On Monday, Archewell released their 2022-23 Impact Report, showcasing the charities and NGOs with which Archewell has partnered. The Duke and Duchess of Sussex made a cool video with behind-the-scenes footage of some of their charitable work as well. It looks like their Impact Report was released at the same time as the BBC and other outlets got their hands on Archewell’s 990 IRS filing, basically a public document (although I bet the BBC had to FOIA request it). As it turns out, the Sussexes gave their Archewell Foundation employees raises. Not only that, but they didn’t take in as much money as they did last year. This is considered HUGE news in the UK.
Donations to Archewell, Prince Harry and Meghan Markle’s foundation, fell off a cliff last year, with the couple’s charitable vehicle raising just $2 million, compared to $13 million the year before. The figures on the form 990 obtained by the BBC came as the couple released their annual report, along with a brief film highlighting their work over the past year.
The foundation recorded a loss of $674,485 on costs of $2.67 million. It made grants of $1.2 million, including $100,000 for the Halo Trust, a mine-clearing charity made famous by Princess Diana. The returns show that the foundation still had $8.5 million in remaining funding at the end of 2022.
Sources close to the couple told The Daily Beast that the “numbers reflect a healthy foundation” seeking “intentional, paced growth.” The source said that Archewell currently has over $11 million in the bank, and is “on track to continue to have millions in the bank each year for philanthropic purposes.”
They added it was “not unusual for high-profile foundations to receive a significant influx of funding in their first year, which is then used over the course of several years as part of a financial plan to build their philanthropic work.”
It has been widely rumored that Harry and Meghan donated several million personally to Archewell to get it off the ground in its first year.
Executive director James Holt, who moved to California from London with the couple and is considered their most trusted aide, saw his income go from $59,846 to $227,405, according to the newly released tax filing.
Am I on crack or didn’t the Sussexes receive several big corporate grants in Archewell’s first year? That seems to be what the “source” is saying – in 2020/21, Archewell was flush with cash and they decided to make it last, rather than spend it all at once. Plus, you know Harry put a chunk of his Spare money into Archewell, plus Harry and Meghan are not actively fundraising. They’re not hosting Archewell fundraisers nor are they getting into bed with shady despots to grab cash in a bag (unlike Harry’s father). My point is that they already have a healthy amount of foundation funds and they’re clearly making plans for what’s next and where to direct their foundation’s money. I’m not worried, although I see the Daily Mail thinks this story is a five-alarm fire. I really wish the Mail, Telegraph and Daily Beast would bring this kind of energy to figuring out how the Royal Foundation blew through £12.1 million for Earthshot when only £5 million went to prize money. That really should have been a bigger story – £7.1 million just disappeared, all in the name of “Earthshot.”
James Holt: I’m the press sec for the Royal foundation.
Also JH: Harry and Meghan are getting their own office? I’m team Sussex.
Also JH: Wait Harry and Meghan are leaving? I’m going with you. Off to LA! Team Archewell!
If sticking with the winning team was a person 😂 pic.twitter.com/Hm9ZyJ3KBo
— Vanessa Nguyen Hernández (@VanessaNguyen28) December 21, 2022
Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid.
