The discrepancies around three large donations to Soul Survivor

Three gifts. Three years.

£100,000

£100,000

£500,000

All going to Soul Survivor's Soul61 charity.

But there's something else. The written records of these donations don't add up. I'll explain more.

But first, I need to recap the role of trustees. Trustees are important - they're the people who "share ultimate responsibility" for governing a charity. They have a long list of legal obligations. For example, trustees must:

• make sure that charity assets are only used for its purposes
• deal with conflicts of interests 
• ensure the charity complies with relevant laws 

(Source: The Essential Trustee)

Back to those donations. As previously mentioned, I don't have particular concerns about the donor company at this stage. I do have concerns about the money going into the Soul61 charity and the wording that references Mike Pilavachi.

The first gift: in the 2016/2017 annual filings of Soul61, we find this passage:

"During the year, a significant donation of £100,000 was received, to be used at the discretion of the charity trustees but not necessarily for the day-to-day activities of the charity."

(Source: Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2017, page 6)

Okay, that's fairly standard wording. The trustees decide how the money gets spent. In this case, as in some other charities, the director (Andy Croft) is also a trustee, and so is part of that conversation.

This section of the report is signed by Andy Croft. He does that most years with the Soul61 reports. However, we should remember that Croft also seems to have a number of conflicts of interest that may alter this power dynamic.

Later on in the same report we find this passage:

"Soul61 received a donation of £100,000 from a donor wishing to support the work of various Soul Survivor activities, to be used at the discretion of Mike Pilavachi"

(Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2017, page 16)

These two statements can't both be true. 

Either the trustees decide together how the money is used, or Mike Pilavachi decides by himself. 

One, or the other.

But this trustee report says both.

I see 3 possibilities about the contradiction here:

1. a simple mistake
2. deliberate, with the blessing of the trustees
3. deliberate, without the knowledge of some of the trustees

Can you see another option? Let me know if you can, and I'll consider adding it. Contact details are in the top-right of the page.

1. Is this a simple mistake?

Might this be a case of incompetence rather that design? That's possible. However, as we consider the circumstances, the chance that an error has occurred gets ever-smaller. I can think of a number of reasons these statements are unlikely to be mistakes:

a. The next year the same mistake happened again

"During the year, a significant donation of £100,000 was received, to be used at the discretion of the charity trustees but not necessarily for the day-to-day activities of the charity."

(Source: Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2018, page 6)

and later on:

"Soul61 received a further donation of £100,000 from a donor wishing to support the work of various Soul Survivor activities, to be used at the discretion of Mike Pilavachi."

(Source: Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2018, page 16)

b. Then the mistake happened another time, at the end of the 2018-2019 financial year

This is the year of the £500,000 gift:

"During the year, a donation of £500,000 was received, to be used at the discretion of the charity trustees but not necessarily for the day-to-day activities of the charity."

(Source: Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2019, page 6)

And the contradiction is found later in the report:

"Soul Survivor received further donation of £500,000 from a donor wishing to support the work of various Soul Survivor activities, to be used at the discretion of Mike Pilavachi."

(Source: Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2019, page 16)

c. The mistake happens in relation to the 3 largest gifts ever received by Soul61

In particular, the £500,000 donation is 33 times bigger than the next-largest gift from an external organisation. 

The next-largest gifts are:

• £15,000 donation from The Tufton Trust in 2013-2014
• £15,000 donation from Holy Trinity Brompton in 2013-2014 

There are no contradictions concerning those gifts in the 2013-2014 trustees' report.

d. This mistake is in the trustees' annual report - they'd spot it

They're expected to review this. Wouldn't they spot a mistake? At the time of these gifts the Soul61 trustees were, in alphabetical order:

• Ali Martin
• Andy Croft
• David Saunderson
• Liz Biddulph
• Mike Pilavachi

Given the many legal responsibilities of trustees, wouldn't one of them spot this in one of these 3 years?

When you consider these four aspects together, you reach the conclusion that it's possible, and unlikely, that these were mistakes.

2. Is the contradiction deliberate, with the blessing of the trustees?

Maybe. I find it hard to believe though. Trustees have lots of legal responsibilities. I can't imagine that all of them would stand for this, particularly in a document that's part of the public record.

Some of them, such as David Saunderson, are leaders of other organisations with a reputation to consider.

3. Is the contradiction deliberate, without the knowledge of some of the trustees?

I find this explanation more plausible than the other two. This would explain how these contradictions exist in three separate trustee annual reports.

