Prince Harry & Meghan released Archewell foundation’s 2020-2022 Impact Report

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex founded Archewell in 2020, soon after they moved to California. In less than three years, Archewell has become their successful umbrella organization, housing their podcast work, their Netflix work AND their charitable foundation. Following the success of Archetypes, Netflix’s Harry and Meghan, Harry’s memoir Spare and everything else, Archewell is shuffling their talent and moving different parts of their organization in-house, which we discussed on Sunday. Variety also reported that Archewell was due to release their charitable impact report, and that’s exactly what happened on Sunday.

You can see the full Archewell Impact Report PDF here – from 2020 to 2022, Omid Scobie reports that the Sussexes raised $13 million and distributed $3 million in grants “across areas including vaccine equity, relief centres, refugee resettlement, and building better online world.” From their impact report, you can see that they also worked with corporate partners to help direct funds to World Central Kitchen, Global Citizen and refugee/immigration NGOs like Human First Coalition, Welcome.US., and Operation Allies Welcome.

The impact report is not some financial disclosure for tax purposes, so we don’t know what money was put into the foundation by Meghan and Harry and what was donated to the foundation through various private or corporate donors. It was an interesting read though – they’ve already carved out a fascinating issue portfolio and they’re committed to showing their work and drawing attention to the organizations and charities doing great work. Unlike some people, Meghan and Harry don’t show up empty-handed and expect their presence to be “enough.”

Photos courtesy of Avalon Red, Backgrid, Instar, NYT Dealbook and Archewell.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

85 Responses to “Prince Harry & Meghan released Archewell foundation’s 2020-2022 Impact Report”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Georgia says:

    Where did the other 10 million go? Did they pocket it? Most likely

    • Cara says:

      You don’t have to spend every dollar the same year unless the donation or grant says so.

    • Maxine Branch says:

      Obviously you wrote a post to disparage and look like the fool I am pretty sure you are. Look up how Foundations operate and then come back with an apology. Unless your comment was intended as pun. If so, I apologize in advance.

    • dee(2) says:

      Co-signing what @Cara said. Some grants have specific time frames that money needs to be spent in, which can go for several years. Also seed money works differently and they may have received funding to cover operating costs over a certain period, maybe 5 or 10 years. (Of course I am presuming you are being genuine in asking this)

      • Emily says:

        Yup, I work in the non-profit sector and there are a lot of reasons why the money isn’t spent all at once.

        It could be seed money to cover costs for a number of years. It’s financially prudent to have reserves to continue operating in times of uncertainty. The grants may have been five year grants, meaning the money is intended for long term impact over a period of time.

    • PaperclipNumber99 says:

      It’s called building a corpus. You have to build up money over several years to keep ops going on the interest and have $$$ for times when matched giving is lean. That they are 3 years old and managed to do this much is exceptional.

    • Jais says:

      Trolling troll gonna troll. They’re not pocketing the money.

    • nutella toast says:

      Full-time grant writer here. From the time the money comes in, a Request for Proposals is sent out, grant applications written and reviewed, awards made, and distribution of funds is usually at least two years. If it’s a reimbursable grant, it’s longer because you submit receipts and get funding usually a few months later. There’s nothing unusual about this. You also keep an eye on sustainability so you have enough funds to pay out through the life of the grant and not just enough for this week.

    • C says:

      You are a troll and not very bright either.

    • equality says:

      They have established awards to be done through NAACP and Ripple of Hope. Some funds will be needed yearly for those. This also doesn’t tell about WellChild donations and Invictus which were either done on their own or skipped over by the media. IRS laws do not allow for just “pocketing” money, but I”m sure you know that. Now maybe you can explain the disparity between what was taken in for EarthShot versus what was given to winners.

    • Emily says:

      The Foundation has a reserve of over $8 million which suggests to me that they are taking their time distributing money and making sure it goes to projects/partners they really believe in. There is no suggestion that they are doing anything unethical. It is normal for foundations to have reserves unless they are very poorly run. Remember we only have information from their first fully operational year 2021. Any donations made later may not be pubic yet.

