← All reports
KFG Report · Published 30 September 2026 · Updated 2 October 2026

Kiwis For Good Foundation (CC57436): what donors should know before giving

Subject: Kiwis For Good Foundation Register: CC57436 · Napier, NZ Claims examined: 58 Sources: 40+
The short version

Kiwis For Good is a small, legitimately registered Napier charity (CC57436) whose public content goes considerably further than its “gym memberships and mentoring” shopfront. A full review of all 89 published pages found a Scientology link at board level (trustee Mike Ferriss, the long-time public face and Certification Officer of the Church of Scientology of NZ and a director of CCHR NZ), a chairman marketing his own unproven trauma therapy — which the charity endorses and has made films to promote — a systematic anti-antidepressant media operation, and a $20-subscription prize-draw fundraising arm, all against FY2025 revenue of NZ$58K, ~NZ$8K of assets and roughly one month of reserves. None of this is fraud, and there is no regulator action against the charity: the accurate characterisation is a tiny, sincere-origin charity whose media output now systematically promotes anti-medication, anti-mandate and fringe-therapy content — aimed at exactly the audience least able to evaluate it.

Download the complete report (PDF) Jump to claim-by-claim verdicts ↓

The evidence dossier

Complete investigative report (PDF) — v1.4

Version 1.4 (2 October 2026): all 89 published pages reviewed, every claim quoted verbatim with sources and counter-evidence, financial analysis, provenance checks, and appendices A–G.

Download PDF

Earlier evidence dossier (PDF)

The evidence dossier from the first-phase, shorter analysis — retained for the record.

Download PDF

Exhibits

Figure 1 — Filed income vs expenditure
Figure 1 — Filed income vs expenditure Filed income vs expenditure, years ended 31 March. Source: Charities Register filings via CharitiesWatch NZ (CC57436).
Figure 2 — Evidence base behind Claims 1, 4 and 5
Figure 2 — Evidence base behind Claims 1, 4 and 5 Left: published suicide-note content analyses vs the website’s claim (Claim 1). Right: effect sizes from the mentoring and exercise meta-analyses behind the programme claims. Sources as cited in the report.

External sources