Archived: Logoslife International Incorporated: charity review

Mini-review of Logoslife International Incorporated (LI) as an organisation that (a) seeks donations online, and (b) is a member of Missions Interlink, an organisation that, among other things, gives members income tax exemption even though they do not meet the “in Australia” test and do not have deductible gift recipient status. (Including the answers to the questions that the Australian charity regulator, the ACNC, suggests that you ask.)

See here for last year’s review.

The previous review (in black) is used as a base, with comment only if the situation has changed or extra information would be helpful.

Missions Interlink members have to accept a set of standards, the introduction to which includes this statement:

Is it responsive to feedback?

• When sent a draft of this review, on 21 June 2017, they…did not respond.
• 2018 review: They did not respond to a draft of this review.

Is LI registered?

• As a charity, yes.
• Other registrations:
  • As a New South Wales incorporated association (No. INC9896528).
  • LI is not registered for GST, but it is still under the revenue at which it has to register.
    • NSW is its home state; there is no information that explains why Queensland is (still) included as an ‘Operating State’ on the ACNC Register.
    • 2018 review: The website doesn’t say anything about operations in Queensland.
      • If indeed it is operating interstate, it is a ‘registrable Australian body’ without a registration (an ARBN).
    • It has a fundraising licence only in NSW.
      • Apart from exemptions, whether it needs such a licence in the other six states that have a licensing regime depends on (a) whether fundraising is part of what LI does in that state, and (b) whether that state thinks that LI, by calling for donations publicly, is ‘fundraising’ in their territory.

What do they do?

• Presumably the reason they were founded is still what they do:
  • Logoslife International began in Australia in 2012 to provide administrative and home care support to missionaries on the field, and transfer funds with accountability to mission projects/ministry.
• At least part of this is confirmed in their description of their activities in their Annual Information Statement (AIS) 2016:
  • Receiving donations for the support of missionaries working in Botswana.
  • 2018 review: In the AIS 2017, ‘international activities’ are said to be ‘Supporting two Christian missionaries in Botswana’. This doesn’t, without explanation fit with the information given for ‘activities and outcomes’: ‘Provide support for people from a culturally and linguistically diverse background.’
• But the website says that they also have a project, ‘S.H.I.N.E. Africa’, which is separate to the work of this couple.
  • No grants were made for this project (AIS 2016).
  • 2018 review: No grants are shown in the financial statement; the ‘Finance’ section in the AIS 2017 is blank, so we can’t check for grants made.
• They have one missionary couple.
  • Donations are sought (see below), and presumably ‘Employee expenses/payments’ $122K includes (or is?) what was sent to them.
  • 2018 review: The usual financial information is absent from the AIS (2017), but the financial statements show ‘Staffing costs’ of $61K.
    • The AIS 2016 says that LI has two employees, both full-time.
    • 2018 review: ditto the AIS 2017.

Do they share the Gospel^[1]?

• No
  • Which is confirmed by the objects in the constitution:
    • To advance the Christian Faith (sic) throughout the world.   To promote preaching, teaching, training, welfare programs and general activities so as to further the cause of the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ and to work for the building up, extension and renewal of the Christian faith.

What impact are they having?

• Nothing found.
  • No outcomes are given in the AIS 2016 (2017).

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

• If we define ‘direct’ as what was spent on ‘Employee expenses/payments’, ‘administration’ was 1% of expenses.
• 2018 review: 9% in 2017

Can you get a tax deduction?

• No

Is their online giving secure?

• NA

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

• ‘Freemans’ support’
• ‘Ministry expenses’
• ‘Current projects__________’

Is their reporting up-to-date?

• Yes (four months after their year-end).
  • But if you are considering a large donation, I would ask for more up-to-date financial information – the accounts are for a year end that is now nearly a year ago.
• 2018 review: three and a half months.

Does their reporting comply with the regulator’s requirements?

• AIS 2016: Almost – no outcomes are reported.
• 2018 review: In addition to the above, ‘Section D: Finance’ is blank.
• Financial Report 2016: Yes
  • Its ACNC rating as ‘Small’ means that LI is not required to submit a financial report to the ACNC. And it hasn’t submitted one voluntarily.
  • LI’s membership of Missions Interlink requires it to ‘have available for its members and supporters a clear and appropriate financial statement which has been approved by its auditor. Last year I asked for this statement but didn’t get a reply. I leave it to you this year.
  • 2018 review:
    • The Financial Report that has been lodged consists of only one statement, an ‘Income and Expenditure Statement’, and that is non-compliant with the Accounting Standards.
    • The Report is therefore not compliant with Mission Interlink’s requirements.
    • However, the ACNC does not require voluntarily submitted Reports to comply with their legislation.

What financial situation was shown in that Report?

• NA
  • The AIS 2016 shows no liabilities, and minimal assets.
    • LI reported that its accounting method was ‘Cash’, a method that doesn’t generate assets (or liabilities); therefore, they had to record assets outside the double entry system.
  • 2018 review: only an income statement is provided in the Financial Report (see above), and the applicable section in the AIS 2017 is blank.

What did the auditor say about the last financial statements?

• NA

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

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

Who are the people controlling the organisation?

• These people on the ACNC Register (under ‘Responsible persons’):
  • Joshua Cocks
  • Sandra Connolly
  • Vonda Copleston
  • John Freeman
  • Elizabeth Groves
  • John Pring
  • Douglas Sands
• The website has the same names, and a little biography for each.

To whom is LI accountable?

• There’s a (very) large Missions Interlink ‘Accredited Member’ logo on the website. Membership confirmed.
  • For one opinion on the strength of the Missions Interlink accountability, see the section Activities in this review.
• Also accountable to the ACNC.

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.  ↑