    • Haylie says:

      You seem to have Archewell confused with Will and Kate’s Royal Foundation and Charles’s Prince’s Trust, you know, the ones where bags and briefcases of money come from a autocrats but none of them can feed people at a food bank.

      • Via says:

        Don’t forget the Royal Foundation also donated to the Invictus Games.

      • Nic919 says:

        When Harry was still a part of it. Let’s also discuss when they tried to take the profits from the cookbook and divert it elsewhere

    • SunRae says:

      H&M detractors tend to be dummies. A festival of dumbs dumbs. In their haste to discredit anything Harry and Meghan, they always abandon reason, intellect and regular common sense.

    • DouchesOfCambridge says:

      @Georgia Can’t wait to have an impact review for that top CEO initiative: 5 big questions/5 first year and that visit 2 days ago where the royal couple went to a food bank empty handed with no link to encourage the bank on their self promo posts on social media.
      What a great impact from the Sussexes after only 3 years of operations during COVID.

    • Let us know what William did with the 5 Million of the 12 million donated last year to Earthflop. He could only account for 7 million in the report KP released. There are no signs of where the 5 million went. I guess he pocketed it? Archewell’s Financial Report is on the website and all over Twitter.

    • OriginalMich says:

      What a stupid, spiteful, and unoriginal thing to say.

    • Blue Nails Betty says:

      Maybe some of the $10 million is earmarked for investing (to keep money coming in through dividends).

      Maybe some of the money goes to pay living wage salaries to the employees.

      Maybe some of the money is earmarked for charitable disbursal for projects occurring this year.

      This is a very young organization. As they grow they will donate more.

      Lastly, what have YOU done to make the world a better place? How much money have YOU sent to worthy organizations?

    • Liz Version 700 says:

      The Windsors really are cheapskates. Even their Trolls are basic third stringers. I guess they think we are too stupid to notice the ridiculous amount of increased anti- Harry & Meghan comments since Spare was released lol

    • Bellami says:

      What concerns me is that most of ‘their’ impact seems to be impact of the organisations they partnered with. As an NGO it’s more honest to report on what you solely are responsible for delivering. Otherwise it’s easy to put your name to other people’s efforts. Another point I want to make is, they have again and again mentioned how hard up on funds they are/were once they exited the RF …. It seems strange how they could be both : struggling and philanthropists of epic proportions. And I know some of you will mention Netflix and book deals etc but after the management, agency, lawyer, production costs not much is left to live such a lavish lifestyle on. After raising just 50,000 the other year this all just looks highly suspicious and more like PR fluff

      • dee(2) says:

        They were hard up on funds in 2020, they didn’t say they were in 2022. If I remember correctly the 50,000 they raised was the year they started the foundation and had been operational for a few months? It makes total sense that two years later they will have raised more money. Also, I always presumed once streams of income started coming in they were wise enough to invest. I mean I moved my money out of barely performing IRA to a regular savings account once the Fed started jumping rates every other month. This is without the benefit of a financial advisor, I’m sure they do the same.

      • Lizzie says:

        Hmm, why you use quotes around the word their? I suspect your screed is just a cut and paste that all the trolls are using today.

      • Jan says:

        Why waste time?

      • Julia says:

        They never said they were struggling financially. Meghan said when they first started house hunting they didn’t have the funds for their current property. That changed when they got their commercial deals. Harry also has his job with Better Up which probably comes with stock options. Meghan was a self made millionaire she knows how to handle money. What evidence do you have of this ‘lavish lifestyle’? Did the Daily Fail tell you that. No evidence at all that they have money worries. You knew nothing about their personal finances.

      • Tan says:

        Cry in ur can of soup. I hope supporting the empty handed Wails got u far in life

      • “What concerns me” how is that a concern of yours? it’s really non of your business. Did you give them any of that money? Some of yall or Weird.

