14 april transparency carlos cabo [compatibility mode]
0 likes513 views
The document describes a transparency and good governance tool created by a Spanish development NGO platform. The tool consists of 76 indicators across 2 areas and 11 dimensions to measure transparency and good governance. Indicators are measured on a scale from 5-30 and given a relevance score. NGOs will undergo a voluntary self-evaluation process in 2009-2010, followed by a compulsory self-evaluation in 2011 and external audits starting in 2012. Key implementation issues discussed include the platform's role in oversight and accreditation, adapting the tool over time, and ensuring auditors objectively verify indicators rather than make subjective judgments.
![14 april transparency carlos cabo [compatibility mode]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/14apriltransparencycarloscabocompatibilitymode-110524092332-phpapp02/85/14-april-transparency-carlos-cabo-compatibility-mode-6-320.jpg)
14 april transparency carlos cabo [compatibility mode]
- 1. THE TRANSPARENCY AND GOOD GOVERNANCE TOOL SPANISH DEVELOPMENT NGO PLATFORM
- 2. 3. THE TOOL - INDICATORS Distributed in 2 areas 26 INDICATORS IN 4 DIMENSIONS INDICATORS FOR TRANSPARENCY Governance structures To increase NGOs accountability to and Mission, Vision and values give information on relevant aspects of Constituency and social support their role and value Planning and accountability 50 INDICATORS IN 7 DIMENSIONS Governance structures INDICATORS FOR GOOD Mission, Vision and values GOVERNANCE Planning and evaluation To promote adequate governance in Financial management the NGO Human resources Local partners Social responsibility
- 3. 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
- 4. 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
- 5. Example: 100% INDICATORS COMPULSOTY ACCOMPLISHMENT SCORE EQUAL OR OVER 70
- 7. CONTENT 1. RATIONALE AND BACKGROUND 2. DEFINITION PROCESS 3. THE TOOL: • INDICATORS • ASSESSMENT AND MEASUREMENT 4. IMPLEMENTATION AND STEPS FORWARD 5. SOME KEY ISSUES
- 8. 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
- 9. 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
- 10. 2006 Nov 2008 I biannual NGO II biannual NGO Nov 2011 meeting meeting (Ownership, III biannual NGO (Transparency) Alignment and meeting (New Harmonization) development architecture) Permanent CSO AND DEVELOPMENT EFFECTIVENESS WG Definition of the Tool GA Indicators Implementation agenda and approval process 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
- 11. 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
- 12. 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?
- 13. 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?
- 14. MUCHAS GRACIAS