-
- Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, at a benefit concert for Santa Barbara first responders on Kevin Costner’s estate in Montecito, USA, on 22 September 2023.,Image: 807665176, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JERRY PEREZ / Avalon
-
- Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, at a benefit concert for Santa Barbara first responders on Kevin Costner’s estate in Montecito, USA, on 22 September 2023.,Image: 807665364, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JERRY PEREZ / Avalon
-
- Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, and Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, at a benefit concert for Santa Barbara first responders on Kevin Costner’s estate in Montecito, USA, on 22 September 2023.,Image: 807665423, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JERRY PEREZ / Avalon
-
- Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, at a benefit concert for Santa Barbara first responders on Kevin Costner’s estate in Montecito, USA, on 22 September 2023.,Image: 807665722, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JERRY PEREZ / Avalon
-
- Prince Harry, Duke of Sussex, at a benefit concert for Santa Barbara first responders on Kevin Costner’s estate in Montecito, USA, on 22 September 2023.,Image: 807666025, License: Rights-managed, Restrictions: , Model Release: no, Credit line: JERRY PEREZ / Avalon
-
- New York, NY – Prince Harry and Meghan Markle stir up a media frenzy outside of the Hilton Hotel for a special event. Pictured: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle BACKGRID USA 6 DECEMBER 2022 BYLINE MUST READ: T.JACKSON / BACKGRID USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- New York City, NY – Meghan Markle and Prince Harry, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex, seen during the red carpet arrivals at the Robert F. Kennedy Human Rights Ripple of Hope Gala held at the New York Midtown Hilton Hotel. Pictured: Meghan Markle, Prince Harry BACKGRID USA 6 DECEMBER 2022 USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- New York, NY – Prince Harry, Meghan Markle, and her mother Doria Ragland depart The Ms. Foundation Women of Vision Awards at Ziegfeld Theatre in New York City. Pictured: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle BACKGRID USA 16 MAY 2023 BYLINE MUST READ: Fernando Ramales / BACKGRID USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
-
- Vancouver, CANADA – Prince Harry and Meghan Markle attend the Vancouver Canucks hockey game in Vancouver, BC, Canada. Harry did the ceremonial puck drop and then the pair watched the contest from the owners box. Pictured: Prince Harry, Meghan Markle BACKGRID USA 21 NOVEMBER 2023 BYLINE MUST READ: BACKGRID USA: +1 310 798 9111 / usasales@backgrid.com UK: +44 208 344 2007 / uksales@backgrid.com *UK Clients – Pictures Containing Children Please Pixelate Face Prior To Publication*
Obviously the gutter Daily Mail is looking for dirt. They are unused to transparency. As noted by the Foundation, James Holt salary was listed as a partial salary last year. In additional this Foundation is being very intentional with how they disburse the charitable giving for the maximum impact. I love have they are globally funding the Afghan Women’s group. This will only grow and this is a Meghan’s initiative.Also, I love how they are controlling who donates to their foundation. I can only imagine the offers they receive for donation which they decline because of how ethical and transparent they continue to be. There is no dirt here gutter press for you to use. Harry alone could have millions pouring in if he opened the doors to this foundation.
Apparently it was the BBC that was doing the digging not the DM.
The level of interest in this couple, the BBC ?? 🙄🙄🙄 YOU WOULD THINK THAT MEGHAN AND HARRY ARE THE NEXT KING AND QUEEN OF ENGLAND 🤣🤣🤣
this seems pretty normal? I’m not a nonprofit/fundraising expert but this just seems to make sense to me. They have a long term plan, both for spending/charitable giving/philanthropic projects and for fundraising, and this year they didn’t need to raise as much as they had in past years.
I’m sure things like Holt’s raise were part of that long term plan.
I read somewhere that Archewell has 5 employees. Only 5! I’m assuming that doesn’t include the audio or production teams but still – only 5 and they are accomplishing so much.
It is normal, and the same papers were making a big deal last year/early this year about them bringing in 13 million and ” only” donating 2 million and I and plenty other commenters noted that no foundation spends all their seed money the first year they spread it out over several years in case donations get lean. Now the problem for them for some bizarre reason is they aren’t bringing in enough.They are OBSESSED with the idea that the Sussexes are broke and failures and will need to come back. Also it’s not an exclusive if you are reporting about information that I released publicly. I’m starting to think all media in the UK is trash.
Meanwhile, the Royal Foundation has a CEO, five directors, presumably support staff, and nine trustees. Apart from the commitment to Manchester (two grants totaling 75,000 pounds) in conjunction with the mayor’s project, most of what I see is nebulous verbiage about promoting task forces, establishing boards, announcing initiatives, with no monetary amount attached. What do all those people do?
And I’m still confused about how ES is related to all of this, especially since Bloomberg seems to be the guiding force. The RF says it’s now an independent charity, and it’s only a small portion of what’s noted on the RF website – what does that mean about where the money comes from, and goes to?
Also the Royal Foundation listed a £1 million anonymous donation that went to EarthFlop but suspected to be from Murdoch.
Which Murdoch? Rupert and Lachlan are climate deniers so it seems unlikely they would give money to Earth Shot.
@Megan I think the speculation is that that one million came from William’s settlement with Murdoch. It wasn’t donated out of the goodness of their hearts.
Charities in the US only need to give away 5% of their assets annually, so Archewell gave away nearly double what is required.
