Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

1 Introduction to the Transparency and Good Governance Tool CSO Development Effectiveness Working Group WORKING GROUP MEETING April 24 2013.

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "1 Introduction to the Transparency and Good Governance Tool CSO Development Effectiveness Working Group WORKING GROUP MEETING April 24 2013."— Presentation transcript:

1 1 Introduction to the Transparency and Good Governance Tool CSO Development Effectiveness Working Group WORKING GROUP MEETING April 24 2013

2 2 Content 1.Why and how was it developed? 2.Who developed this? 3.What is in? 4.How is it applied? 5.What have we learned? 6.What is next?

3 3 1. Why and how was it developed? Why? Code of Conduct is positive but not enough. Society was asking for it. Potential crisis of confidence and public trust. External pressure and increasing expectations from the public. Increasing questioning of the other certification schemes

4 4 Objetives of the Herramienta Continuous improvement approach: helps NGO to continually improve and grow in their organizational development in transparency and good governance. Internal accountability: the Coordinadora has an objective tool to evaluate the level of transparency and good governance of the member organizations. External accountability: the public report can be used as a mechanism of accountability to society at large.

5 5 How? Jun 05 : Agreement on intensifying the Coodinadora’s work on T & GG. NGO directors’ meeting Sep 06: Agreement on what we wanted. Working Group issues recommendations at the First NGO biannual meeting. –Verifiable standards & certification scheme –Small but comprehensive set of indicators –Indicators must be objective, not subject to interpretation –Highly credible > evaluated by external and independent agent –Avoid rankings

6 6 2006-08. Internal discussion over the structure and indicators and final agreement March 09 Approval by the General Assembly 2009 Negotiation and agreement with auditors from ICJC - agreement on the particular Process of revision of agreed procedures adhoc for the Herramienta - adaptation of some indicators in consequence - clarification on the role of the auditors vs. that of the Coodinadora March 2010 Final version approved by the General Assembly

7 7 2009 and 2010 Volunteer self-evaluation (16 NGO evaluated) 2011 Volunteer evaluation with auditor (9 NGO) From 2012 Compulsory evaluation with auditor (53 NGO)

8 8 Results in 2012 ejercise Participation : –60% of the NGOs presented their auditor report of 2012 to the Coordinadora : Of 91 members: 53 YES, 33 NO, 5 did not have to. –NGOs of all sides represented among those that have applied –Reasons for not applying mainly financial Results: –More than 80% of NGO succeed in all the dimensions. –Of the remaining 20%, half did well in 9 out of the 10 dimensions. –The success is slightly higher in TR than in GG

9 9 2. Who developed this? 1.Coordinadora 2.Auditors 3.NGO members

10 10 2. Who developed this? Coordinadora: host the initiative, manages and serves as secretariat Secretariat: receive, review conformity, compile and register audit reports from NGO; analyses results and issue letter on compliance; elaborates consolidated report; external and internal diffusion of information Working Group (WG): formed by representatives from member NGOs of different sides. Main actor in the development of the Herramienta. Board: Oversees the progress of the initiative. Sets the strategic action framework. Approves proposals from the WG. When appropriate, the Board could command and apply the agreed and corresponding sanctions. Commission for the Code of Conduct: get involved when the Board asks for it to contact the NGO that have not applied or have failed to accomplish several dimension recurrently. Emits recommendation to the Board on the contravention of the agreement of the general Assembly General Assembly: approves the initiative and compliance mechanism

11 11 Auditors Third independent impartial party in charge of assessing and verifying compliance of participating organisations against the common set of objectively verifiable indicators agreed. ICJC representative organization of the auditing profession. Equivalent to the CNCC (Compagnie Nationale des Commisaries aux Comptes) in France, or the ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants) in the UK It is the body that negotiated with Coordinadora and developed the process of agreed procedures. REA and CEA – the two other major bodies for professional accountants in Spain that later suscribed the process

12 12 3. What is in? 2 Areas: Transparency and Good Governance 10 Dimensions: 4 in TR and 6 in GG 71 objectively verifiable indicators: 25 in TR and 46 in GG. Each indicator has: –Source of verification –Relevance (compulsory or important) –Value (between 5 and 30) Evaluation system: minimum of 70 point out of 100 to fulfill each dimension + all of compulsory indicators.

