that body. Before that, nobody.

 

 

  1. Good living and social concern are important [to the cause of evangelism], but they are not uniquely Christian graces…I’ve met a lot of fine Hindus, Muslims and atheists. Just living the life is not going to bring someone to Christ. There is much more to it than that. We must help people, certainly, but we must also share with them why we are motivated to do so. We must stand against injustice, poverty and need, but we must at the same time point to the One who brings justice and who can meet the deepest need. Until they know our reasons, how can they come to know our Lord?” [Dan Armstrong, the Fifth Gospel: The Gospel According to You, Anzea Books, pp. 13-14.

Crossway Baptist Church Inc.: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of Crossway Baptist Church Inc. (CBC), an organisation that

  1. is connected, through its director John Peberdy, 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.’
  2. seeks donations online.

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent, on 24 April 2017, a draft of the review written before they lodged their 2016 Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016), they…did not respond.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • CBC is a Victorian incorporated association (A0045459U).
  • It controls three other charities:
  • CBC has not registered the name it uses, Crossway.
  • As a religious body that has authority to marry people, it does not need a fundraising licence in Victoria, the only state in which it operates.

What does CBC do?

  • There isn’t one page that gives this on the website, but the ‘Senior Pastor’s Report’ in the 2016 Annual Report will give you a good idea of what CBC and its controlled entities does.

Do they share the Gospel[1]?

  • Yes

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing systematic found.
  • CBC’s mission is ‘Loving God, Loving People, Disciples that Multiply’. The 2016 Annual Report, a report on CBC and its arms, reports
    • ‘502 first time commitments’
    • ‘145 baptisms’
    • ‘Net increase in lifegroups 23’
    • ‘3 new missional community (sic)’
    • 300 pre-Christians discipled through Discovery Bible Study’
    • ’79 New Disciplers’
    • ‘794 people struggling in our community were transformed through hope, healing and care’

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

  • Although there is an item ‘Administration & Facility expenses’ in the profit and loss statement, ‘Depreciation’ is shown separately, and the composition of the program expenses is not given.
    • The 2016 Annual Report says that it is 23%.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Not to CBC itself.
  • But you could if CBC sought donations for its two funds, Crossway Baptist Fellowship Fund, and Crossway CRE Fund, but it doesn’t.
  • It does however offer, on its website, tax-deductible donations to two of its charities, Crossway Kingdom Fund, and Crossway Lifecare Ltd.

Is their online giving secure?

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

  • If you give online:
    • ‘Crossway Tithes and Offerings’
    • ‘Crossway Kingdom Fund (Tax Deductible)
    • ‘Crossway Lifecare (Tax Deductible)’
  • If you give by direct debit:
    • The last two above, plus
    • ‘General Fund (Tithes/Missions)’
    • ‘Crossway Property Fund (Refurbishment)

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (four months after their year-end)

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016): No
    • Over half the figures in the ‘Comprehensive Income Statement summary’ are incorrect.
    • The activities do not relate specifically to 2016.
    • No outcomes are reported.
    • Zero for ‘Grants and donations made…’ does not match the Financial Report information.
  • Financial Report 2016: No
    • The Report excludes the entities that CBC controls. It is difficult to see how this gives a true and fair view.
    • It stretches credulity to say, as the directors do, that an organisation with $7.46 m of income and 82 employees [AIS 2016], and 1881 members and 1669 volunteers [2016 Annual Report], has ‘no users dependent on its general purpose financial statements.’ This allows them to produce the lower standard special purpose statements.
    • No explanation is given for why all the figures in the last year column for expenses are different from what was shown last year.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • With the understanding that the Report only covers part of the church’s operations,
    • The surplus as a percentage of income has decreased from 1% to negative 8%.
    • Short-term cash assets are equal to about five months’ income.
    • Both short-term and long-term financial structure appear sound.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’ opinion[2].
    • But he agreed with CBC excluding the entities they control, and he agreed with them saying, effectively, that anybody needing financial information about CBC would be able to get a report tailored to their needs.

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

  • ‘Phone’ and ‘Email’ are blank, but this is not compulsory information.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • On the ACNC Register (under ‘Responsible Persons’):
    • Mark Churchward
    • Edward Harrison
    • Francis Hoe
    • Kok Looi
    • Scott Pilgrim
    • Margaret Spicer
    • Dale Stephenson
    • Beth Strybosch
    • Timothy Wilson
    • John Peberdy
      • John 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.
    • There are 14 directorships recorded for the name ‘John Peberdy’, and 8 for ‘Timothy Wilson’.  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 CBC 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 CBC accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And to the Victorian associations regulator.

