Analysis: Delinquent Charity Woes at Archewell

A breakdown of what exactly happened at Harry and Meghan's Charity

Hello Dear Readers! We hope everyone’s having a great week. We’re chuffed to bits the weather seems to be improving but living in old Blighty means as soon as you start enjoying the weather, rain’s on the forecast. We wonder if that’s how the Duke and Duchess of Sussex feel this week…

Hot off the Harry and Meghan Show in Nigeria, a story broke in the New York Post: Their charitable foundation Archewell was barred from raising money and wasn’t allowed to give away grants of any sort. The California Attorney General Rob Bonta had found the foundation ‘delinquent’.

“The above captioned entity is listed as delinquent with the Registry of Charities and Fundraisers for failing to submit required annual reports(s) and/or renewal fees.”

So along with renewal fees, Archewell was also missing annual reports they were required to submit. What followed was a curious maelstrom of spin that saw everyone from post carriers, the state of California, the California Attorney General’s office, the Royal Family, essentially everyone but the Sussexes, being allotted blame for this embarrassment. We usually like to wait and do a little research before forming my opinion but after the fourth shift in narrative in under 24 hours, we gave it up as a bad job. The breakdown of events, from our understanding is below:

1. After the story broke, sources close to the Sussexes briefed the Post and People Magazine: They were aware of their delinquent status and the foundation had “filed for an extension”.

2. Two hours later, several papers were briefed that “a check sent with the filing to the AG’s office appeared not to have been received and a new one has been issued”.

3. Six hours later, another update: The California Attorney General’s office was to blame because the office didn’t “process the $200 check.”

4. Yesterday, a terse statement released from Archewell stated the charity was just fine, is in good standing and the “state” was at fault for causing all of this. The Attorney’s General office said nothing of the sort and said “After being in touch with our Registry of Charities and Fundraisers, the organization is current and in good standing.” Which was a far cry from “Our records were mistaken, they were never meant to be classified as delinquent.”

5. Bizarrely, California Governor Gavin Newsom waded in yesterday inferring the Attorney General Bonta was a liar and/or incompetent by saying everything was blown out of proportion and it was a clerical issue.

All of these were briefs provided to verified news outlets in the States like NBC and publications that cater to celebrity publicists like People Magazine. It is very rare for over a dozen papers to get the same “source close to the Sussexes says XYZ”. So in 48 short hours, we went from “We know there’s an issue and we asked for an extension” to “The check was lost and never delivered so we sent a new one” to “The check was received, but wasn’t cashed” to “We never did anything wrong, it’s the state’s fault”.

Let’s get this out of the way first. Yes. They were delinquent. The proof’s in the pudding. Let’s look at the reason why a check was sent in the first place via post, regardless of whether it was lost, found or seen. In California, if a foundation is delinquent they’re unable to file and pay their renewal fee online. Point blank. They have to submit paperwork and a check via physical copies. This is from the California Department of Justice’s webinar on renewals.

Dear Readers, we’ve made pains to say we don’t like bashing exercises just for the sake of bashing. Our view? The Archewell Foundation was found to be Delinquent by the Attorney General of their home state. This wasn’t a made up claim. The subsequent correction doesn’t erase the fact that the letter was issued and they were found to be delinquent. The Attorney General’s Office isn’t in the business of sending notices for nothing. The issue is the Sussexes are extremely thin-skinned and so protective of their brand they can’t even bring themselves to admit there was an “administrative error”. Covering Harry and Meghan’s tough sometimes because they’re very polarizing figures. Sussex body men are quick to brand any criticism of them as “racist” which shuts down any valid points that could be made. And Sussex detractors are quick to brand anything less than perfect they do as “evil” even though it’s not quite so serious. We’re trying to toe that line and look at what’s in front of us. To understand what happened here, we went straight to the source: The California Department of Justice website. And to cover our bases, we took a trip to impartial philanthropy watchdog CharityWatch to learn about their views on the Archewell Foundation.

We’ve also opened up one of our more popular posts on how a Duke and Duchess went about “charity work” on behalf of their charitable foundation in 2021. It’s a great if deep dive into how they went about things with the Department of Education. We believe this’s an important primer to this Delinquent Charity story and speaks to the Sussexes capabilities in a philanthropic space.

William and Kate Visited a Low-Income School and Tried to GAG Teachers and Children as Young as 5.*

---

A Tale of Two Updates

This attachment above shows the charity page for Archewell on Monday morning when the story broke. We’ve highlighted the pertinent points. According to the state of California as of yesterday, the charity was:

1) Delinquent.

2) The foundation’s date of last renewal date is listed as 2/2/2023, over 15 months ago. This means, according to the state of California, Archewell wasn’t current and hadn’t done the prerequisite work to be renewed for the remainder of the 2023 year. Not to mention 2024.