Remember how these donations were given to the single Soul Survivor charity that didn't get audited? I wonder if auditors would have spotted this conflicting documentation. 

I wonder if routing the gifts to Soul61 then allowed someone to change their purpose?

So what? Does this matter?

It seems to me that either:

a. YTL Utilities wanted the trustees to decide how the money was spent and the sentence about Mike Pilavachi was added in some other way

or

b. they wanted Mike Pilavachi to decide how the money was spent and the sentence about the trustees was added in some other way

Charity Commission rules put a lot of focus on what the donor wants. The Fundraising Code of Practice says:

"You must make sure that donations are used to support the cause in line with any conditions attached to the donation. This may be conditions the donor sets when making the donation or representations you make (either verbally or in fundraising materials) about how the money will be used."

I've seen organisations put a lot of time and effort into making sure this happens. It's a big deal where charities are concerned.

Soul61 must honour the donor's wishes. What were they? 

The donor knows.

The staff or trustees who liaised with the donor know.

Maybe they will share that information at some stage. 

Overall, the contradictory information shifts and blurs control of £700,000 of funds.

It gives someone in leadership the opportunity to quote part of the report when making requests about the money. 

If option a was true, then Pilavachi could, for example, ask an administrator to transfer an amount to the Soul Survivor charity for travel costs. Unless the employee had read the whole trustees report they wouldn't realise the request was invalid.

If option b was true, the trustees could block a request from Pilavachi to move some of the money to the Soul Survivor Watford charity, by citing only one section of the report. While we might prefer that, given the allegations against Pilavachi, it would run against donor wishes and break the rules of the Charity Commission.

The end result is that one party (either Pilavachi or the trustees) gain power that they didn't have over £700,000 of funding.

More Soul Survivor blogs

Questions about a £500,000 gift and Mike Pilavachi

Soul Survivor spent more than £14k on each Mike Pilavachi intern

Time to confess, Soul Survivor staff and trustees

Dear staff and trustees, and former staff and trustees, of Soul Survivor,

We're Christians, aren't we? We worship, and learn about, and pray to Jesus Christ. 

We've tried to listen to him at key decision moments in life. We've pleaded with him in times of tragedy and suffering. 

He is our purpose and our goal. He is our companion and our ruler.

And we know about confession, don't we? That moment when we bring our self-inflicted horrors to God. When we kneel in shame like King David must have, amidst the wreckage of our actions.

Remember that sense of relief? Remember that moment of grace? When we remember that Jesus redeems us. When we remember that our sins are separated from us as far as the East is from the West?

It's time to confess.

It's time to bring out what you know, though it shames you. It's time to bring out what you did. It's time to tell of the moments when you were too scared, or too conflicted, or too horrified to do the right thing.

Tell them.

Tell the safeguarding investigators.

Tell the Charity Commission.

Tell the Police.

For you, and for your discipleship. You deserve to be free of these burdens.

Questions about a £500,000 gift and Mike Pilavachi

"Follow the money", they say, don't they? So I did. And it's led to some interesting discoveries about Soul Survivor.

It's been over 3 months since a safeguarding investigation was announced into Mike Pilavachi. Soul Survivor Watford leadership seemed to be hiding information at the time. That bothered me: I expect more from churches who preach about justice. So I took a closer look into the workings of the organisation. Recently, I've turned my attention to money. After all, if accountability was a problem for the Soul Survivor founder, then might that show up in other ways?

I've found a striking detail in the filings that Soul Survivor are obliged to make every year:

In 2018/2019 YTL Utilities made a £500,000 donation to Soul61:

(Source: Soul61 Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2019, page 13)

There are a number of things that seem unusual to me about this gift.

I should say, I'm an outsider, albeit one who has attended Soul Survivor events, listened to Soul Survivor CDs and read Soul Survivor books. I'm not an accountant or finance professional. However, I do have 10+ years experience working in fundraising departments and charities, which gives me a little insight in this area.

1. Why is the gift made to Soul61?

The donation is paid to the Soul61 charity. There are several charities related to Soul Survivor. The purpose of this one is to:

"raise up young leaders who will change the world around them"

 (Source: Soul61 Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2019, page 4)

However, a note accompanying the donation says:

"Soul61 received a further donation of £500,000 from a donor wishing to support the work of various Soul Survivor activities, to be used at the discretion of Mike Pilavachi."