13 13 Principles /thematic areas TRANSPARENCYNº ind. GOOD GOVERNANCENº Ind. 1.Governance structures4 9 2. Mission, vision and values5 7 3. Constituency and social support 63. Planning and evaluation8 4. Planning and accountability 104. Financial management9 5. Human Resources7 6. Local partners and interest groups 6 2546

14 14 Example Dimension 5: Human Resources NºIndicatorAimSource of VerificationValueImportance BG 5.1 The NGO has a policy approved by its board, with criteria on salaries, compensation and social benefits that is public and accessible for its workers To have a set of criteria that is objective and known by the persons involved Policy document with criteria and the board minutes record stating its approval 15Compulsory BG 5.2 The NGO has a policy approved by its board that regulates the selection and hiring process of workers that is internally known To have a set of criteria that is objective and known by the persons involved Policy for seletion and the board minutes record stating its approval 15Relevant BG 5.3 All the HHRR policies expressly state that the NGO will avoid discrimination. To guarantee there in not discrimination to start and maintain a collaboration relation with the NGO HHRR policies10Relevant BG 5.4 There is a list of job profiles and a job description for each post at the NGO To guarantee that the workers know its functions and responsibilities List of profiles and job description15Relevant BG 5.5 The NGO fosters the training and continuous professional development of its team To develop and improve the capacities of the NGO team Budget line for training and list of trainings made 15Relevant BG 5.6 The NGO has a procedure to sign with all its volunteers as a compromise that expresses their rights and the content of their functions, activities and time The relation between the NGO and its volunteers is formalized and expresses rights and duties of each part and the mutual compromise assumed Procedure and Memorandum of understanding model 15Relevant BG 5.7 The NGO has an assurance for its volunteers according to the Volunteer Law To fulfill the Volunteer Law and cover potential risksAssurance polizi15Compulsory Total value100

15 15 4. How is it applied? Initiative - NGO Verification: - Auditor –Form: Evidence base –Frequency: depending on compliance, yearly or every 3 years. New members have 2 years to aply Reporting - Coordinadora –Detail: at the level of dimension not indicators –Frequency: yearly –Publication of reports: The Coordinadora publishes the letters that emit to the NGOs that have applied the Herramienta. –Seal Sanctions - Coordinadora –For no presentation of results –For no compliance with all the dimensions

16 16 5. What have we learned? Slow and flexible process: need to respect and accommodate to the rhythms of very different members; long negotiations among members and with auditors; time needed to sensitize and facilitate the coming on board and allow members to see themselves in the tool ; flexibility to allow the organic learning process to unfold. Gradual and continuous process: need to update; tackle resistance about sensitive issues and fears for excess of standardization. Good balance of different needs: certification scheme and compliance based tool vs. enabling tool for continual improvement; simplicity vs. comprehensive Need to offer room for improvement to all NGO Build a common language Strong leadership and need for funding for backbone organization

17 17 6. What is next? In the short term: The objective for 2013: all the members have applied The Coordinadora itself will probably apply it in 2013 Guarantee the necessary funding to assure its sustainability Obtain recognition from the public Explore synergies with AECID and other donors accreditation processes. Compare and benchmark it with similar mechanisms and processes in other countries. Study incorporation of impact assessment criteria

18 18 In the medium/long term (ways forward): Continuous update: possible changes and improvements in the dimensions and criteria Explore feasibility and convenience of applying the audit of processes instead of revision of agreed procedures (or other approaches for assurance mechanisms)

19 19 For more information Focal Point: Elena Mendez

Download ppt "1 Introduction to the Transparency and Good Governance Tool CSO Development Effectiveness Working Group WORKING GROUP MEETING April 24 2013."

Similar presentations

Ads by Google