3) This lists the expected renewal date for Archewell as 5/15/2023, exactly one year ago today. Which is likely why the Attorney General wrote to the foundation on 5/3 apprising them of their delinquent status.

4) The state of California says they received documents for the account year beginning 1/1/2021 through 12/31/2021. The state lists 11/18/2022 as they date they received the requisite documents for that accounting period. You can see that reflected in “Renewal Filing” hyperlink highlighted in the yellow box labeled “4”. The devil’s in the details. For the year of 2021, it took Archewell almost a year to submit their financial information from the year before.

5) The Delinquency Notice sent out to Archewell from the Attorney General of California

Point 4 is very important in all of this. The Attorney General’s office is saying they have only received financial disclosures up to 12/31/2021. It’s now 5/15/2024. Which meant, as of Monday, the state hadn’t received financials for 2022 or 2023 FY. Now, let’s look at the page after everything was “settled” yesterday.

1) Archewell is now “current”.

2) The date of last renewal is blank because documents were likely frantically driven over to address this but it’s unlikely they’ve been approved.

3) This lists the expected renewal date for Archewell as 5/15/2024, which is today. Remember that date. We’ll come back to that.

4) We now have a second entry under the Annual Renewal Data Banner. The state of California says they received documents for the account year beginning 1/1/2022 through 12/31/2022. The state lists 5/14/2024 yesterday (yikes) as the date the state received the requisite documents for that accounting period (FY 2024). You can see that reflected in the “Renewal Filing” hyperlink highlighted in the yellow box labeled “4”. Just like 2022, Archewell’s late. Financial data for 2022 year was just submitted yesterday. Once again, submitting things in a timely fashion doesn’t seem to Archewell’s strong suit. This isn’t a belief or attitude, it’s a conclusion from a government website.

5) The Delinquency Notice sent out to Archewell from the Attorney General of California is still left on their page because the notice was sound. If it was an issue on the state’s side, they would’ve removed it immediately.

Now, we know what you’re thinking: “Lady Sinclair, if the documents submitted yesterday were for the 2022 accounting year, what about the 2023 accounting year?”

Dear Readers, that’s where Point 3 comes into play. Today, 5/15/2024 is the deadline for them to file their 2023 financial disclosure forms. Today, 5/15/2024 is the deadline for them to send over documents for the accounting year beginning 1/1/2023 through 12/31/2023. And we hear you asking another question: “But Lady Sinclair, they only barely sent over their 2022 financials. If they say charity had crossed their I’s and dotted their T’s wouldn’t they just submit the 2023 documents too?”

Indeed.

Once again, punctuality isn’t an Archewell strong suit. It taken nearly two years for them to submit documents from years past. That’s why they were classified as delinquent and barred from fundraising or distributing funds. It appears Archewell was delinquent for six months. The delinquency notice was for the filing period ending Dec 31, 2022. It was initially due on May 15, 2023 but they got an extension until Nov 15, 2023. Seven months later, they blew past that extension. They only just paid it and submitted required documents yesterday.

The bad news for the Sussexes is people know where to look now and’ll be keeping a closer eye on their disclosures. Come tomorrow, unless they submit their 2023 FY documents today, their renewal date’ll lapse for the 2023 FY. We think they’ve likely asked for an extension again. The report submitted yesterday clearly states it’s for the year ending 12/31/22. So they were 13 months late for 2022 FY and the disclosures due for 2023 are also late. The proof is in the paperwork.

---

The Proof is in the Pudding

Where the Sussexes went badly wrong was not settling on a narrative from the get go. Runaway checks and “nothing to see here” doesn’t cut it when you live in the United States and, as far as we understand, charities have to be forthcoming with their disclosures. This wasn’t just about money for a renewal fee. This is about transparency. There’s still no annual report on the Archewell website, which is a rarity for a charity that bills itself as aiming to change the world. Governor Newsom can gallop in on his horse to say nice things about them but a charity’s financials, not its press releases, are the best way to gauge actual impact. And Archewell seems very reticent and delayed to present that. They essentially had to be bullied into it by the press.

As with many things, not everything’s as it seems. While the Archewell representative talked a big game about everything being current and there being no issues, the dates and forms say differently. The delayed financial disclosures say differently. And a clerical error? If it was a clerical error, the state would’ve removed the delinquency letter and said they’d made a mistake.

Dear Readers, in this instance, we can’t help but think of the Mother’s Day photo with the Princess of Wales. While some may think it was insensitive and akin to throwing her in front of a double decker bus, the Princess taking responsibility for her gaffe showed her leadership skills and a strong rejection of blaming others for her problems. It’s an underrated skill to say “I made a boob of myself. I’ll do better next time”. Taking responsibility isn’t a bad thing. It doesn’t mean you’ve failed, it means you’ve learned from your mistakes and it won’t happen again. Yes, it likely wouldn’t erase the fact that their charity was delinquent. Nor would it soften the inappropriateness of Harry and Meghan promoting Archewell in Nigeria when they were prohibited by the state of California. It makes them look incredibly sloppy. Like these rapidly filled out forms submitted yesterday which essentially copied and pasted old blurbs from the Archewell Foundation website.