 

 

  1. Good living and social concern are important [to the cause of evangelism], but they are not uniquely Christian graces…I’ve met a lot of fine Hindus, Muslims and atheists. Just living the life is not going to bring someone to Christ. There is much more to it than that. We must help people, certainly, but we must also share with them why we are motivated to do so. We must stand against injustice, poverty and need, but we must at the same time point to the One who brings justice and who can meet the deepest need. Until they know our reasons, how can they come to know our Lord?” [Dan Armstrong, the Fifth Gospel: The Gospel According to You, Anzea Books, pp. 13-14.
  2. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

City Bible Forum Incorporated: mini-charity review for donors

Mini charity review of City Bible Forum Incorporated (CBF), as an organisation that seeks donations online. (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, they did not respond[1].

Is CBF registered?

  • As a charity, yes.
  • Other registrations:
    • As a NSW incorporated association (Y2770511)[2].
    • As an Australian Registered Body (ARBN: 105 231 089), allowing it to trade interstate.
    • The website says that CBF has offices in all states except ACT, Tasmania and the Northern Territory. Canberra, i.e. the ACT, is in the drop-down menu, and although it shows Sydney as its office, it is listed on the ACNC Register.
      • Apart from the fundraising via the internet (see above), do any of these offices fundraise? All the states in which it operates have a licensing regime for fundraisers: it is exempt in NSW, but is not licensed in the other five[3].
    • CBF does not have any name registered other than its legal name (above). Therefore, it must, under its enabling legislation (section 41(1)),
      • ‘not issue any letter, statement, invoice, notice, publication, order for goods or services or receipt in connection with its activities unless the association’s name appears in legible characters on the document.’
      • It is arguable that, nowadays, this includes at least some of what is published on CBF’s social and other media pages, pages that are in the name City Bible Forum.

What does CBF do?

  • Generally: what they describe here.
  • More specifically: the activities here. (Less than this is said in the Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015).

Does CBF share the Gospel?

  • Although not required by its constitution – there is actually no purpose or objects written there– it is assumed that at least some of CBF’s activities (see ‘What does CBF do?’, above), include the proclamation of the Gospel.

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing found.

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

  • CBF do not make the impact they are seeking explicit. But even if they did, there is likely insufficient disclosure in the Statement of Comprehensive Income to calculate the cost of administration.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • Not to CBF. But you can to its fund, City Bible Forum Public Library.
    • Where is the library?

Is CBF’s online giving secure?

  • They use eway, so yes.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

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

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • AIS 2015: No
    • No outcomes are given.
    • The type of financial statements said to be produced is incorrect.
    • The figures for ‘All other revenue’ and ‘Other income’ do not match those in the financial statements.
  • Financial Report 2015: Questionable
    • Special purpose financial statements: CBF has offices in five states, at least 27 employees, and receives $1.68 m in donations. Yet the directors say that CBF has no users, past or prospective, who are dependent on normal financial statements to make decisions about the charity. (The corollary is that any stakeholder, now and in the future, can ask CBF to tailor a financial report for them.)
    • How can an organization that has offices in five states have no non-current assets, for instance, office equipment?
    • Why is the library not included in the balance sheet?
    • In the audited accounts:
      • Almost the entire expenses total, $1.81 m, is included merely as ‘Other expenses…’
      • Employee benefits expense is not disclosed.
        • ‘Employee expenses’ in the AIS 2015 is $1.44 m, 79% of the total.
          • The number of employees is reported as 14 full-time and 28 part-time in AIS 2015, considerably different from the 28 shown on the website.
      • No explanation is given for the inclusion of a liability, Provision for Long Serve Leave, in the Statement of Comprehensive Income…, or for it being a negative expense.
      • ‘Ministry activities’ ($141K) is not explained.

