Believers’ Church – Page 8 – Warren Throckmorton

Update of Charity Review of Gospel for Asia Australia; Are GFAA and GFA Related?

Earlier this year, Ted Sherwood did a charity review of Gospel for Asia Australia. Recently, he updated it. As a part of the update, Sherwood evaluates a rather amazing claim made by an Australian association of Christian ministries called Mission Interlink. In essence, Mission Interlink claims that GFA Australia is independent of GFA in the U.S.
While technically accurate, it is clear from the evidence Sherwood supplies that GFA Australia wouldn’t exist if there was no GFA in the states or in India.
About Mission Interlink’s position, Sherwood wrote:

GFAA is a member of Missions Interlink, the closest we have in Australia to the ECFA:

Member use of the Missions Interlink logo implies high standards of governance and financial accountability, giving the Christian public assurance of their integrity[iii].

On 27 August 2015 I sent a link to my review to the National Director, Pam Thyer, suggesting that GFAA was in breach of one or more of their standards. On 3 December 2015, in response to my suggestion that donors should be alerted to GFAA’s misrepresentation when soliciting donations, Pam said that she had discussed the matters I raised in the review with GFAA and had concluded that ‘they do not contravene the MI Standards’.

Sherwood disagrees and provides evidence that GFA Australia is indeed in violation of some MI standards.

Furthermore, it is incredible that MI sees GFAA as separate from GFA. The only real reason GFAA exists is as a conduit to GFA in India. GFAA is sending money to GFA in India in ways that may or may not align with donor intent. Donors in Australia should be aware that their donations may be used to purchase or develop for profit businesses under the control of Believers’ Church.

Gospel for Asia and Bridge of Hope Funding: Who is Right – David Carroll or K.P. Yohannan?

In today’s World magazine article on Gospel for Asia, COO David Carroll made the following claims about program spending.

Carroll offered statistics, including that GFA’s field partners in India and elsewhere in southern Asia support some 14,000 national missionaries at a cost of approximately $30 million a year. He added that the ministry provides for 78,000 children through GFA’s “Bridge of Hope” program, which requires another $33 million a year, and constructs some 1,200 new churches a year at a cost of another $15 million annually.

Bridge of Hope
I want to focus on the Bridge of Hope claim. Carroll’s claim is consistent with what Gospel for Asia asks donors to give in order to sponsor a child ($35/month). However, in the past, GFA founder and CEO K.P. Yohannan has claimed it takes much less per child. In 2010, according to a New India Express article which cited Yohannan, the program required 30 crore (at the time equal to about $6.5 million USD) to provide for 60,000 children.

At present the Church spends Rs 30 crore annually for the education and uplift of 60,000 children through 525 centres. The Bridge of Hope project of the Believers Church provides free education, health care, nutritious food and school supplies for underprivileged children, irrespective of caste or creed.

This works out to $9/child/month. At the time, GFA was asking for $28/child/month in order to sponsor a child.
Then again in a 2012 interview on Surya television, Yohannan said it cost almost 40 crore (about $7.1 million USD) to care for 60,000 children. Yohannan said:

As for Believers’ Church and Cheruvally estate, donors specifically (1:18) have instructed us to establish an income producing entity (1:23), in the future for you to continue your work. Let me ask you, we spend almost 40 crore rupees to take care of 60,000 children – where does this money come from? Can we campaign to raise money all the time? We have to produce our income (1:43), that is what this is for, for that only.

Using the estimated exchange rates in 2012, as described by GFA and Believers’ Church leader Yohannan, the per month per child spending works out to just under $10/month. In June 2012, GFA was asking $35/month in order to support a child, the same as the current cost to a donor.
According to the public reports of spending in India (FC-6 forms), GFA spent $6.2 million USD on the “welfare of children” in the Indian fiscal year ending March 31, 2014. That works out to about 105/child/year or just under $9/child/month.
I have seen two budgets for Bridge of Hope centers in India, each for a different region of the country. I wrote about one budget earlier this year:

I have also seen GFA budget documents which tell a more surprising story.* The actual cost during fiscal year ending 2014 to support one child in a GFA Bridge of Hope center in India was just under INR 500 or around $8.20 per month per child. This paid for the administration of the program, food purchases, and all child services. In fact, the actual items given to each child (school supplies, clothes, hygiene supplies and gifts) only cost INR 140 per child or $2.20 per month.

In another region of the country, the per child expense was even less — 300 rupees per child per month, or just under $5 USD/child/month. In some areas of the country, children attend free public education and so the costs are less.

Even though this is dramatically less than what David Carroll told World magazine, it is closer to what K.P. Yohannan told Indian media.
A review of receipts for 2012 reveals that donors don’t contribute anywhere close to $33 million for Bridge of Hope related expenses.
Given GFA’s track record regarding public claims, it is reasonable to question what David Carroll told World. What would help is if GFA released some evidence for their claims. Show us the budgets, audited statements, etc. The ECFA said in the investigation report that many of GFA’s intial disclosures were not accurate and that they had to get necessary information from other sources, when the information should have come from GFA.
One analysis by former auditor Jason Watkins found that only 12% of funds given for Bridge of Hope was used for the program. With the discrepancies between what David Carroll and K.P. Yohannan told different public audiences, it is important for GFA to provide evidence and an explanation. With the budget figures and public reports in India, it even more important for donors to get answers about where those funds are going.