      • C says:

        Who said they were struggling *now*? They are winning prizes and you are saying it’s fluff, lol. Troll elsewhere.

      • Saucy&Sassy says:

        Bellami, seriously? You think that Archewell will LIE that they are partnering with another entity? You think that other entity would blow that out of the water in two seconds? Yes, they would.

        Why are you so convinced that H&M are criminals? That in essence is what you’re saying. I guess if the brf and bm can’t smear them enough to make them broke and crawling to come back, they are now going after their Foundation to make people sceptical about it. Guess what? That’s not going to work. You suggest you are VERY careful about spreading this type of hate. There’s not just slander and libel, inteference in business expectancy. Look it up.

    • AnneL says:

      I worked with nonprofit and tax-exempt organizations for eight years as an attorney. Not all of the funds you raise in a tax year are donated that year. Some might be earmarked for other projects, donated in a later year, kept in reserve as a buffer, or used for operating costs. The % of money raised that can be used for managerial costs can’t exceed a certain percentage of the total.

      These organizations are regulated and have guidelines (often actual laws) that they follow. Based on my experience it seems that Archewell is doing just that.

      Come back when you understand how these things work

    • Tan says:

      Yup it went into Charles money bags, Kate’s wardrobe, Wills earthshot missing $5M and Andy’s new law fund. Eat bricks u daily fail reject

    • lucy2 says:

      I was going to say “watch, the UK tabloids will claim they’re keeping the remainder of the money!” and I didn’t have to look past the first comment here.

    • aggie says:

      You want to build a fund that generates regular income. You can then plan to use the annual proceeds to provide regular grants as well as cover operating expenses, and then strategically direct some of the corpus over time as you raise additional funds.

      If a foundation spent all of its funds it would then shut down.

      • CourtneyB says:

        Yeah, isn’t that what an endowment functions as? Same general philosophy. Keep a core amount and spend the extra or what it earned in investment profit.

    • Nivz says:

      Georgia… hmmm, MTG, that you?

    • Beverley says:

      So, did this troll Georgia ask the same question of the Earthsh*t mess?
      Or does she only hold this kind of energy for Meghan and Harry’s work? I

    • JDMyrick says:

      Your comments show why the reason why Early Years are important. Archwell is beyond your scope.

    • Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

      @Georgia, You’ve lost your way. Most of the people there are educated (not just book smart,) I’ll give you a simple answer to your idiotic question. In charitable organizations monies that are not spend during a fiscal year are then carried over in reserve…that is why they all have a reserve fund. Moreover, impact report is not a year end financial statement.

      Your trolling made you learn something today. I hope you continue the learning, we’ve all done our best to start you off.

    • kirk says:

      Georgia – “Where did the other 10 million go?” Am assuming that you meant $10M (as in USD ($)), rather than any other measure. Just because money is fungible does not mean $13M raised and $3M grants cited in the press release are in the same category. Also money raised in partnership with other organizations may go directly to another organization rather than being funneled through AWF. That doesn’t change the fact that people might be motivated to donate (i.e. raise money) through AWF & its principal’s efforts. Ex: when I donated to Vaccine Alliance following H-M (or sussex squad?) web links, the donation showed up on my credit card statement as paid to “COVAX.”

      Also, it’s possible somebody at AWF made a mistake on the press release, and included USD $ for a non-monetary measure (vaccines) because some of that press release doesn’t match any of the data in the report.

      The report contains the following information that could have been misinterpreted on the press release, especially 12.66M vaccines could have been pulled out and rounded to 13M, but erroneously changed to monetary USD $.

