"For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed;
neither hid, that shall not be known."
(Luke 12:2)
Two completely independent communications received by myself in recent weeks have served to trigger the publishing of this article. The first contact prompted me to look afresh at Victory Outreach UK's accounts, and make the notes and observations that appear below. The second contact was disturbing in the extreme, referencing the very recent death of a resident; this decided me that unanswered questions about this charity's operations most urgently need to be posed, and just some of these - focusing upon VOUK's finances - are openly given voice to here.
THE 'VICTORY OUTREACH UK' ACCOUNTS
To quote from the accounts, under the heading 'Objectives and activities' -
The objects of the charity, as contained in the Declaration of The Trust, are:
To provide a secure Christian home for ex-offenders and those excluded by social disadvantage.
To offer rehabilitation.
To offer holistic treatment through both practical and spiritual programmes.
To help prepare clients back into society.
To alleviate poverty.
Its charitable status requires that a Board of Trustees is charged with responsibility for the maintenance and integrity of the charity, any financial information appearing on its website, and preparing the Trustees Report and financial statements that are submitted to the Charity Commission and duly published by them and available for public scrutiny. ALL THE INFORMATION COLLATED HERE HAS BEEN GLEANED FROM SAID TRUSTEES REPORTS AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, AND CAN BE VERIFIED BY VIEWING THEM HERE:
https://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=291611&SubsidiaryNumber=0
The Trustees appoint the Director, but responsibility for all appointments (and attendant salaries) below this position is delegated to that Director, who is one Andrew Parsons. This is more than interesting, as it means that Mr. Parsons can appoint someone of his exclusive choosing to a salaried position in the Charity, and can determine their wage for doing that job. As it happens, his wife Susan is on that payroll as Victory Outreach UK's Finance Manager no less, one of only four people named on the most recent annual accounts as Key Management Personnel. The other three are Mr. Parsons himself, naturally, Mr. Lee Garland the General Manager and Mr. Robert Hart, who we'll come back to shortly.
Now, VOUK is a Christian organization, run by honest Christians for honest Christian purposes is it not? So we may safely assume, may we not, that all is totally above board and there's nothing untoward going on in the way of - perish the thought! - worldly things like nepotism and playing the system that one is a very powerful part of for personal advancement and gain. No, of course there's not. God-fearing Christians just wouldn't do such things, now would they? Curious though, that of their four highlighted risks to the charity, one of their fears is of all things litigation! How could any such worthy institution possibly be at risk of being sued? How could those worthy individuals who run it worry that "objectors to the work of the charity can involve litigation from a number of sources and can impact the charity's work and finance." Money could only be lost, of course, if any legal challenge was upheld in the Courts, but there can't be any real risk of such an unthinkable thing happening, can there now! Can there? What grounds could there ever possibly be for a lawsuit, and a successful one at that? Yes, quite unthinkable!
Are there real financial concerns? How healthy are the finances of VOUK, we might well ask. Is the charity stumbling along on the verge of collapse? Breaking even? Well, actually it's doing rather well, as we'll see if we look at the latest accounts, one might even say very well indeed considering its dependence upon the benefits contributions of the homes' residents. Income was over half a million pounds, with an expenditure of only 73% of that sum, the surplus 27% of that being "retained for future use." This operating surplus allowed the "free reserves" - these being monies not ring-fenced for anything - to swell to no less than £242,856. The reason for having such reserves is explained as allowing the charity to continue its current activities in the event of a significant drop in funding. Of course the cynic might suggest that having nearly a quarter of a million tucked away to one side would rather comfortably safeguard the positions and salaries of the key management personnel given a downward spiral in income. But we must bear in mind that their Christian ethics would always cause them to put the residents' interests first...
What sort of salaries are we talking about, anyway? Well, the accounts inform us that the total amount paid to the charity's key management personnel for that financial year was £127,319 (a figure including costs relating to external staff fees, whatever that might mean). The only key management personnel as noted above are Mr. and Mrs. Parsons, Mr. Garland and Mr. Hart; the last named is Chair of the Board of Trustees and receives no payment for this role. Individual salaries are not listed, though interestingly the statement is made that "there were no employees whose annual remuneration was £60,000 or more." With the ceiling thus being set at this figure, obviously the Director cannot be earning more than £59,999 per annum (a few pence shy of five grand a month), but no-one knows the exact amount, apart from a tiny number of people at the top of the tree and presumably the Inland Revenue. With their actual remuneration not being a matter of public record, all we can reasonably deduce from the supplied figures is that Mr. and Mrs. Parsons are in no way being expected to be taking home the minimum wage, but - being the good Christian overseers that they are - are being well blessed and prospering as a couple for their services to a charity whose stated objectives includes "to alleviate poverty." (Prospering enough, apparently, to reportedly run a Porsche and a BMW; no doubt such little things as these help alleviate the stresses of working to improve the lives of some of the most struggling members of society, whose State benefits very largely go towards the unpublicized salaries of the key management personnel).
Trustees of VOUK currently number just three, the least amount allowed. These are Mr. Robert Hart (Chair), Mr. David Ceriboto and Mr. John Williams, the last-named only serving from 19/9/18, some halfway through the last documented financial year. No Trustee receives payment for their acting in that capacity, but as the official records clearly show, a Trustee can receive payment for other services provided to the Charity. This proviso certainly applies in the case of the Chair, Mr. Hart, who between 2014 and 2018 received over £70,000 in "consultancy fees!" Oddly enough, after his obviously extremely important consultations, valued at £15,000+ (averaging £1,250+ a month) for each of the 4 successive years 2014-2017 (dropping to a mere £9,006 in 2018), he was not apparently required to be consulted at all during 2019 as his payments were entered as nil! Must be some good reason for that, naturally.
Another interesting note that raises a little eyebrow can be found in the 2019 accounts appertaining to the Trusteeship. That year, the charity advanced a loan of £2,000 (at 15% interest) to Mr. David Ceriboto. Since when, the cynic might ask, do the aims of the charity include providing personal loans to members of the Board, loans authorized by that same Board? No reasons are given... Ah, but perhaps it was to alleviate poverty?
SO, MY FRIENDS, THESE ARE SOME OF MY NOTES AND THOUGHTS CONCERNING MATTERS OF MONEY AND MORALITY AT THE 'VICTORY OUTREACH UK' CHARITY. YOU MAY DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS...
* * * * * * *
On this (or any other matter of concern) anyone may contact me confidentially at: watchman4wales@yahoo.co.uk
* * * * * * *
Addendum: Lee Garland, the Manager at the time of the accounts as quoted above, died October 4 2019, I understand to be succeeded in this position by Mr. Ian Reid.
* * * * * * *