ECFA Report: Gospel for Asia Has Yet to Answer the $259 Million Question

The report of the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability’s investigation of Gospel for Asia contains some amazing facts. One fact contained in point 2 of the ECFA report is the disclosure of the massive amounts of donor money just sitting in foreign banks. The ECFA, apparently reading my May 22 blog post, wrote:

2. Excessive cash balances held in partner field accounts. Allegations were made that GFA had upwards of $150 million in partner field accounts, far more than necessary to provide appropriate operating reserves. During our visit on June 3, ECFA was informed that GFA field partner cash reserves were approximately $7 million. After ECFA requested detailed documentation of cash balances held by foreign field offices, on June 29, we discovered that GFA’s field partners had $259,437,098 on hand at March 31, 2014 and approximately $186 million in June 2015.
ECFA staff questioned the appropriateness of the high levels of cash being held in partner field accounts. We were told that GFA partners felt it was important to maintain the high balances in case the Indian government decided to block funds being transferred into the country.
The source of the balances was primarily from donor-restricted gifts to GFA, often raised in response to gift solicitations that communicated urgent field needs (see #4 below). ECFA staff expressed concern that the high reserves may not comply with ECFA Standards 4 and 7.1. Subsequent to our conversation on this matter on July 27, GFA provided ECFA with a plan to reduce partner field account reserves to $72 Million, and then amended the plan on August 27 to reduce reserves down to $11 Million. Again, GFA staff disclaimed that GFA exercises any control over field partners (see #10 below).
In our meeting on July 1, ECFA staff asked you what the GFA board would think if they knew of the high balances in partner field accounts. You indicated that neither the board nor you were aware of the magnitude of the balances. You responded, “They would be as surprised as I am.” Subsequently, the GFA board was notified, during their July 13 board meeting, of the balances held by field partners.

As of the end of the 2014 Indian fiscal year (March 31), GFA had a quarter of a billion dollars parked in Indian banks. Over that year, GFA had added $101 million to the $158 million I discovered. For years, GFA has been telling donors about the urgent needs of the homeless and hungry and they have been sitting on donor funds designated to meet those needs. This is scandalous.
If GFA in the United States really didn’t know, they should have fired Believers’ Church and GFA-India as partners. But then on second thought, that might have been awkward since K.P. Yohannan is the CEO of GFA and the Metropolitan and Managing Trustee for Believers’ Church and the related entities.
In his reply to the ECFA, Yohannan said plans have been made to deal with massive balances. However, there is reason to require proof. GFA initially told ECFA that the balance was $7 million. GFA told staff the same thing in a May 14 staff meeting. Here is what Yohannan said in reply to ECFA.

Yohannan wants the public to believe that Believers’ Church, Gospel for Asia – India, Love India Ministries and Last Hour Ministry are completely independent and unrelated field partners. Yohannan told the ECFA he didn’t know how much money was in those accounts.
However, somehow, GFA convinced the field partners to completely shift their operating philosophy and commit to use nearly all of those funds, leaving only $11 million in reserve (what about the corpus fund?). Yohannan wants the public to believe that he exercised no authority in the matter.
Here’s the $259 million dollar question: Which K.P. Yohannan do we believe? Do we believe the Metropolitan Bishop who signed his name to the Believers’ Church Constitution, or the GFA CEO who told ECFA he didn’t know how much money his Indian organizations had squirreled away?
According to the Believers’ Church Constitution, Yohannan is the ultimate and final authority in all matters relating to Believers’ Church and their trusts. Assets cannot be moved without his approval.
This is a serious matter. For years, donors thought their funds were going to specific needs in India. Now we know much of the money wasn’t going to those needs but rather to interest bearing accounts. If I was a donor, I would want my money back.
Compounding the problem is the incredible claim from K.P. Yohannan that he didn’t know how those organizations were stewarding the funds. How could he not know? He runs those organizations. According to the church Constitution, he is the final authority. I don’t see how Yohannan can have it both ways. Instead of a vague apology, GFA needs to come up with a response that addresses the discrepancies delineated here.

And then review what the Believers’ Church Constitution says about the Metropolitan’s role regarding property and funds. If Yohannan doesn’t know how much money Believers’ Church, Gospel for Asia – India and the other trusts have, then who does? He is the Managing Trustee and the one who nominates the other trustees.

Former Gospel for Asia Board Member Gayle Erwin Speaks Out, Discloses ECFA Report on GFA’s Violations of Membership Standards

In response to ongoing claims from Gospel for Asia about the investigation conducted by the Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability, former GFA board member Gayle Erwin has released a series of documents, including the report of the ECFA investigation as well as the GFA response. As is now widely known, the result of that investigation was a vote of the ECFA board to terminate GFA’s membership. I believe it is important to note that Erwin put in over 30 years of service as a board member and was cited in the original edition of K.P. Yohannan’s first book (ghostwritten by Bill Bray) as an influence.

