I've been looking at UCCF's Leadership Networks. Guess what? There are strange things going on there.
According to UCCF, the purpose of the Leadership Networks is to:
"equip students who face unique challenges in their field of study, and who will be entering areas of strategic and cultural significance"
At the time of writing these fields of study are:
- Arts
- Law (which seems like a joint effort with the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship)
- Music
- Politics
- Science
- Teaching
- Theology
The Networks produce resources, they run events, they provide mentoring, etc.
Someone, somewhere is donating money specifically for this work on a regular basis. I know this because from 2014 onward their annual filings list a 'Leadership Network Restricted Fund'. See the bottom line of this list:
(Source: Page 19, Full accounts made up to 30 April 2014, UCCF filings at Companies House)
A restricted fund is a ring-fenced pot of money. It exists because a donor (or many donors) has said "I want to give this money for x purpose". It's an administrative hassle, but it's common because donors are often inspired by a particular element of a charity's work.
It would be unethical to use this money for a different area of work, without the permission of the donor. The Fundraising Regulator has rules about this:
"A donation must be used for the purpose for which it was given. If you want to change that purpose you should get advice from legal advisers or the relevant national statutory regulator before changing the purpose, even if the person making the donation has given you permission to do this."
The ring-fenced money that always adds up
The thing with restricted funds is that there's normally some money left. Because it's rare you exactly match the amount you spend to the amount you're given.
Imagine you're given £20,000 to produce an information pack for university freshers. You'd get quotes for each element: writing, design, printing, delivery costs. When the work is done aspects may go under or over budget. So you'd end up spending £17,658 or £19,110, say. It's unlikely you'd spend exactly £20,000.
And sometimes there are delays in spending the money, for example a key staff member may get a new job and recruitment stalls a project. So this money may take more than a year to spend. That would be fine: the money is ring-fenced, it's not going anywhere.
What's strange about UCCF's Leadership Networks is that for 4 years in a row this ring-fenced money was entirely used up each year.
In the 2014-2015 financial year (the year after the screengrab above), the Leadership Network Restricted Fund started with £186,108 in it. In the course of the year another £52,253 was donated. That may have come from a single donor, or from many donors. £49,336 was spent from the fund. And then something interesting happens: £189,026 was transferred out into general UCCF funds. The explanation for this was:
"£189,026 of costs were transferred from General Funds to the Leadership Network for the salaries and associated costs of both field and office staff"
(Source: Page 19, Full accounts made up to 30 April 2015, UCCF filings at Companies House)
Notice it's costs that were transferred, rather than money. I find it hard to follow that wording.
At the end of that financial year £1 was left, ring-fenced for the Leadership Networks.
The following financial year followed a similar pattern. Donated funds came in, some was spent, some was transferred to UCCF General Funds. Nothing was left in the restricted fund at the close of the year.
That same thing happened again in the 2016-2017 financial year.
And, in the 2018-2019 financial year? You guessed it.
It seems odd to me. I find it too perfect. One year where spending exactly matched funds would be possible. But four years in a row?
It makes me wonder if they were following the Fundraising Regulator rules. It makes me wonder if they were respecting their donor's wishes.
Maybe they were. I've worked in three charities in the course of my career. That said, I've never been a fundraiser, so I may be showing my inexperience here. Contact details are on the top right if you think I've missed something here.
The network that's hidden from view
There's something even stranger going on with the Leadership Networks.
These operations get a decent amount of publicity: on the website, in emails for supporters, in posts on the UCCF social media accounts. That makes sense, right? Students need to hear about them so they can join them.
But there's a network that's never mentioned in any of those places.
Let me introduce the Apologetics Network.
We can learn about it in the UCCF filings for 2020-2021:
"The Leadership Network is pioneering a brand new stream 'Teaching Network' which (alongside all the other networks Arts, Apologetics, Music, Politics, Science, Theology and Law) will provide first-class digital resources across the disciplines and will form a stronger partnership with the Internship (Relay) programme enabling us to mentor and train a new generation of thought leaders within a blended format of physical and virtual meetings"
(Source: Page 4, Full accounts made up to 30 April 2021, UCCF filings at Companies House)
Similar mentions occurred in the UCCF filings for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023.
Can you see how it was spoken of in the same way as the other networks? Like it had already existed for a few years, or more before that point.
This network is strange, because it has no publicity anywhere. There's not been a single Twitter post from UCCF. There is not a one mention on the 1000+ pages of the current website. How do students learn about it?
It's strange because there are no staff members associated with it. I looked through the About the Team page again to check.
It's strange because Apologetics isn't a subject one normally studies at University, not like Law or Theology.
Why is this network so hidden?
Does it actually exist?
More UCCF blogs
The puzzling connection between UCCF and The Areopagus Trust
