Transcript Diapositiva 1 - Coordinadora ONGD

CSO Development Effectiveness
Working Group
WORKING GROUP MEETING
April 24 2013
Introduction to the Transparency and
Good Governance Tool
1
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?
2
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
3
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.
4
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
5
2006-08. Internal discussion
indicators and final agreement
over
the
structure
and
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
6
2009 and 2010 Volunteer self-evaluation (16 NGO evaluated)
2011 Volunteer evaluation with auditor (9 NGO)
From 2012 Compulsory evaluation with auditor (53 NGO)
7
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
8
2. Who developed this?
1. Coordinadora
2. Auditors
3. NGO members
9
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
10
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
11
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.
12
TRANSPARENCY
• Principles
/thematicNºareas
GOOD GOVERNANCE
ind.
Nº
Ind.
1. Governance structures
4
1. Governance structures
9
2. Mission, vision and values
5
2. Mission, vision and values
7
3. Constituency and social
support
6
3. Planning and evaluation
8
4. Planning and
accountability
10
4. Financial management
9
5. Human Resources
7
6. Local partners and interest
groups
6
25
13
46
Example
Dimension 5: Human Resources
Nº
Indicator
Aim
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
BG 5.2
Source of Verification
Value
Importance
To have a set of criteria that is objective and known Policy document with criteria and the
by the persons involved
board minutes record stating its approval
15
Compulsory
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 Policy for seletion and the board minutes
by the persons involved
record stating its approval
15
Relevant
BG 5.3
All the HHRR policies expressly state that the NGO will avoid
discrimination.
To guarantee there in not discrimination to start
HHRR policies
and maintain a collaboration relation with the NGO
10
Relevant
BG 5.4
There is a list of job profiles and a job description for each post at the To guarantee that the workers know its functions
NGO
and responsibilities
List of profiles and job description
15
Relevant
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
15
made
Relevant
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
Procedure and Memorandum of
formalized and expresses rights and duties of each
understanding model
part and the mutual compromise assumed
15
Relevant
BG 5.7
The NGO has an assurance for its volunteers according to the
Volunteer Law
To fulfill the Volunteer Law and cover potential risks Assurance polizi
15
Compulsory
Total value
100
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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)
18
For more information
http://webtransparencia.coordinadoraongd.org
Focal Point:
Elena Mendez [email protected]
19