Is it true that the CEO of the non profit was paid over $250k, with a $20K bonus? That’s not the standard CEO salary for any of the non profits I have worked for, with a bigger operating budget than Archewell has.
They’re doing great work and I’m not sure if the difference is that this is a foundation rather than a NGO. I’m sure they are about to roll out many more deliverables in the year to come as well, but it’s not a great stat for overhead expenses in the fiscal year report? Does anyone else have more insight into this particular figure?
@Nutella toast below says it doesnt seem that far from standard to them:
“Also, the reporting includes health benefits, matching retirement, etc. and not just straight pay. I live in a small town and our Executive Director makes $105,000 with benefits annually (I don’t make anywhere close to that, but lots of EDs do). So that rate in California (especially an expensive area) isn’t so off base. There’s no “there” there.”
Also, non-profit workers are drastically underpaid and in Canada, at least, that is in part because the sector is largely staffed by women and POC. Forcing low overhead costs on charities results in high sector burnout and turnover which in the long run isn’t good for these orgs because running a recruitment process is very expensive to orgs in the long term.
People often think non-profits aren’t complex organizations but foundations and large charities absolutely are and their leaders should be compensated fairly. Just because people work for a charity doesn’t mean they sign up to be underpaid and many ED have a lot of higher education and experience.
Sorry for the soapbox rant but I spent more than a decade in nonprofit before i was poached to work in corporate philanthropy because I was so underpaid in the space despite a ton of accomplishments and educations. Once of my big things have always been trying to get funders to understand why salary costs should be included and more fairly considered/overhead costs.
There are several books on the subject now and a recent documentary called Uncharitable. All to say, I’m glad the Sussexes are paying their staff fairly. It is probably better for the foundation long term.
Foundations operate on endowments. Spending more than they raised isn’t great from a sustainability perspective.
Yes, unless the foundation is in a “spend down” which Archwell isn’t.
Megan, that’s one of the reasons they had so much in the bank at the end of last year. That money is to help fun it for a few years AND to pay grants they have promised and will promise.
The article also said that they have $11 million in the bank. Didn’t they have $10 million last year–that’s what I remember.
The bm is simply trying make something from nothing. I see they NEVER look at any of the brf’s foundations. Now that’s where I think they would find lots of eye raising payments.
990s for public charities (PC), which Archewell Fnd is, are freely available online from IRS, but they might not be most recent filing. They’re also available from Guidestar and Charity Navigator. While the PC rating ensures donations are tax deductible, there’s really no way of knowing who the donors are unless org has carelessly included donor list that gets uploaded. Most likely H-M are the primary, or even only, donors. Their other tax filings are not publicly available. It’s possible that H-M also make charitable contributions in their personal capacity, and nobody would know.
Since H-M are not “working” royals, why does britmedia even care? Shouldn’t britmedia be reporting Early Ages or something from the holier-than-thou “working” ppl?
Tom Sykes = britmedia.
Tom Sykes is a 3rd rate British media. Horrendous writing style…
The UK’s Sussex obsession continues. The Sussexes left Salty Isle 4 years ago and are still breaking news everyday on every station. It’s not them, it’s you, UK. They’re just not that into you. They’ve moved onward and upward. Shoo, go away now, you creepy stalkers.
How about instead, all those crack “reporters” can focus on the missing millions from the Wailses foundation or the whopping £31 raised by Sofiesta and her ‘I’m not a germaphobe’ husband’s foundation.
You asked how the royal foundation burned through 7 million dollars? Well, buttons cost money, you know and wigglets are not cheap.
https://royalfoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/TRF-annual-accounts-2022_English.pdf
If anyone wants to take a look at how the Royal Foundation spent over £1.5m on Early Years (over £1.8m including governing, etc.) In ’22 alone, and I still have no clue as to what exactly EY is trying to accomplish. The space for grants funded is glaringly blank this year.
You’ll also see both Will and Kate’s former secretaries’ names on there. One is a trustee, the other an ex officio member.
I truly feel that they have no idea how to use the money effectively, in a way that makes the most impact. These are nothing but glamor projects for them.
Im confident that harry and meghan are competent enough and not only that, they also have a competent staff.
But i do hope we get Archewell fundraiser events in the future because i think that would be really fun.