      From the AWF report, consider the following:
      AWF page 4: “12.66 million COVID-19 vaccines procured for the global population through our partnership with Global Citizen.”
      AWF page 6: “we invested in The People’s Vaccine Alliance, a coalition of over 100 organizations, health experts,
      economists, Heads of States, faith leaders and activists working to ensure everyone across the world has
      access to COVID-19 vaccines, tests, and treatments.”
      AWF page 6: DDOS “served as Campaign Chairs of Global Citizen’s VAX LIVE: The Concert to Reunite the World, which mobilized hundreds of millions in funds for the ACT-Accelerator and COVAX…”
      AWF page 6: According to Hugh Evans, CEO of Global Citizen, the DDOS “co-chaired Global Citizen’s Vax
      Live campaign, which mobilized over 26 million COVID-19 vaccine doses and raised $302 million for vaccine equity.”
      AWF page 6: Also according to Hugh Evans, CEO of Global Citizen, the DDOS “joined us on stage at the Global Citizen Festival on the Great Lawn of Central Park” to ensure equal access to vaccines. “As a result of this work, over 60 million COVID-19 vaccines were committed as part of the campaign.”

      While being able to subtract two numbers cited in a two sentence press release is a commendable skill and causes one to raise a question, it’s usually advisable to read the data underlying the release to see if that question is resolvable, or determine if it’s even a relevant question. Non-profits that raise money in partnership with other organizations may never have control over funds raised for particular goals. That doesn’t mean their fund-raising efforts have $0 value.

    • MaryContrary says:

      Eye roll.

    • Red says:

      Oh Georgia, you have just demonstrated that you are more familiar with receiving from a charity than running one. Never mind, there are some excellent answers here that describe the fiscally responsible way Harry and Meghan are running Archewell. You should read them, but I doubt you will.

    • notasugarhere says:

      Reminder to myself and others. When an obvious troll shows up, label them and move on. Helps Kaiser take out the trash.

    • Mary Pester says:

      Hey, if your going to try and troll, try and learn how things work FIRST it’s a FOUNDATION, funds have to be held back until grants are investigated before funds are issued. Pledges are given over a TIME PERIOD and not given up front to allow for sustainability, now, go be useful little troll

    • Barbara Allen says:

      Hello. Please do understand the Sussexes’ Archewell Foundation is private, meaning it is their own money that funds it. I’m light of that your comment makes little sense.

  2. dee(2) says:

    This is going to sting after that foodbank debacle from last week. Good. Glad to see they are still working with a lot of the organizations they worked with during the pandemic, a lot of issues that were highlighted during that time are ongoing.

    • MY3CENTS says:

      As usual even the timing gods love them.

    • Lorelei says:

      It was great. Even my friend, who doesn’t pay much attention to the royals, sent me links to this and the article criticizing the food bank visit and said, “How embarrassing for them that these were both published on the same weekend” LMAO.

  3. Louise177 says:

    I’m sure everyone will start yelling embezzlement for not donating all of the money. Nobody does since you want to make sure to donate for years or make a larger donation for major disasters.

  4. C-Shell says:

    For those asking where the rest of the money they raised went … why in the world do you believe that charitable organizations disburse all of the money they raise in the same timeframe they raise it?! That is not how nonprofits work, plus Scobie’s tweet isn’t a full representation of what is in the report, which I am still reading. It’s an impressive piece of work.

    • Danbury says:

      Exactly. There are salaries to be paid, various running costs ranging from internet to rent and everything in between. Plus sometimes raised funds are paid out in chunks, when specific indicators are met. Depends on how they are funding programs. People who honestly think that everything should be immediately donated don’t have two brain cells to rub together to understand how the world works

    • Mabs A'Mabbin says:

      It is, scrolling through it now. And I’m lmao at everyone wondering why M isn’t SPARE chirping. She’s f*cking working.

  5. Sheyr says:

    Most foundations leave a large capital in the balance (especially in the starting years) for operating costs and to build a fund to finance grants etc in the future.

    I’m sure a scrutiny of the ‘Royal foundations ‘ including Earthshot etc would reveal a similar picture.

