Questions about the relationship between Soul Survivor and Tearfund

If you ever went to a Soul Survivor festival, I'm sure you heard the name 'Tearfund'. And yet little has been said this year about the connection between the charities. I've looked closely at the annual reports, and I have questions... questions that centre around Soul Action.

Soul Action was a partnership between Soul Survivor and Tearfund. It was run from within the Soul Survivor charity. There are mentions of it in the annual filings, beginning in 2005 with this:

"In the summer of 2005 the charity started Soul Action, an initiative with a social action emphasis to serve the last, the least and the lost. During the year over 700 people and 90 groups joined as Soul Action partners. The first project for Soul Action is Soul in the City 2009 and funds raised to date have been utilised establishing Soul Action, providing educational resources for partners and starting to establish projects and a network in Durban itself. Amounts remaining in restricted funds (note 16) will be used for projects in Durban. In 2006 that charity has partnered Soul Action with Tear Fund and in the summer 50 people will be going to Durban to help with projects."

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2005, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 1)

A 'restricted fund' is a familiar term in the charity world. It's a ring-fenced pot of money that can only be used for a particular purpose. It's an administrative hassle, so it's normally only used where a donor has attached conditions to a gift. 

We find details of spending on Soul Action later in the same 2005 report (see the penultimate line):

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2005, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 12)

Side note: I'm confused by the money listed in the 2004 column for Soul Action, because there's no mention of Soul Action in the 2004 filing. Maybe it was renamed for this year.

In the restricted funds section of the 2005 report we can see another entry for the same money going out (it's the figure listed in brackets):

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2005, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 16)

That page is giving us details of ring-fenced funds. It shows us there was no money in the Soul Action pot at the beginning of 2005, some money came in, some money went out, and there was £51,009 in the pot at the end of the year.

Where did the money come from? What did that money get spent on? No details are given. I don't think it goes to Tearfund - I think they'd have to explicitly label that.

The setup evolves slightly over the years. In the 2006 report the connection with Tearfund seems to have become more permanent. The connection is now listed in the 'Relationships with other organisations' section of the report (see page 2):

The connection remains listed in this way for the next 10 years of filings of Soul Survivor.

Later in the 2006 Soul Survivor report we find mention of the first grant made (on page 3):

"During the year a grant of £10,000 was made to the Father's Heart Foundation, a charity in Durban that supports orphans by paying for health checks, school feeds, food packages and extended family support. Amounts remaining in restricted funds (note 18) will be used for projects in Durban."

This is impressive work to support. It seems to echo the issues that Jesus preaches about in the gospel books. So why am I talking about Soul Action?

David Westlake. That's why.

Misplaced loyalty?

Westlake had a long association with Soul Survivor. As he explained in a festival talk in 2019 (at the 0:44 point), he was involved in setting up the first Soul Survivor in the early 90s. 

Westlake was also one of the first group of trustees when the Soul Survivor charity was founded in 2000. His details are on page 4 of the incorporation document of that charity.

He remained a trustee for 20 years, making him almost the longest-serving trustee; Graham Cray served for one month longer. Here is his listing from the officers page of the Companies House entry for Soul Survivor.

Regular readers will know about trustees. But for those who are new, the Charity Commission says:

"Trustees have independent control over, and legal responsibility for, a charity’s management and administration."

Trustees have a legal duty to act in a charity's best interests.

So, David Westlake had a legal duty to act in Soul Survivor's best interests.

Which is complicated, because in 2005 David Westlake was also a staff member of Tearfund. 

Here he is listed on the Leadership Team of Tearfund in the 2004-2005 filing:

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 March 2005, Tearfund filings at Companies House, page 27)

Let's unpack that a little.

The filings of Soul Survivor tell us that Mike Pilavachi and Liz Biddulph were Chief Executive Officers of Soul Survivor in 2006:

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2006, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 2)

How does David Westlake hold Mike Pilavachi accountable... when Soul Survivor is working with his employer Tearfund? 

And, are Tearfund the best organisation for Soul Survivor to work with, compared to a charity like Worldvision or Toybox, or has that decision been swayed by the fact that a Tearfund staff member is a trustee?

I think this is what the Charity Commission call a 'conflict of loyalties'. They define this as:

"a particular type of conflict of interest, in which a trustee’s loyalty or duty to another person or organisation could, or could be seen to, prevent the trustee from making a decision only in the best interests of the charity"

(Source: Conflicts of interest: a guide for charity trustees)

Some important questions arise in this situation: 

• Was the conflict recognised? 
• Was the conflict dealt with appropriately?

That's not just Westlake's responsibility, that's the responsibility of all of the trustees at that time:

• Graham Cray (chair)
• Christopher Lane
• David Poultney 
• Joyce Willis
• Kevin Johnson
• Peter Maskrey

One way to deal with the conflict of loyalty would be to distance the work from Westlake. Did they do that? It appears not. In the 2007 Soul Survivor filings we are told:

"Tearfund and Soul Survivor work together to raise awareness and funds, discussing collectively how funds should be spent. D Westlake is integral mission director of Tearfund and a trustee of Soul Survivor. He is involved in managing Soul Action."

