GCAS’s latest report separates recurring policy violations from an unfinished audit-coverage count

Documents examined

• General Conference Auditing Service, 2025 Annual Report, “Integrity for Mission,” presented at the October 2026 Annual Council. [1]
• GCAS, 2024 Annual Report, “Beyond Audit,” presented at the 2025 Annual Council. [2]
• General Conference Treasury, Annual Council 2026 presentation: the reproduced earlier voted request, Financial Oversight Taskforce terms of reference, framework, and “Recommendations in Progress” slides. [3]

The latest General Conference Auditing Service (GCAS) annual report identifies two related but different oversight problems. Its policy-compliance reports check whether selected church rules were followed. Approximately 84 percent of those issued during 2025 contained at least one core-policy violation. Separately, GCAS says its staffing supports only a little more than half its listed church audits each year. [1, opening message and “Policy Compliance Reports”]

This does not mean that 84 percent of all Adventist organizations violated policy. Nor does it mean every organization outside GCAS’s annual workplan went unaudited. Understanding the figures requires knowing which organizations and reports they cover, and for what period.

What the compliance figures measure

The 2025 report identifies 921 policy reports released during the year. Common findings included:

• Monthly financial statements not provided on time to management or the governing committee: 39 percent of reports.
• An audit committee missing or not formed as required: 37 percent.
• Insurance coverage not maintained as policy required: 31 percent.
• Incomplete conflict-of-interest statements, which disclose interests that could affect decisions: 24 percent.

These categories can overlap. [1, “Policy Compliance Reports”]

These are tests of selected core policies, not every rule in General Conference Working Policy, the church’s administrative policy book. The earlier annual report says the Executive Committee selected 26 core policies. Some divisions added requirements. A nonstandard compliance report records problems against those selected rules. It is not a rating of everything an institution does. [2, executive director’s message]

The earlier report provides a limited comparison. For 2024, GCAS reported 954 compliance reports. Of those, 82 percent had one or more core-policy violations. The latest share is two percentage points higher, but the number of reports differs. The summaries do not establish that the same organizations were examined in both years. They show recurring problems among issued reports, not worsening results in every institution. [2, p. 15; 1, “Policy Compliance Reports”]

An audit opinion is a separate judgment about the financial statements. A standard opinion says they are fairly presented. A qualified opinion identifies a limited exception. An adverse opinion says the statements are substantially and widely misstated. A disclaimer means the auditor lacks enough evidence to give an opinion. None of these classifications alone establishes that money was stolen. [1, “Auditor Reports and Opinions”]

Internal controls are the checks used to prevent or detect errors and misuse. GCAS’s discussion of weaknesses in those checks concerns risk. It is not a finding of financial crime at every organization with a weakness. [1, internal-control discussion]

What audit coverage does—and does not—mean

The 2025 report lists a client base, or portfolio, of 2,376 organizations. Its annual workplan lists 1,201 engagements: assignments to provide audit or related services. Its accountability graph records 1,146 engagements completed or in progress. The 2024 report lists 2,347 organizations, a workplan of 1,142, and 1,133 engagements completed or in progress. Planned, completed, and unfinished work are different counts. [1, “GCAS Client Base and Annual Workplan” and “GCAS Accountability Report”; 2, pp. 8–11]

GCAS is checking its portfolio against the Seventh-day Adventist Yearbook. This reconciliation means comparing the lists and explaining differences. Organizations change, and a Yearbook entry does not always match a single unit audited. GCAS is also checking which organizations use outside auditors and obtaining their reports. Some organizations are not ready for audit. Other gaps reflect GCAS staffing limits. [1, “What Is the Church’s Risk Exposure?”]

The report excludes local congregations and the entities they control from the GCAS portfolio. Their financial oversight rests with the local conference or equivalent body. The worldwide figures therefore do not count every Adventist congregation and school. The report says the reconciliation is unfinished and expects it to take another year. [1, client-base and risk-exposure discussions]

The documented response is still developing

The 2026 Treasury presentation reproduces an earlier voted request: a request formally approved by vote. It asked General Conference administration, working with division administrations, for a comprehensive response to recurring oversight problems. Those included financial reporting, policy, internal controls, and staffing. The GCAS report dates the request to October 13, 2025. [3, “Protecting the Mission”; 1, executive director’s message]

The presentation identifies a Financial Oversight Taskforce established February 3, 2026, under ADCOM 26-36. Its questions include what oversight should look like, GCAS’s role, and how the church should pay for it. Its framework has four parts: awareness, accountability, assurance, and action. These concern knowing the rules, taking responsibility, providing confidence through independent checks, and correcting problems. [3]

The following slides are headed “Recommendations in Progress.” They include standard training and a composite risk score, which combines risk information into one measure. They also propose ways to evaluate leadership, consequences for disregarding findings, support for audit preparation, and timely written management responses with action plans. These are proposals in development. The slides alone do not show that every proposal became Working Policy or was put into practice. [3]

GCAS makes the same distinction when discussing its board’s 33 recommendations. The board can recommend; administration must decide what to adopt and when. A recommendation, a vote authorizing change, and completed corrective action are separate stages. [1, board chair’s message]

Sources (3)

[1] GCAS, 2025 Annual Report: Integrity for Mission — Primary Documents. Nineteenth annual report, issued for October 2026 Annual Council; section titles identify passages examined.

[2] GCAS, 2024 Annual Report: Beyond Audit — Primary Documents. Presented at 2025 Annual Council; pp. 5–16 supply the earlier-year definitions, coverage, and compliance comparison.

[3] General Conference Treasury, Annual Council 2026 presentation — Primary Documents. The “Protecting the Mission,” taskforce, framework, and “Recommendations in Progress” slides reproduce the earlier voted request and distinguish developing recommendations. The generic filename may be replaced by the publisher later.

Source categories describe type only, not reliability. About our source categories.

Cite this

GCAS’s latest report separates recurring policy violations from an unfinished audit-coverage count. Puls Strom, Nov 6, 2026. https://pulsstrom.com/c/603512

Copy linkCopy citation

Spotted an error? Report it. Substantive corrections are noted at the top of the piece and listed on the corrections page.