    • Dominique says:

      i actually went looking for that, its info available on the civil service website. it seems that in 2021 they made abt 16M in donation and spent 15.1 in charitable activities ? i suppose that they dont have the same overheads given that their employees are civil servants.
      i dont think its a like for like comparison to be honest, Archewell has only just started , it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that their initial costs are huge to begin with.

      • Emily says:

        The Royal Foundation is well established and many of the staff are paid for by the tax payer so not a fair comparison. However, if you check out RF’s financial report on it’s first year of operations (2011) you will see they fundraised and distributed less than Archewell. Harry and Meghan have done well for a start up foundation that began during a global pandemic.

  6. KP says:

    There’s been so much positivity surrounding the Sussexes. They’ve done an incredible job with their foundation and there’s so much more to come…

    Please go look at how other foundations operate before trying to start up drama with H&M.
    Also leave their staff members alone. Literally no other celebrity has their staff pictures posted all over. Let them have privacy.

    And as fans Meghan’s videos are going viral all over…currently the Larry king one, smart works launch and UN. retweet and share.
    It’s about time that people see Meghan for the amazing woman she is instead of the constant negative headlines and articles that people insist on sharing.

  7. SP says:

    Foundations only need to spend 5% annually on grants per IRS rules, so $3m of $13m is very generous.

  8. girl_ninja says:

    Folks yelling “what about the other 10 million?!?!” Need to Google how non-profits work. Go ask for the tax records for those British royals if you want to truly be outraged.

    • SunnyDays says:

      Are people really stupid enough to question the accounting on this? As if H&M don’t know every tabloid “reporter” isn’t going to go through Archewell finances with a fine tooth comb. They keep their stuff air tight unlike the BRF. They’re not accepting bags full of cash from questionable sources. The double standards really give me a headache sometimes.

  9. hangonamin says:

    good for them! keep up the great work. glad their foundation is meeting objectives and carrying out their mission and where they want to make the most impact. looking forward to seeing annual reports of how much impact they make in the years to come. i’m glad they’ve adopted transparency in their model so there’s room for feedback.

  10. HeyKay says:

    Good for them for releasing the info.

  11. LB says:

    Not surprised that the first comment here was negative. I googled the report this morning & top search hits included a number of negative tweets & commentary. The paid trolls & bots never rest and are out there doing the BRF dirty work. Good on Archewell, and H & M. Hope that the foundation continues to grow, evolve and do great work. Looking at the past couple of years, H & M have been quite productive in both their charitable and for profit work, and let’s not forget having another child. Hope that they continue to put the past behind them and flourish!

  12. Eurydice says:

    Before commenting about the money, I’d want to know where Scobie got his numbers. I don’t think the IRS has published yet the 990’s for 2021.

    • Amy Bee says:

      Yeah, that figure wasn’t in the report so I’m not sure were Scobie that from.

      • Eurydice says:

        From what I can tell, an anti-Meghan website went trolling through some California record of charities – it’s an Excel spreadsheet a million miles long and I didn’t have the patience to scroll through it. The IRS website says they have a delay in processing the 2021 990’s so they haven’t posted them to the public reporting page. To me, this number is meaningless unless there’s a financial report to back it up.

      • Tan says:

        So it’s some troll trying the mimic the squad receipt finding method without any evidence. Checks out

  13. Amy Bee says:

    For those who bleat that Harry and Meghan should focus on their charity work, here’s proof that they have been doing the work and have been very successful.

  14. L4Frimaire says:

    I don’t pretend to know anything about how this sector operates but people were really upset with Scobie about publishing the exact numbers that Archewell put out. I guess they think if they don’t spend everything they have all at once it looks bad or something. It looks like they are going to focus on specific areas, which will increase their impact and effectiveness. They’ve accomplished a lot in the 3years they’ve established Archewell and am always excited about their work and partnerships.

