Archived: Langham Partnership (Australia) Incorporated: mini charity review for donors

Mini charity review of Langham Partnership (Australia) Incorporated (LP) as an organisation seeking donations. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

Is LP registered?

• As a charity, yes
• Other registrations:
  • A NSW incorporated association (INC9876767).
• Possible missing registrations:
  • If it is indeed operating interstate – throughout Australia according to the ACNC Register – then it doesn’t have the necessary ARBN registration.
  • A licence to fundraise. They don’t have one, including in the state in which it has its office. (LP’s public request for donations may mean one or more of the other states that have a licensing regime require a licence.)
    • LP claims a NSW licence on its website, but the licence expired on 17 May 2015.
    • The law in this area is not straightforward, and advice varies, so check with the charity before drawing any conclusions.

What do they do?

• From their website:
  • ‘Langham works alongside Christian leaders around the world, equipping them with skills and tools needed to teach and preach God’s Word to grow the church with depth and maturity…’
• More specifically, from the Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2015:
  • ‘Langham Partnership Australia equips pastors and leaders in the Majority World. We achieved this through funding and facilitating Biblical preaching training internationally, helping provide literature to Majority World Bible colleges and individuals, and supporting two doctoral scholars from other countries who are studying in Australia.’
    • With no intention of changing in 2016 [AIS 2015].

Do they share the Gospel?

• No. (It is not required by its objects.)

What impact are they having?

• They did not respond to the regulator’s request for outcomes in the AIS 2015.
• They say that ‘Everyday, we hear stories of congregations and communities being changed, new ministries being started and indigenous leaders catching the vision and running with it’, but there is no evidence, on the website, for this impact.

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

• Assuming that the totals for the three programs (‘Literature’, ‘Preaching’, and ‘Scholars’) contain no indirect costs, the answer is 46%.

Can you get a tax deduction?

• No.

Is their online giving secure?

• The credit card form says that you will be ‘taken to a secure area’.

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

• ‘Where most needed’, Langham Literature’, ‘Langham Preaching’, and ‘Langham Scholars’, plus an unspecified and undescribed number of ‘Other Projects’.

Is their reporting up-to-date?

• It is now, but for three months they were overdue.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

• AIS 2015: Not quite.
  • No outcomes are reported, and there are a couple of mistakes in the financial information. [Third point deleted 3.09.17].
• Financial Report 2015: No
  • It is missing two of the four required financial statements.
  • Both the reports that have to be signed are unsigned.
  • The Income Statement is in a format long since superseded.
  • Most of the required Notes are missing.
  • The directors say that LP ‘is not a reporting entity’, and therefore doesn’t have to comply with all the Accounting Standards, but they don’t say why.
    • They are effectively saying that they don’t have any users, present or prospective, who rely on their financial statements.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

• A 59% drop in income led to 40% reduction of equity.
  • Employee benefits, however, increased 54%.
• No obvious issues with the financial structure, either short- term or long-term.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

• Despite the issues with the Financial Report – see above – she gave a ‘clean’ opinion^[1].

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

• No. LP is, at least according to the ACNC, long overdue in selecting an Entity Subtype. Plus ‘Phone’ and ‘Website’ are blank^[2].

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

• The people, with the probable exception of the Public Officer (who is not automatically a director), shown here.
• Which is nothing like the list on the ACNC Register, which only shows two people (which can’t be right).
• The committee is responsible to the members.

To whom is LP accountable?

• They are, apart from the ACNC, accountable because of their membership of Missions Interlink[3].
  • For one opinion on the strength of this accountability, see the section Activities in this review.

Is it responsive to feedback?

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

1. To take the right amount of comfort for this finding, please read here and here. ↑
2. Although there are names under ‘Responsible Persons’, it is not correct that there are only two directors. ↑
3. Claimed by LP under the heading Annual Reports. (Although no annual report is available from there – you have to ask the CEO for one.) ↑