THE TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE TOOL

SPANISH DEVELOPMENT NGO PLATFORM

3. THE TOOL - INDICATORS

Distributed in 2 areas

INDICATORS FOR TRANSPARENCY To increase NGOs accountability to and give information on relevant aspects of their role and value

INDICATORS FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE To promote adequate governance in

the NGO

26 INDICATORS IN 4 DIMENSIONS� Governance structures� Mission, Vision and values� Constituency and social support� Planning and accountability

50 INDICATORS IN 7 DIMENSIONS� Governance structures� Mission, Vision and values� Planning and evaluation� Financial management� Human resources� Local partners�Social responsibility

3. INDICATORS - MEASUREMENT

INDICATOR :

� Value (min 5, max 30 –> total x dimension 100)� Relevance (important, compulsory)

ACCOMPLISHMENT (In each dimension)

� 100% Indicators whose accomplishment is compulsory� Score equal or over 70

Some remarks:

- Each indicator defines what has to be measured and how to verify the data

- Each indicator has a relative weight in the dimension

- The evaluation is done by dimensions (subjects)

- The system can be used by an external and independent agent regardless the familiarity with the CSO

- The tool is not aimed to establish NGO rankings, but to measure the accomplishment degree in each of the areas and dimensions

Example:

100% INDICATORS COMPULSOTY ACCOMPLISHMENT

SCORE EQUAL OR OVER 70

CONTENT

1. RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND

2. DEFINITION PROCESS

3. THE TOOL:

• INDICATORS

• ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT

4. IMPLEMENTATION AND STEPS FORWARD

5. SOME KEY ISSUES

1. RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND

- A need to reinforce our accountability and be more transparent to the society and to our own constituencies

- Art. 4.1.Code of Conduct > transparency is a strategic issue

- Transparency as a collective shield > isolated cases of bad behavior

A reflection from the sector on transparency to: A) generate trust and B) increase participation and

engagement

2. DEFINITION PROCESS- JUN 05: NGO directors’ meeting > agreement on reinforcing the platform’s work on transparency and accountability

- SEP 06: Establishment of the Working Group to elaborate a report on transparency and good governance > Report and recommendations launched in the First NGO biannual meeting.

- MAR 07: The board defines the Working Group as permanent. Mandate > to develop a system of objective indicators that could be verified by an auditor.

- 2008: First draft of the tool > Revision by the board. Contacts with the Auditor’s Institute to validate the tool. Workshop with the platform members

- MAR 09: the tool is approved by the General Assembly

- 2009: More contacts with the Auditor’s Institute

- MAR 2010: Second draft approved by the General Assembly

CSO AND DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS

2006I biannual NGO

meeting(Transparency)

Nov 2008II biannual NGO

meeting (Ownership, Alignment and Harmonization)

Nov 2011III biannual NGO

meeting (New development architecture)

Definition of the Tool

and process

GA approval

Implementation agenda

Permanent WG

Indicators

Pre requisite :-A Code of Conduct- A Commission following up the Code of Conduct that reports to the board in case the Commission has evidences of violation of the Code

3. IMPLEMENTATION AND STEPS FORWARD

3 STEPS:

• 2009 y 2010: Volunteer self evaluation• 2011:Compulsory self evaluation• 2012: Compulsory. External through auditors

> The Platform will receive the report (numerical, not interpretative) from each member and the data could be used in the Platform annual report. The NGO could publish the results

4. KEY ISSUES (and some hot spots)On the platform’s role:

> Is the National (and regional platforms) going to pass the exam or only the members?>What will be the Platform’s role? a watch dog, a police? An “Agency for transparency accreditation”?, extend a transparency label?> Will the Platform establish a coactive/punishing mechanism? Where, in the Code of Conduct Commission, in the board, in an independent body?> How will the platform react in case on a public scandal from an NGO qualified as “transparent and properly governed” by the tool? > Will the Platform play a role as a referee of in the communication and media arena?

On the NGO’s role:> Would improvement plans be defined based upon the results of the tool? Who would follow up the implementation of these plans?> Would big and small ONG be in the same conditions and capacities?> Would the NGOs use the tool in their transparency policy or would it be only one more membership requisite?

4. KEY ISSUES (and hot spots)

On the tool:

> Possibilities to adapt it and being flexible?>The capacity of a check list/accreditation method to understand and enlighten the processes that lay beneath the transparency issue> Based upon a consensus (scores, dimensions, relevance of the indicators), could the consensus change?> Difficulties to define some concepts (iex. Partnership) and deconstruct them in measurable indicators

On the auditors:

> Do they verify and audit the content or the consistency or just that the information to verify the indicators do exist? > Are they judging the concepts according the findings and giving an opinion or only certifying that everything is according the procedure defined in the transparency tool?

MUCHAS GRACIAS