Uplifting Communities across the globe? Expenses: $1,300,000. Included Grants: $815,000. 62-38 Charity to Expense

Building a Better Online World? Expenses: $542,000. Included grants: $175,000. 32-68 Charity to Expense.

Restoring Trust in Information [snort]? Expenses: $482,000. Included grants: $263,000. 54-46 Charity to Expense.

So on average about 49% to Charity, 51% to Expense. CharityWatch considers a charity to be highly efficient when calculations produce a Program % of 75% or greater. What does CharityWatch have to say about Archewell?

CharityWatch is unable to provide a rating for Archewell Foundation based on its fiscal year ended 12/31/2022 due to the charity's short history of financial activity.

Archewell Foundation Does Not Respond to Request for Financials

CharityWatch contacted the Archewell Foundation on 01/22/2024 via email and U.S. Postal Service mail requesting copies of its most recent IRS Form 990 and Audited Financial Statements. As of 2/1/2024 the charity has not responded to our requests. Should it provide these documents at a future date, CharityWatch may update our profile of Archewell Foundation at that time. 

Major Drop in Donations

According to its fiscal 2022 IRS Form 990, which CharityWatch obtained from the organization's website, the Archewell Foundation reported raising $2,000,911 in cash contributions and spending $2,679,537 in total cash expenses that year. In its prior fiscal year 2021 reporting, the Foundation reported raising $13,004,470 in total cash contributions and spending $3,987,070 in total cash expenses, according to its IRS Form 990 of the same year. 

Judging a charity’s ability to sustain its financial support over time requires more years of data. However, such data may not be forthcoming any time soon. Archewell Executive Director, James A. Holt, signed the charity’s 2022 tax filing on December 5^th, 2023. Meaning, if the charity follows a similar timeline for filing its 2023 tax form, it may be nearly a year before the public has more information about how it is raising and spending public dollars.

“If the charity follows a similar timeline for filing its 2023 tax form, it may be nearly a year before the public has more information about how it is raising and spending public dollars.” Dear Readers, this was written on Feb 4, 2024. Coincidentally, the deadline for 2023 tax disclosures from charity. And what’s this? “Archewell Foundation Does Not Respond to Request for Financials. As of 2/1/2024 the charity has not responded to our requests.” As we say, The proof is there is black and white.

They want to be taken seriously on the world stage but asking for extensions and missing critical deadlines won’t get them there. Being caught unawares of the status of your own foundation and tossing out excuse after excuse before settling to “Everything is fine” won’t gain them respect. Especially when they’ve made a habit of releasing huge press releases whenever they hire someone new. The proof is there in black and white in the California Justice Department website. The State of California DOJ also has a list of delinquent public charities named “Charities may not operate” online. You can see the dates Archewell went delinquent on 2/2/2023. Over a year ago. The excuses aren’t adding up. It wasn’t merely an issue of a check. This wasn’t a made up claim, nor was it planted. If it was, someone’s been plotting for over 15 months.

This has been a rolling issue for a long time. At best, Harry and Meghan were ignorant of legal status of their own charity for a year and a half. At worst, they knew and went full steam ahead with this promotional tour in Nigeria because they’ve grown used to not receiving the scrutiny they deserve for their dealings. They probably thought they wouldn’t face any consequences. They clearly have no issues firing off statements to control what they consider damage to their brand. Where was this targeted approach to messaging in relation to the accusations made against Prince Harry’s charity?

This topic is far more alarming to me, not to mention damning, than sloppy paperwork. But sadly, it’ll never get any share of publicity, which is a right shame. The Sussexes handling of African Parks is what sullies their credibility as players on the world stage to us. And their silence speaks volumes.

Something else we’d keep an eye out for? From everything we’ve been able to learn online, California requires independent audited financial statements be filed with all renewals. No one has seen Archewell’s audit for 2022. Donations from just two donors fails the test for public support and increases the risk of private inurement. We fear we’re repeating ourselves overmuch but, “Everything is fine” isn’t going to cut it much longer. Not if they want their credibility as an internationally recognized and influential charitable foundation to be seen in the same light as other well known foundations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Royal Foundation of the Prince and Princess of Wales. Shifting blame won’t stand the test of time. And the last thing Archewell needs are more legitimate financial publications like Forbes or Money Market investigating just how much “good” they’re doing.

Yours in Royal Tea,

Lady Sinclair

Don’t forget, I’ve opened up this post below for all subscribers.