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

  • The surplus as a percentage of income was decreased marginally from 2.2% to 2.0%.
    • The surplus is overstated by the amount of any depreciation that should have been charged.
  • They borrowed once for working capital (rather than capital assets). Will they have to do it again?
  • Liabilities exceed assets by $29K (down from $64K). This means that if CBF closed at 31 December 2015, it would owe people outside CBF at least this amount.
  • Only $3K of the $104K loan is shown as a current (short-term) liability. The term of the loan is not given, but the directors’ comment that ‘The creditor has given a written undertaking not to call on the debt until the association has eliminated the deficiency of funds’, implies that it is repayable on demand. Such an undertaking, because it is not an unconditional right to defer settlement, does not qualify the loan to be classified as non-current [AASB 101.69, www.aasb.gov.au].
  • This means that the working capital (current assets less current liabilities) is not the positive 1.2 times that is currently shown, but slightly negative.
  • The administrative burden is increased by the use of a very large number of bank accounts.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • He gave a ‘clean’[4] opinion. But
    • Silence by the directors on the challenge to the going concern assumption, plus their misclassification of the loan, suggests that a ‘clean opinion’ might not have been appropriate.
    • By accepting the engagement, the auditor implicitly agreed with the directors’ choice of special purpose financial statements over normal statements.
    • It appears that he signed before the directors signed their declaration.
    • And see the comments under ‘Financial Report 2015’, above.

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

  • Yes

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

  • Infinite: ‘Please tell us if your donation has a special purpose’
    • There is no mention of the tax deductibility (see ‘Can you get a tax deduction?’, above).
    • Melbourne office is seeking money separately, and says that ‘We are able to make contributions of $2000 and more tax deductible (only a portion of our budget is tax deductible). This information does not match that shown on CBF’s ABN record (see above).

Who are the people controlling the CBF?

  • Not shown on the website.
  • The following people (from ‘Responsible Persons’ on the ACNC Register).
    • David Barnsdall
    • Andrew Charleston
    • Darryl Cross
    • Mark Daly (who is also a director of The Spiritual Assembly of the Baha’Is of Warringah Limited).
    • Mark Genning
    • Jacqueline Hodges
    • Peter Kaldor
    • Michael Raiter
    • Craig Shilson-Josling
  • These directors are on more than three charity boards:
    • Peter Kaldor: seven
      • If it is the same Peter Kaldor for all seven charities, and knowing that this number does not include directorships of non-charity not-for-profits or businesses, you may reasonably question how somebody who is the managing director of a national charity with 28 staff can successfully discharge their fiduciary responsibilities to all these organisations.
    • Michael Raiter: four (including SparkLit and Familyvoice Australia Incorporated)

To whom is CBF accountable?

  • To the ACNC.
  • And to the New South Wales associations regulator.

 

 

  1. Review sent 17 April 2107; published 1 May 2017.
  2. Not, as their ABN record says, an ‘Other Unincorporated Entity’.
  3. The law in this area is not straightforward and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.
  4. To take the right amount of comfort from a ‘clean opinion’, please read here and here.

The Trustee For Rosenheim Trust: mini-charity review

Mini-charity review of The Trustee For Rosenheim Trust (Rosenheim), an organisation that is connected, by the directorship of 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.’

Is it responsive to feedback?

  • When sent a draft of this review, on 20 April 2017, they responded the next day – but nothing for publication.

Is it registered?

  • Yes, as a charity.
  • Rosenheim is a trust, an unincorporated body.
  • No information was found to indicate that Rosenheim seeks donations from the public.

What does Rosenheim do?

  • It donates money consistent with its ‘purpose of sustaining, advancing and promoting evangelical Christian ministries’.
    • Because they say on the ACNC Register than they operate only in Queensland, perhaps the recipients were all in that State?

Do they share the Gospel?

  • No

What impact are they having?

  • Nothing found.
    • No outcomes are reported in the Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016).

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

  • Nil – ‘Grants and donations made…for use in Australia’ are 100% of expenses.

Can you get a tax deduction?

  • No

Is their online giving secure?

  • NA – there is no website.

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

  • NA

Is their reporting up-to-date?

  • Yes (three months after their year-end)

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

  • Annual Information Statement 2016 (AIS 2016): Not quite – no outcomes are reported.
  • Financial Report 2016: Yes – because of its size, none is required.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

  • NA. But from the AIS 2016:
    • Income was 100% ‘Other revenue/receipts’, $42K.
    • No employees.
    • No expenses other than what they donated, $36K.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

  • NA. Not required by the ACNC, and not required by the trust deed.

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

  • Not quite – there is only one trustee listed. The Trust Deed requires a minimum of two.

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

  • Per the ACNC Register (under ‘Responsible Persons’), just one, Robert Rawson.
    • Robert is a director of Christian Ministry 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.
  • Per the Trust Deed:
    • ‘Initial’
      • Robert James Rawson
      • Dorothy Joy Rawson
    • ‘Substituted’
      • Wendy Gaye Webb
      • Julie Ann Iveson
      • Nicole Joy Orr

To whom is Rosenheim accountable?