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

Scroll up. Yesterday at 15:55.

People on the board constantly bring up Archewell's actions in thread after thread. The charity can also take international donations. If you read the report, they received a number of small donstions, which in theory could be from Mumsnet readers.

MNHQ are very biased, you can't say Meghan Markle might be a narcissist without being deleted but it's apparently fine to call Catherine a racist despite Harry stating there was no racism in an interview.

@Tontostitis This is an Archewell thread. I think you posted to the wrong thread.

@BemusedAmerican
Sorry I was replying to an earlier comment I didn't quote that referred to the disparity in censoring these threads.

Archewell is clearly dodgy as fuck it has just 2 directors H and M, most foundations follow the guidelines which state 6 to 8 as a reasonable number to ensure checks and balances are in place. But I fully expect this thread or anything critical of the Sussexes to be deleted they are a surprisingly powerful pair of grifters

In fairness it's not the only "foundation" this applies to; plenty of them are, but I agree it's good to see them scrutinised

Got to say, I feel it's a bit mean to complain about a charity seeing a decrease in donations. That should be cause for disappointment not celebration surely.

Even if they did see a decrease in donations in Year 2, it's still money spent on good causes that might not have existed otherwise.

Also, Archewell is essentially a start up, and it launched during the apndemic which must have been unbelieveably challenging for them. I'd like to see how they go for the first five years before coming to a conclusion about how much it can sustainably attract in donations.

Even if it doesn't, it still brings awareness to many worthy causes.

Archewell, like many other foundations based in tax avoiding Delaware existing primarily as a source for the Sussex' s to write their clothing and travel expenses, the very questionable level of Archewell redistributing donations after they've taken their expenses off is not a good thing at all.

I think they haven’t been soliciting donations per se. it was meant as a vehicle to make their own donations but the money is not rolling in as planned yet.

Oh so it's like a blind charity - a person donates but doesn't get a say in which charities Meghan and Harry donate it to?

Wasn't aware of that - is that a 'thing'?

Maybe they could make it more interactive and have donors nominate or vote on causes they'd like their money to go to. Either way, I think it is a little bit mean to complain about a charity, especially one that's so new and which launched in the pandemic when lots of people were feeling the financial pinch.

I'd like to see how they go for the first five years before coming to a conclusion about how much it can sustainably attract in donations

In fairness the report said the same, as in "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"

There's still the question of why the supposedly audited 2022 accounts haven't been provided though, and why they see fit to have only themselves as board members when it's been made clear this isn't advisable

Lastly it's been said on here that it's not set up to receive public donations, and that seems out of the window now with the report's remarks

I'd like to see how they go for the first five years before coming to a conclusion about how much it can sustainably attract in donations

I don’t believe they are concerned with attracting donations though.

To me it seems that everything they do is half arsed and random - they have no real skills to make really good and honest Money/ input, so they're shooting fish in a barrel and failing, so either trying to take someone else's fish they proclaim to be their own/their apparent life long (5 minute) passions, or picking up dead ones and casting them away with little input - these fish also have been dolled up to look very impressive but in you scratch the surface they're empty inside

Oh dear, looks like another project they've lost interest in: Harry and Meghan's Archewell Foundation is banned from raising or spending money after it is deemed DELINQUENT for failing to pay fees and submit records | Daily Mail Online

Interesting reading some of the comments on this thread that were posted back in March. Posters were just big meanies for expecting a charity to withstand scrutiny. Today's news isn't surprising.

Looks like you are right. Daily mail now reporting they are not allowed to raise or distribute money. They are now named a delinquent organisation. And yet still the grinning pair )carry on accepting all the accolades. Totally shameless.

I imagine they'll sort the delinquency out - it looks like poor admin rather than anything else.

It's fairly easily resolved but it reflects very badly on a charity which has already been described as not being professionally run.

There is no excuse for the registration not to have been properly renewed - it's shabby. No properly run charity would have forgotten to file their return or send payment. So even though this can be rectified, this leaves another question mark over the operation of Archewell and whether it's fit for purpose.

Well we all know you sont like them so of course you would say this bur if it was W&K who you do clearly defined on other threads you wouldn't sit back and say the same thing.

And for someone who also says to other posters ro provide evidence and sources for their comments I would think you would very much want thread titles to be accurate

Unless you're hypocrite

@LumiB I agreed with the poster and had a Mumsnet moderator change the name of the thread to the more accurate one on the first day that I posted the thread months ago. You are welcome to check with the Mumnet moderators.

It was the first thread that I had ever started (and actually the only one) and I bungled the initial name.

BTW, their check was apparently lost in the mail:

https://nypost.com/2024/05/13/entertainment/prince-harry-meghan-markles-charity-declared-delinquent/

Which is odd because most US local governments let you pay bills, fees, etc. by credit card. They also prefer that you file tax documents electronically.

And another fantastic enterprise hits the buffers after achieving.. well nothing.