Ministry Watch: Ethnos360 scores

MINISTRY WATCHTRUSTWORTHINESSECFA

9/15/20242 min read

Ministry Watch has given Ethnos360 a 37/100 donor confidence score with a recommendation to "withhold giving."

According to the Ministry Watch website, "MinistryWatch is an independent donor advocate facilitating the information needs of donors. It provides information on organizations alleging to be charitable and its key leadership in order to identify materially misleading behavior, or wasteful spending practices."

Ethnos360's score on Ministry Watch has decreased significantly over time. In 2009, Ethnos360, then New Tribes Mission, was on Ministry Watch's list of Shining Light Ministries, requiring a 5-star rating and a donor confidence score of 100. At that time, New Tribes Mission shared this honor on their website.

Today's Ethnos360 scores on Ministry Watch tell a different story. They now have 2 stars, a 37 donor confidence score, and their transparency grade is D. Why is that? Ministry Watch lays out some of the criteria included in their calculation. Some of these factors are 2 stars in overall efficiency and asset utilization and 1 star for resource allocation.

The criteria for the donor confidence score explains how Ethnos360 ended up with 37/100. This includes lack of an independent board, failure to file a Form 990, public accusations of misdeeds, and use of NDAs.

According to Ethnos Truth Project, Ethnos360's use of NDAs was recently brought to Ministry Watch's attention. Ethnos Truth Project claims that Ethnos360 told Ministry Watch they do not use NDAs when in fact they do.

Out of 37 points, 20 of those points are attributed to Ethnos360's membership with ECFA. In my opinion, this ECFA accreditation is invalid based on the aforementioned lack of independent board members (a requirement for ECFA Standard 2).

These factors together lead Ministry Watch to recommend donors refrain from sending funds to Ethnos360. If you include the allegations of abuse, allegations of failure to report abuse, and allegations of covering up abuse, refraining from financially enabling this organization would seem to be a wise choice. What do you think?