"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