Yeah, I’m not understanding why the British press is reporting on this. Harry and Meghan are not working royals and don’t live in the UK. The focus should be on those who actually take tax payers money and live lavish lifestyles in the UK not Harry and Meghan. As for the actual financial situation, I’m not getting the hysteria, any charity would be happy to raise US$2 million and it’s not like Archewell doesn’t have money in the bank.
This is pure deflection. Something big is about to blow up with the royals. Watch for it.
It’s just projection to cover for the earthshit show. So they must analyze the hell out of what Harry’s foundation is doing. I’m sure that because of all inflation and recovery from Covid there are not as many donations going to anything right now. Food banks are low and are scrambling for donations so this isn’t just Archewell not taking in as many donations. BM will never admit that though they will just spin out crap and completely ignore what goes on with the cult and their financial doings.
Been working in non-profit world (finance and grants) for 25 years. It’s very likely that was his compensation for part of a year, and not a full year. You don’t report what someone’s annual pay rate is. You report on what they actually made during that fiscal year. Also, the reporting includes health benefits, matching retirement, etc. and not just straight pay. I live in a small town and our Executive Director makes $105,000 with benefits annually (I don’t make anywhere close to that, but lots of EDs do). So that rate in California (especially an expensive area) isn’t so off base. There’s no “there” there.
Also, most 990 filings available right now are for 2022 as 2023 hasn’t closed for most non-profits yet.
If you’re starting as a non-profit / philanthropy, it’s not unusual to have that kind of financial pace in the early stages. That’s not in itself an indication of financial “instability” – you would want to look at other metrics, such as donor dependency, for instance (are you reliant on a single donor, or do you have a broad portfolio of funders?). We’re also lacking context for Holt’s salary increase: was $59k his salary for a full year, or did he join the foundation in the course of the year (which would easily explain the difference)? $230 is a good salary for a philanthropy CEO but by no means out of the ordinary – again, good reporting would have included some bench-marking to provide context.
I’m surprised they didn’t mention that according to the filing Meghan and Harry are listed as directors and put their hours as on average 1 hr a week and use that as a ‘they don’t do anything so no wonder it’s going down’ BS. The BBC did mention the hour per week thing but not the article above.
The BBC article (which was much more fairly labelled as ‘Prince Harry and Meghan’s charity makes $1.2m donations’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67694033) was much better reporting, in particular regarding the money in/out situation:
‘Archewell was launched with an initial start-up revenue of $13m in 2021, with a further $2m raised in 2021 and then $5m in 2022 – making grants of $5.4m across those years.
Tax returns show that the foundation spent more than it received in 2022, but the gap of $674,000 was less than the $8.5m in remaining funding, which has since risen to $11.2m.’
@Mei I’m working on the 990 for the non-profit I work for, and it’s pretty standard to put 1 hour per week for Director positions unless someone is essentially volunteering around the clock and running all operations (That’s what James is paid for). It’s not healthy (imo) for the people who started and nurtured a non-profit idea to have no light between themselves and operations and finance. If I had $, I’d spend time with my kiddos, keep a close eye on things, and hire well. They’ve checked all those boxes. What stands out to me is that they aren’t sitting on the money – they’re distributing it as promised and obligated through grants.
That’s super useful to know @nutella toast! Thanks for the insight 😀 I appreciate the time you took to give some context.
That’s the one I read too, which shows an increase in donation from 2021 to 2022…These ‘reporters’…smh.
“Executive director James Holt, who moved to California from London with the couple”
WHAT? Was he tucked away in their luggage or was he in a carrier like the dogs?
lol. James is so cute, just the person H&M would like to work with. No wonder he left the salt island for LA. He is the antithesis of the british man stereotypes.
Completely skipping the part where they lived on Vancouver Island for six weeks. Was he there, too?
You can talk about the health of a non-profit in a lot of ways, some of which isn’t reflected in numbers, but 11 million less in fundraising and a 2 million account drop from the previous year is not growth. They perhaps achieved other goals that contribute to foundation stability, but they should just say that.
Is it more logical that on their first year they got more support to kickstart the foundation? Maybe, 2 mil a year is a stability for their future goals? There is no governmental structure supporting them, this is the foundation of 2 private people. I don’t see the need for explanation, it isn’t like they are taking money from questionable people, they are helping people in need. I don’t understand why people expect so much from them.
