Archived: International Teams Ministries Australia Incorporated: mini charity review for donors

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

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

Are they responsive to feedback?

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

Is IT registered?

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

What does IT do?

• ‘Our National Focus’.
• But this doesn’t mention their work with refugees and to end slavery. See the main menu item ‘Get involved’.

Does IT share the Gospel?

• Via some of its missionaries, no doubt.

What impact are they having?

• Nothing systematic found.

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

• There is insufficient disclosure to make this calculation.

Can you get a tax deduction?

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

Is IT’s online giving secure?

• Security is not mentioned.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

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

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

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

What financial situation was shown by that Report?

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

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

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

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

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

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

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

Who are the people controlling IT?

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

To whom are IT accountable?

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

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