Jordan enhancing CSO accountability. The links between legitimacy, transparency
and accountability : the wider challenges.
Brian Pratt, INTRAC May 2010
1) First it is important that we make a distinction between Civil society as the overall
umbrella terms for all organisations between the state and the market and the family.
Within this there is a subset ( and as we analyse it ) less important than some of us would
like to think, these are NGOs. Much of the3 debate on LTA has so far been dominated
by the “aided NGOs” and donor needs which doesn’t always link well with the needs of
CSOs especially the “unaided” ones.
2) There is a big difference between NGOs and many other forms of CSOs, in that many
CSOs are membership organisation ( this includes many faith based groups) , Such that
there is an inbuilt structural push for LTA from the membership which produces or
creates the legitimacy of the organisation, leaving of course still key challenges such as
accountability and transparency to be resolved. To enable members to ensure the same
level of LTA for external stakeholders. Whereas the non membership groups have far
greater challenge in the absence of a recognisable legitimacy through its membership.
3) Within CSOs there are different issues including
i)
ii)
iii)
iv)
structural issues such as for membership orgs. Vs non membership; how
NGos engage with and relate to other forms of CSO, as well as with the state
and the market.
Functional issues eg management ( internal accountability/ performance
assessment, managing on whose behalf, constituency, staff, donors)
Financial accountability to donors and sometimes government this is straight
accountancy. ( Possibly calling for the amicable divorce between accountancy
and accountability. The first is a technical issue about receipts the latter
accounts for activities, use of resources decisions made and to whom are these
decisions accountable ? Internal management, clients, staff, board, the general
public?
And challenges to CSOs where no I does not apply i.e. for non membership
organisations. This places an emphasis on LTA in its governance structure,
how independent is it, there are problems in some parts of the world which do
no promoter independent board (Peru staff are the board, Bangladesh eg
director also chair of the board which hadn’t met for several years . This is
key when so many aid dependent NGOs are still run by founders or run by
professionals with little contact with any real constituency. This is not just a
problem of small NGOs it can also effect large INGOs as well
4) Then we need to distinguish between output the activity level/outcome immediate
results/ impact the real long term change achieved. The latter being important if we
really want to know what and whether we have achieved anything. Too much of the
accountability debate is stuck at the lowest level ( accountancy), and client or staff
relations ( complaints, standardised procedures,) monitoring whether activities have
followed the plan or funding agreement.
This drive is exacerbated , made worse by the spread of a contractual culture whereby
monitoring is about compliance with contractual obligations not whether the activity,
programme actually achieved any major change in the lives of poor people
Thus we conclude that there is an under emphasis on assessing the impact of work rather
than the excessive stress on the lower levels of accountability.
5) We need to balance out and decide our priorities between accountability to different
stakeholders. The problem is that however hard we try to be accountable to just one
stakeholder this is unlikely to improve our overall accountability as it could just pervert
our systems so much that it actually weakens rather than strengthens the overall
accountability.
i) Therefore any system which just helps accountability to donors is
dangerous because it does not help prepare for graduation of a civil society sector to an
unaided sector . it can antagonise other stakeholders including clients ; can weaken
interest in learning, improved impact if all the emphasis is on the donor requirements’.
ii) A/C to governments should be minimal , to at least basic
accountability, use of funds; secondly to ensure programmes are within the law at least (
assuming the rule of the law not arbitrary use of state power) i.e. that the state itself is
legitimate. There is work to be done to ensure a sound legal framework however and this
can include ensuring a good governance structure
iii)
I am not convinced by the idea that we should be accountable to
each other ( within the sector ) if this is all we are then we are
indeed in trouble! The concern is that we become an inward
looking sector in some contexts rather than seeking outward
looking LTA. History would show not a huge success in self
certification, although this shouldn’t mean we should not look for
improving best practice in these areas, but most best practice is
already known he issue is to disseminate this and to open debates
where they do not exist.
iv)
If for example we have a strong system for transparency, based on
legitimacy to members then we will be default be accountable to
our membership and anyone else who wishes to look at our affairs.
( I know this is a big if and it doesn’t assume that all membership
organisations have this, but our focus should be on this level first
and foremost . And as donors we should be concerned that it
exists and if it does we should be able to accept this accountability
as sufficient for ourselves.
v)
In the absence of a membership base, we should focus on a strong
system of governance in terms of LTA, which is open to public
scrutiny not something hidden behind closed doors, are annual
reports, audits available to the public, are the board members
known ( names on websites and annual reports) , is there a rotation
, and voting system for board members, etc etc ….
Warning : no accountability systems should be so complex as to absorb too much
valuable time. Thus it should be simple but robust enough to meet its needs. Irrelevant
systems will not get used this we know as a fact . If we can get the basics right
accountancy, basic transparency , organisational legitimacy and governance this will be
enough for most programmes. If the constituency is engaged with the CSO/ NGO we are
supporting this should be our priority to encourage this and improve it. We should not
be encouraging systems which undermine this crucial element of accountability.