Do you expect a charity to be making 13 million annually? The 13 million was start up money.
I think the issue at hand is that there were only 2 donations from 2 entities. That is what is unusual. Those entities could very well be the Sussexes which would be reasonable. This has been an difficult year for most & many charities have taken a hit. Also many donations are made at this time of year.
Maybe they are not fundraising so not seeking donations? They have a very small team and seem to get very involved in the projects they donate to. So instead of staff members seeking donation they are focusing on spending the millions they have in reserve and setting up individual projects. Harry and Meghan may have donated themselves just to add to the reserves. I see no issue since they have so much in reserve.
@snappyfish You aren’t obligated to report every donation on your 990. Only the larger ones.
Yeah, the drop off in fundraising itself isn’t the only indicator to check for health and sustainability but that’s a significant drop off and if they don’t raise much more in future years, it’s a problem. But they may plan to sunset it after 5 years or so anyway.
@Kirsten, @MEI above said there was an initial amount of $13 million in 2021 plus an additional $2 million raised in 2021, then they raised $5 million in 2022, that’s $20 million raised in less than two years for a brand new foundation. We don’t have 2023 yet because the year is not over. So I think growth and stability are fine. The Daily Beast is trying to spin gold into straw as usual. They care nothing about journalistic integrity, at least not when it comes to the Sussexes. Tom Sykes is just a party hopping old gossiper.
IRS 990s are public record through the IRS and lots of foundations and NGOs.publish them on their websites so prospective donors and orgs.like Charity Navigator can evaluate where their funding goes to (programs, overhead, fundraising etc)
If the UK is going to harp on H&M’s charity earnings-spending, then they better use the BRF as well. This sounds like the DF reporting on hoe much every piece of clothing, jewelry and accessory costs each time Meghan ventures into public. Perhaps this might be a good time to remind everyone that the Duchies of Lancaster and Cornwall make money off of people who die without a will. Remember that this money is supposed to be spent on charity and yet, lots of it went into renovations for KC and PW’s properties. How about we spend more time on that?
“Oh no, the Left-behinds are free to do as they please, its only the couple who escaped that must be harassed and maligned to death”. I hope these people enjoy the egg that’s smeared all over their faces while Harry and Meghan thrive and prosper!
Before the British sht media even open their mouths to talk about Harry, Megan or Archwell, why don’t they give us a blow by blow account of earthshot finances, because all of a sudden it’s a separate, “charity”, so where are all the funds that were raised when it was bully’s baby. Did he draw a wage? Did keen charge an attendance fee? Where were the 8 million expenses spent and have all the prize winners got their full amounts. Then there is the Money from Endeavour, where did bully’s half go when Harry left. So many charities, so much Money, SO MUCH SILENCE and don’t get me started on Charlie’s carrier bags and suitcases of cash or the pennies stolen from dead men’s eyes!! (OLD saying), oh and where does the word “Only” fit in, it’s a hell of lot of money raised, without the Palace press packs and royal titles doing the heavy lifting
Mary Pester, the bm (and brf) have worked really, really hard to get the Sussexes to respond to ANYTHING they’ve thrown out there. I think they’re angry because they have gotten zip. They’ll keep doing this in the hope that a response will happen.
I hope the bm’s anger gets turned to the left behinds … now there’s a lot of fertile ground for them to cover.
The British media — and the left-behind royals — cannot stand the fact that H&M are having an impact … they’ll continue to emphasize this kind of nonsense. Meanwhile, H&M just keep doing their thing — transparently.
@saucy&sassy, I sometimes think they are afraid to look to closely at the Royals because they know there is REAL dirt there. I also think your right, they would sell thelr granny’s to get a response from Harry and Megan.
Bottom line, Archewell seemed to hit their goal for that year – esp if they still have a lot of cash on hand by end of 2022. It’s 3 years old and has already created positive impact for many communities. Mind you, there probably wasn’t visibility until maybe mid 2022 when things started to really open up after the pandemic. I think in 2023, more people have gotten to be aware of the foundation and they have better opportunities for in-person networking and direct conversations on their vision.
The BM though just opened Pandora’s box as now many people wants to see the BRFs filings on their own charities/foundations.
This is a very big reminder also: Archewell isn’t even supported by US taxpayers and they’re still thriving.