Erwin also released correspondence which documents his efforts to bring change to GFA before he resigned. Given the lack of public accountability by GFA, these documents provide some answers to remaining questions raised by the public, GFA donors and former donors, former and current staff, and current recipients of GFA’s services.

In this post, I intend to provide links with a short description of each document. A fuller response to the ECFA investigation and GFA’s response to it will follow.

ECFA’s Report To Gospel for Asia – This report covers the results of the ECFA’s investigation into a variety of allegations. The contents provide much needed context which help make some sense of the simplistic descriptions given by GFA. Furthermore, the contents vindicate much of my reporting here.

GFA’s Response to ECFA’s Report – GFA replied to the ECFA report with additional information and promises to make changes. From my vantage point, the promised changes were small compared to the magnitude of the problems. Apparently, the ECFA agreed because the board voted to remove membership on October 2.

March 17, 2015 Letter from Gayle Erwin to K.P. Yohannan – In this letter, former GFA board member Gayle Erwin discusses his investigation of the charges brought by the GFA Diaspora. Erwin felt some of the Diaspora claims were true which upset Yohannan.

Letters of Concern from Gayle Erwin to K.P. Yohannan – It is clear in these letters that Erwin is hoping to provoke transparency and change at GFA.

Gayle Erwin’s report to GFA as assigned – This is the GFA board investigation report Erwin originally filed with the board. According to Erwin, it was significantly rewritten by K.P. Yohannan before being given to the former staff group, GFA Diaspora. In contrast to the report which GFA’s former staff members received, Erwin actually found evidence for nearly all of the claims made on this website by the former staff (GFA Diaspora). Erwin now believes that financial mismanagement claims are also true.

The report of former staff concerns actually presented to the board – According to Erwin, K.P. Yohannan rewrote this report to appear in this format. Comparing the two, one can see significant whitewashing of staff concerns.

Gayle Erwin’s Resignation Letter – How and why Erwin left the board.

Gayle Erwin’s Letter of Apology to GFA Diaspora Spokesperson J.D. Smith – Erwin’s apology to the former staff members of GFA.

There is a wealth of information here which will take several days if not weeks to unpack.

See additional information about Gayle Erwin’s communications with former staff at the GFA Diaspora site.

Is Gospel for Asia's Indian Corpus Fund One Reason Why ECFA Terminated GFA's Membership?

One of the first things I noticed when I first started investigating Gospel for Asia’s finances in India was the corpus fund set up for the Indian organizations (i.e., GFA-India, Believers’ Church, Love India Ministries, & Last Hour Ministries). When I examined Indian records (FC-6 reports), I saw millions in U.S. dollars used to fund these accounts. A corpus fund is a “permanent fund generated and kept for basic expenditures needed for administration and survival of the organisation.” (also see this link)
There is nothing wrong with setting up a corpus fund. In India, organizations can set up a fund and use the interest earned for charitable purposes. However, the donations to the fund are not supposed to be used unless the organization’s existence is threatened.
Another important condition is that donations to the corpus fund must be designated for that purpose by the donor, usually in writing. Without designation, donations are not supposed to go to the corpus fund, but rather to the charitable purpose intended by the donor. The evidence I produce here today suggests to me that GFA donor funds have been systematically diverted to the GFA corpus fund apparently without donor designation for that purpose.
First, I have access to reports showing all donations to GFA – United States for years 2004-2008, 2010-2014 (2009 was unavailable from my source). None of those reports show any donations to a corpus fund.
To illustrate, click through this link to see the 2012 report (it is too long to include in the post). All donations are credited to a specific line item and all line items used by GFA are included in this chart of donations (I have redacted the names of staff and the amount received in their support accounts). I cannot find any line item which refers to a corpus fund. None of the reports going back to 2004 have a line item for the designation of donations to a corpus fund.
Now take a look at this chart of GFA contributions prepared by Jason Watkins, a former auditor with a Big 4 accounting firm. This table shows the donor funds sent by GFA to Indian affiliates to establish and maintain corpus funds. I have independently checked the figures in this table.

This table also shows the percentage of total giving from GFA -United States to the Indian affiliates. Total corpus fund donations from GFA represents about 35% of all giving from GFA to Indian affiliates since fiscal year 2010.
Where did GFA get the money to give to their Indian affiliates?
Due to GFA’s claim that 100% of donations designated for the field go to the field, I feel sure many donors think that 100% of what they give goes to a missionary or children or disaster relief or some such good cause. However, the Indian records show that GFA leaders have established a financial cushion for Believers’ Church and related organizations in India with over $67 million from GFA in Texas. Diverting donor money to a corpus fund would violate ECFA guidelines and might have figured in ECFA’s vote to terminate GFA’s membership.
In summary, donations toward the corpus fund do not show up on GFA’s comprehensive giving reports. However, in the FC-6 reports in India, millions of dollars in contributions to the corpus funds are listed as coming from GFA in the United States. I ask again where did GFA get that money? Nothing in available reports shows donations earmarked for the corpus fund.