October 2007: The month in review

Annual General Body Meeting

The 3rd Annual General Body Meeting of Credibility Alliance (CA) was held on 5th Oct at PRIA, New Delhi. Representatives from 19 member organizations, 7 Board members, 2 special invitees, and 8 members of CA staff were present for the meeting. Mr. B.N.Makhija presided over the meeting. Some of the key decisions and suggestions which were taken during the meeting are as follows:

NGO ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS

- Tara Korti

According to Ebrahim (2003a), NGOs use five broad categories of accountability mechanisms. These are reports and disclosure statements, performance assessments and evaluations, participation, self-regulation, social audits. Ebrahim (2003a) has differentiated between mechanisms which are ‘‘tools’’ and those that are ‘‘processes.’’ Accountability tools refer to discrete devices or techniques used to achieve accountability.  They are often applied over a limited period of time, can be tangibly documented, and can be repeated. For example, financial reports and disclosures are tools that are applied and repeated quarterly or annually, and are documented as financial statements, ledgers, or reports. Process mechanisms are generally more broad and multifaceted than tools, while also being less tangible and time-bound. Process mechanisms may utilize a set of tools (such as participatory rural appraisal) for achieving accountability. Process mechanisms thus emphasize a course of action rather than a distinct end-result. There are some mechanisms, such as social auditing that straddle the tool process boundary.

The various categories of accountability mechanisms are discussed in greater detail below.
1. Disclosure statements and reports
Disclosure statements and reports enable some degree of accountability to donors and regulating authorities. These are among the most widely used tools of accountability and they make available basic data on NGO operations.  Apart from legally mandated reports, donors require regular reports from organizations that they fund. The nature of these reports varies considerably among funders and projects (Ebrahim, 2003a). Many NGOs to enhance their downward accountability to stakeholders are translating annual reports in local language and are disseminating them to the communities and local organizations with whom they work.

2. Performance assessment and evaluation
Another widely used set of tools for facilitating accountability includes various kinds of evaluation, including performance and impact assessments. Ebrahim (2003a) has distinguished between external and internal evaluations. Donors commonly conduct external evaluations of NGO work near the end of a grant or program phase, and are increasingly employing midterm assessments as well. Such evaluations typically aim to assess whether and to what extent program goals and objectives have been achieved and are pivotal in determining future funding to NGOs. These appraisals may focus on short-term results of NGO intervention or medium and long term results. Internal evaluations are also common, in which NGO staff gauge their own progress, either toward the objectives of externally funded programs or toward internal goals and missions. Hybrid internal and external evaluations are not uncommon, with NGO staff working jointly with external evaluators.

Ebrahim (2003a) and Bendall (2006) caution us regarding the dominant use of the “logical framework” method for assessing projects. The logical framework consists of a 4 by 4 matrix which specifies the goal, purpose, outputs and inputs of a project and then “objectively’ verifiable indicators that relate to these. Some users of logical frameworks have promoted very narrow views of indicators. Ebrahim (2003b) suggests focusing on measures that make a difference rather than measures that are countable, and that this would make the work more accountable to the interests of intended beneficiaries.

3) Participation
As an accountability mechanism, participation is quite distinct from evaluations and reports because it is a process rather than a tool, and it is thus part of ongoing routines in an organization. According to Ebrahim (2003a), in examining participation, it is helpful to distinguish between different levels or kinds of participation. There are four general distinctions between types of participation. At one level, participation refers to information about a planned project being made available to the public, and can include public meetings or hearings, surveys, or a formal dialogue on project options. In this form, participation involves consultation with community leaders and members but decision-making power remains with the project planners. A second level of participation includes public involvement in actual project-related activities, and it may be in the form of community contribution toward labor and funds for project implementation, and possibly in the maintenance of services or facilities. At a third level, citizens are able to negotiate and bargain over decisions with NGOs or state agencies, or even hold veto power over decisions. At this level, citizens are able to exercise greater control over local resources and development activities. Finally, at a fourth tier of participation, are people’s own initiatives which occur independently of NGO and state-sponsored projects. In the first two forms of participation very little decision making authority is vested in communities or clients.  The second two forms extend the notion of participation to politicized activity that directly challenges social and political inequities.

4) Self regulation 
Self-regulation refers specifically to efforts by NGO or nonprofit networks to develop standards or codes of behavior and performance (Ebrahim, 2003a). Partly in an effort to redeem the image of the sector and partly to forestall potentially restrictive government regulation, nonprofits have begun to turn to various forms of self regulation. Self-regulation allows nonprofits to address directly their own sector-wide problems while retaining some integrity. Credibility Alliance’s efforts to develop norms of governance for voluntary organizations would fall under this category. 

(Adapted from Ebrahim, 2003a)