Archewell report by Charity Watch

[BemusedAmerican]

It's tax time and Charity Watch is revising charity ratings. Archewell Foundation is now old enough to have a rating:
https://www.charitywatch.org/charity-donating-articles/archewell-foundation-charitywatch-rating

Here is info about Charity Watch for the curious: https://www.charitywatch.org/about-charitywatch/mission-goals

Then you and yours sure have a great deal of work to do getting on that. It’s a mad, mad internet out there. Loads of folks will need to be contacted.

However, our gracious OP already submitted a request for a modification for this one. Best of luck on the rest of them.

Then you and yours sure have a great deal of work to do getting on that. It’s a mad, mad internet out there. Loads of folks will need to be contacted.

I thought we were talking about MN?

Anyway to follow from my post above I am aware that the purpose of some threads / posters / thread titles on this board is not to discuss with others but rather something akin to adding a comment to the Mean Girls Burn Book.

Yes, do start with MN first then.

Harry and Meghan do give the impression that they do things half arsed. I think that’s largely been because they’re not sure of their direction so have been sticking their fingers in lots of pies and hoping that one of them works out well.

I know there’s been a lot of speculation about Archewell and the lack of transparency, which is a fair comment. However I think it would only be reasonable to judge it once it’s been in operation for 3-4 years, minimum. I think being fair, it’s too early to judge what’s going on.

The only thing I would say is that it’s concerning that H & M have ignored the guidelines around best practice. They’re leaving themselves vulnerable to claims of corruption or abuse - it’s not a smart move at all. And failing to follow best practice makes Archewell look like another half-arsed project that’s not been set up professionally. Did no one suggest this to them? Or did they just think that they know best? Either way I’d say it’s poor for a multi-million dollar charity, especially when questions have already been raised over its expenditure.

It's a vanity project.

That's unfair @Nightowl1234. The report that the link takes you to is balanced and thoughtful.
Anyone raising charitable funds should ensure they are spent appropriately and it's clear this charity is spending some money thoughtfully and some for less obvious public benefit.
Nothing wrong in highlighting that - any charity should expect the same scrutiny as they benefit from tax reliefs which involve public money.

Got it in one sentence.
H and M could have done so much good . Instead they are reduced to rent-a-royal appearances and Meghan flogging household goods .

Plus possibly a tax efficient personal income stream for them ? due to where they have registered their organisation.

I am confused why some posters are saying this post is "mean girl "tactics - I have recently joined and all I see here are posts with "mean girl" tactics. I mean the number of posts about the Princess of Wales is just outlandish . The things said are outlandish. Then there was a thread about the Duchess of Sussex's new website and that has been deleted as someone didn't like the content of that. It does seem to be a tit for tat. This is the internet folks and anyone can be anyone they claim to be. I can claim to have a Scottish Great Grandmother but Canadian born, to be part First Nation and part Kenyan, to be an expert in photoshopping and product design ( actually that is my nephew who works in the artificial limb area), to be a stylist to the stars ( currently Bianca Censori) to be a relationship hypnotherapist to the stars and to specialise in abdominal issues (I'm very gassy). Always sleep with one eye open!

I think they are calling the people at Charity Watch mean girls.

There is nothing terrible in that review though. It’s an impartial assessment and no major violations. They can clear up the California thing by filing some paperwork and paying the fee. You can usually negotiate out any fines and get them lowered.

I actually believe all of that about you. I take the internet very seriously.

I am an American, I take our laws seriously, and I donate a sizeable chunk of my income of my income each year to reputable charities. Research before you donate.

I wondered how you knew about Charity Watch.

The first thing which stood out for me (and sounds fair enough) is "Because the charity was formed in 2020 but did not report any financial activities until 2021 and 2022, there is not yet enough data with which to draw conclusions about its financial health or fundraising abilities"

However the second is the comments under "Inadequate Governance & Transparency", especially where it says they've been "unable to locate a copy of this audit" (of the 2022 accounts) and that a request for a copy has gone unanswered

As ever time will tell, but if they're hoping for transsparency I suspect they're looking in the wrong place

This really shouldn't be under Royal Family. Archewell is NOT the RF.

Absolutely this. I always go to Charity Navigator first and if the charity isn't listed there I do independent research, which I guess I do anyway. Would I donate to Archewell? Nope.

There are certain users on MN that would defend Meghan if she committed murder. They are beyond desperate to prove her value when everyone else sees fuck all.

It's tedious as fuck, frankly. This charidee of theirs is nothing more than a vanity project and always will be.

@chrisfromcardiff I've been working all day and just saw your post. Has Harry been disowned?

Is this meant for me?

Yes. Confused as to why you felt Archewell should not be on royal family board.

I really think you are reading someone else's posts. I didn't comment on whether or not Archewell should be on the RF board. At least, I don't think I did.

Oh wait! I remember now. I said that because Archewell is an American charity. It is not a RF family charity. The fact that Harry is a member of the RF doesn't have anything to do with Archewell. That's why I think this should not be under the RF thread.