(Source: Soul61 Total exemption full accounts made up to 31 August 2019, page 16 )

These sound like much broader aims than the purpose of Soul61. Why is the money paid into this charity and not one of the others: Soul Survivor or Soul Survivor Watford?

If we look at in later filings at how the money is spent, we can see these broad aims come to pass:

• £110k to Soul Survivor Watford for 'reconstruction of the Watford church' (2018/2019)
• £50k grant to Soul Survivor Watford for 'reconstruction of the Watford church' (2019/2020)
• £200k 'grant to Soul Survivor Watford' (2019/2020). 
• £65k grant to Soul Survivor for 'investment in audio visual equipment' / 'for building works' (They say different things in different places in their 2020/2021 filings)

When I posted about this question on Twitter, Steve Lewis made a point:

This was news to me. I checked, and he's right. The UK Government guidance in this area says:

"Broadly speaking, an independent examination is needed if gross income is between £25,000 and £1 million and an audit is needed where the gross income exceeds £1 million"

A donation to Soul Survivor Watford, or to Soul Survivor would be audited. A donation to Soul61 would not be audited. Is this the reason for paying the money to Soul61? 

In a similar way, I imagine a donation to Soul61 would be less visible to the trustees, staff and members of Soul Survivor Watford. Is there a reason one would want that? 

2. Why is Mike Pilavachi mentioned in relation to the gift?

You might be surprised at this question. Isn't this normal? After all sometimes wealthy individuals end up speaking directly to charity directors.

Well, at the time of this gift Mike Pilavachi and Andy Croft are co-leaders of Soul Survivor Watford. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to specify both of them? 

And, if I remember correctly, it's normal practice to avoid naming names in these sort of circumstances. After all, what if the person got a job elsewhere? At the time of this gift Pilavachi was 60 or 61. Wasn't there a chance he might retire soon? How would spending this money work in those circumstances?

This is relevant today. Now that Pilavachi has resigned, are there problems administering the use of this gift?

Regular readers may recall that the Director of Soul61 is listed as Andy Croft. He's in charge of day-to-day management of the charity, and seems to be chair of the trustees. This is another reason why Soul61 seems an odd place to receive this gift, if a donor wants Mike Pilavachi to decide how the money is spent. Why not donate to Soul Survivor Watford, where Pilavachi was co-leader?

 I can see two further gifts from the same donor in 2016/2017 and 2017/2018. These are smaller - £100,000 in each case - but they are accompanied with the same Mike Pilavachi mentions. That's an indication that this was an intentional approach rather than an single error.

3. Why route a big gift to a small charity?

£500,000 is a massive amount of money for Soul61. 

For perspective, their total income in 2015/2016 was £240k. In the subsequent financial years it was £357k and £302k (those amounts include those other two gifts mentioned above).

Imagine being told that the income of your charity was about to triple?

It's tricky to use a gift of this scale well. It's a fundamental shift in the possible. I imagine you have to think carefully about this, to keep focussed on the purpose of the charity. 

It's another reason why it's strange they paid this donation into the Soul61 charity. Soul Survivor Watford has a larger income that seems better suited to the scale of the gift.

As an aside: this is big news. Staff get excited about big donations, because they provide fuel to their causes. I've seen big celebrations over much smaller gifts. Did other staff members, and trustees of the related charities hear about this money? Did the Soul Survivor Watford church hear about this money? This would normally be a cause of amazement and celebration.

What about the YTL Utilities?

You might be surprised to learn that I consider a donation from a large company normal.

It's normal for companies to give to charities. I've heard of lots of examples. Donations are a good thing - they are the fuel that keeps charities and churches running. Gifts like these help you to fulfil your purpose, whether that is medical research, tackling climate change or serving the poor. 

It's rare a charity would refuse a gift. It happens in some cases, but it's rarer than we might imagine. In fact, the Fundraiser's Code of Practice insists that you almost never refuse a donation.

I should say I'm not familiar with any rules around giving to religious organisations. I assume that would be a matter for the board of the donor company to decide. But I could be wrong about that. 

In conclusion

There are several questions here. They may have innocent explanations. However, when the founder of a charity is under investigation we should look carefully at all areas of that charity's operation.

Update
Since writing this blog I've found some more oddities about this gift and two other donations from YTL Utilities.

More Soul Survivor blogs

Soul Survivor spent more than £14k on each Mike Pilavachi intern

The odd lines of accountability for the Mike Pilavachi interns