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2007, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 12)

I find it hard to understand how accountability works here. 

I should point out that I've worked for some charities, but not in a leadership capacity. Maybe this is my inexperience talking. If you think I've got things wrong, do get in touch. Contact details are at the top of the page.

And... I see other conflicts of interest connected with David Westlake.

Westlake has been a prominent figure in the history of Soul Survivor. I recall him writing articles in the Soul Survivor magazine in the late 90s. I imagine he became quite well-known with the Soul Survivor audience. 

But did the gain from platforming him, and so his employer, get in the way of holding the Soul Survivor CEOs accountable?

He co-authored books under the Soul Survivor banner in 2000 and 2001. How did Westlake hold Mike Pilavachi and Liz Biddulph accountable when they played a role in furthering his publishing career?

This is reminiscent of the conflicts of interest I found around the Soul61 operation.

Do Tearfund have a justice problem?

Let's get back to Soul Action. In the 2007 filing we learn some details about how the programme operates:

"In the summer of 2007 eighty people went to Durban to serve on short-term projects and eleven people served on four-month projects. During the year Soul Action launched Slum Survivor and AOK day. Slum Survivor is an opportunity for groups to spend a few days like a billion spend a lifetime. Over 200 groups of young people carried out the Slum Survivor fundraising initiative, raising over £43,000.

AOK is Acts Of Kindness day - every Friday going out of our way to make someone else's day. During the year funds were used for staff who are establishing projects and a network in Durban, creating the Slum Survivor resource and continuing to provide educational resources."

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2007, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 3)

That answers the question about where the money came from: in part Soul Action was about fundraising.

There was also a Soul Action café at the Soul Survivor festivals. This also played host to seminars on social-justice topics.

In 2008 the grants given by the operation multiply: £63,158 split between 10 organisations. 

In the ensuing years the number, and amount, of gifts fluctuates. The largest total spend is £153,378 in 2009. The smallest is £25,244 in 2011. The mean spend on grants in the 2005-2016 period is £68,486 per year.

A change occurred in 2009: in the Soul Survivor report from that year we find mention of a Tearfund partner:

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2009, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 15)

So, one thing Tearfund get out of Soul Action is funds for the projects of their partners. In this case it's only one grant, but the amount is £112,237. That's 72% of the money given out by Soul Action in 2009.

They make similar grants to other Tearfund partners, albeit for smaller amounts, in 2010, 2012 and 2013.

Another process change happened in 2012. In the filing for that year we find that one grant went to 'Tearfund projects'. This was described as follows:

"This is the transfer of funds due to Tearfund under the terms of the Soul Action partnership agreement (£54,511), and to two Tearfund partners (Soul Action South Africa £28,607 and CHO £5,251)"

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2012, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 14)

This is the earliest mention of a partnership agreement in the Soul Survivor filings. Maybe that was established in 2012, or maybe it was in place all along, but not mentioned in the previous reports.

(Confusingly, there is also Soul Action South Africa. They are a South African charity (or non-profit). Soul Action donated to Soul Action South Africa some years.)

In the 2016 report we find some more information about how Soul Survivor and Tearfund worked together:

"The basis of the arrangement was Soul Survivor co-ordinating a fundraising and awareness campaign each year, for which the operating costs were born by Tearfund. Each party would then agree a distribution of funds to shared interest projects or to projects/organisations they knew individually."

(Source: Group of companies' accounts made up to 31 December 2016, Soul Survivor filings at Companies House, page 12)

It's not clear whether this was always the arrangement, or whether the work evolved over the years.

Also, in 2016, the Soul Action partnership came to an end. In the report we read:

"Both parties have agreed to end this arrangement at the end of 2016. Soul Survivor has been pleased to work alongside Tearfund for so many years, and looks forward to further shared activities in future"

Soul Action continued without Tearfund, but that's another story.

So, in that 11-year period Tearfund's partners received £207,555. And Tearfund themselves received £146,011. In total Soul Action generated £353,566 for them.

That money is on top of the promotional boost Tearfund received from being visible to hundreds of thousands of young people at the festivals.

Is it fair to say that Tearfund were quite involved with Soul Survivor? 

And yet, since the investigation was announced in April 2023, they have said nothing publicly. 

Not even after the Church of England found Pilavachi guilty of multiple instances of spiritual abuse and abuse of power. It's possible that some of those abuses occurred during this 11-year period.

It's depressing to see an organisation I once believed-in show cowardice. Tearfund were happy to trade off the Pilavachi connection when he was lauded, but were unwilling to acknowledge their relationship when the truth came out. 

They have the nerve to issue advice about working with survivors, while showing nothing but silence towards the survivors of Pilavachi's actions.

Is that how justice works, Tearfund?