  15. rebecca says:

    I have and. run a. small foundation (3million). The money is invested conservatively to hope that it grows. Under IRS rules, you only have out give out 5% of your monies per year and that can be be carried forward. So, if we grant a request for $300,00-, technically we don’t have to. grant any other request for quite a while. We are small and private and do not solicit funds from other sources, which is different from Archewell. How much of their donated funds and what they –the Sussexes– distributed is unknown.
    As a very small foundation, we. run it ourselves and take no salaries, though legally, we could. We have the ability to move quickly on grants, as our board is small (5 people) and formally meet twice a year on requests and act upon them. Checks go out following decisions. If the amount is large (for us), we may give it over a three to five year period, allowing our invested funds a chance to grow and make up the outlfow.
    In the case of Archewell, it seems to have staff to pay, which is unfortunate, as $13 million not very large, and I would asssume there are money management fees to be paid. (as we do). It seems a lot $3million to have been given away, which leads me to believe this is donated money to Archewell, rather thanAll Sussex money. It would not be wise for a small foundation to hand out so much money early on. It would be wiser to build up capital, especially in a difficult stock market environment. The fact they gave so much away leads me to believe it is due to receiving donated funds that called for dispersal.
    If the Sussexes plan on taking more control of the charitable part of Archewell, their costs for staff will go down, which would be a good thing. I certainly applaud the projects they have –or their donors–supported, but would hope they hang back from giving much more until they raise or give themselves more capital.

    • Julia K says:

      Very good information. Thank you @rebecca

      • L4Frimaire says:

        Agree. Appreciate seeing some analysis based on experience in this sector. Need to build up that endowment and funds. They seem to be surrounded by a competent team who will help them build their strengths and move forward.

  16. Dylan says:

    As one who has fundraised for school and community playgrounds/areas I was thrilled to see they funded one for kids in Uvalde. It would take a PTO years to finance one. In my small community it took the combined efforts of three charities over several years to get one built for a community with no play areas for kids, and it was tiny, even though it cost $5,000. A swing for disabled kids added significantly to the costs. This was a lovely, and very impactful gift to children struggling to heal from horrific loss and terror.

  17. Kimberly says:

    Can someone point out where it says that the foundation brought in 13 million. I read the report and I didn’t see it. I see 12.66 million Covid-19 vaccines procured.

  18. Well Wisher says:

    They have found a way to continue to serve.
    They should be proud of their achievements, the irony is that their impact would’ve smaller had they remained as part of the institution.
    Congrats to the Sussexes!!

    I will read the full report to note the future inaccuracies that will be forthcoming from bots, and usual distractions.

    • SunnyDays says:

      Agree @WellWisher!

      Compare the impact they’ve had in 3 short years compared to Keen flailing around and still “listening and learning” and now “raising awareness” in her new shiny “campaign”.

      If the BRF want to talk about a “life of service”, Harry and Meghan could probably provide a few pointers! So proud of them!

  19. Petra (Brazen Archetyped Phenomenal Woman) says:

    For a young philanthropic foundation, the Archewell Foundation hit the ground running. In just 2 years, Archewell Foundation under the leadership of Prince Harry and Duchess Meghan has done fantastic work.The foundation’s collaborative work with other charitable organizations has shown real results. Wishing Archewell foundation and its founders continued success in 2023.

  20. Ciotog says:

    Related only to the photo, I’ve seen some folks comparing Meghan to Hilaria Baldwin (whom many people think neither carries nor nurses her babies), and I just don’t get it. Meghan so clearly has looked like she was pregnant and post-partum and breastfeeding! Also, she doesn’t plaster her kids’ photos everywhere, or pretend she’s an ethnicity she isn’t.

  21. MsIam says:

    Well one thing to note, the Sussexes had to hire a lot of people the first year or two to help set up the foundation. A lot of those hires have left, positions eliminated, etc. They no longer are using an outside PR firm and are doing things in house. I assume they made those changes to cut overhead so that more money can go towards funding.