• Save
Transparence des ONG
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Transparence des ONG

on

  • 478 views

Les ONG américaines font l'objet d'une surveillance quant à leur gouvernance et la qualité de leurs comptes. Elles sont même notées par des organismes comme le Charity Navigator.

Les ONG américaines font l'objet d'une surveillance quant à leur gouvernance et la qualité de leurs comptes. Elles sont même notées par des organismes comme le Charity Navigator.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
478
Views on SlideShare
478
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Transparence des ONG Transparence des ONG Presentation Transcript

  • Cours N°2 La transparence des ONG 1 Herrick du Halgouët, journaliste, conseil en média et consultant RSE hduhalgouet@hotmail.fr Inseec 2012/2013 Management des ONG internationales
  • Eviter les mauvaises surprises http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk3XFqSaGt8&feature=r elated 2
  • Money for Nothing: When Nonprofits Mislead (mai 2012) Thousands of nonprofit organizations in the United States misreport how they solicit billions of dollars in donations, making it impossible for Americans to know how their gifts are used. A Scripps Howard News Service analysis found 41% of all 38.000 charities and other nonprofit groups that collected at least $1 million according to their most recent report to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) made what experts agree is a ridiculous claim: They raised significant amounts of money without spending a dime to do so. 3 Robert Ottenhoff, chief of the watchdog group GuideStar, warned that NPO are in danger of breaking their "social contract" with America's donors and with the government that grants them a special status. "In return for not paying income taxes, getting the tax-exempt status, they have an obligation to tell their donors how they are spending their money, to be transparent about it, to be accountable”.
  • http://www.charitynavigator.org/ Créé en 2001, Charity Navigator est devenu en 10 ans la référence dans l’évaluation des œuvres caritatives en Amérique du Nord. Lors de sa création, la CN était financé exclusivement par 2 philanthropes de New York, John and Marion Dugan. Private Foundation. Le concept est simple : il s’agit d’analyser les documents émis par les ONG afin de faciliter le choix des donateurs, qui n’ont pas toujours le temps ni les moyens d’effectuer un audit des ONG ou qui peuvent se faire berner. 4
  • Un impact croissant • Le site attire 3,3 millions de visiteurs uniques (> 5 millions de visites) • Un budget d’1,1 M$, dont la moitié apporté par des particuliers • Plus de 5.700 organisations caritatives basée aux Etats-Unis passées au crible. •Le site revendique un volume global de dons de 10 milliards de dollars (contre 500M$ en 2003) Objectifs : •10.000 associations étudiées à l’horizon 2016 •9 millions de donneurs en 2015 • Un budget de 2,3 M$ en 2015 CN surveyed their users and found •a majority of them are High net worth individuals • Comfortable with on- line giving •92% say CN ratings influence their giving 5
  • Le site Charity Navigator qui a remporté de nombreux prix, comme celui du Kiplinger's Financial Magazine ("One of the Best Services to Make Life Easier». L’influence du Charity Navigator est en outre renforcé par des partenariats média, comme avec CNN afin de faciliter le travail des philanthropes : comme ceux de Foundation Source ou encore pour développer les dons en ligne comme avec Network For Good ou fournir des données à GreatNonprofits. 6
  • Ses recherches portent notamment • sur la santé financière de ces organisations •et sur leur comptabilité/transparence. Ce dispositif va être étendu prochainement à l’évaluation du reporting de leur impact. Charity Navigator n’accepte pas d’argent des organismes qu’il note. Charity Navigator est lui-même un non-profit 501, qui vit des donations des particuliers, des entreprises ou des Fondations. Pour vous, quels sont les meilleurs critères financiers pour juger de la santé financière d’une ONG ? Quels documents utiliser ? 7
  • Financial Efficiency Performance Metrics Performance Metric 1: Program Expenses Charities fail givers expectations when their spending on programs is insufficient. To evaluate a charity's program expenses, we divide its program expenses by its total functional expenses. Charity Z spends $2.5 million on program expenses, compared with its overall operating budget of $3.5 million. Thus, Charity Z spends 71.4% on program expenses. Program Expenses less than 33.3%: Our data shows that 7 out of 10 charities we've evaluated spend at least 75% of their budget on the programs and services they exist to provide. And 9 out of 10 spend at least 65%. We believe that those spending less than a third of their budget on program expenses are simply not living up to their missions. Charities demonstrating such gross inefficiency receive a 0-star rating for their Financial Health. 8
  • Performance Metric 2: Administrative Expenses As with successful organizations in any sector, effective charities must recruit, develop, and retain talented people. At the same time, they ensure that these administrative expenses remain reasonable and in line with the organization's total functional expenses. Here again, we calculate a charity's administrative expenses by comparing them to its total functional expenses. Charity Z spends $500,000 on administrative expenses, compared with $3,5 million in total functional expenses. Thus, Charity Z spends 14.3% on administrative expenses. 9
  •  Charities spend money to make money…they do not exist to raise money Givers support charities their programs and services, not for their ability to raise money CN evaluates a charity’s spending on fundraising by comparing it with charity’s overall spending CN divides a charity’s fundraising expenses by total functional expenses 10 points < 10% 0 points > 25% Performance Metric 3: Fundraising expenses 10
  • This report, by WXYZ-TV, (Detroit) highlights the inefficiency of for-profit telemarketers Some of the charities this particular firm, Associated Community Services, fundraises for include: Breast Cancer Society :subject of an investigation by the NY Attorney General Law Enforcement Education Program: consistently spends at least 90% of its budget on fundraising Operation Lookout: nearly 83% of its budget is spent on fundraising Children's Cancer Fund of America: >50% spent on fundraising Youth Development Fund: >80% devoted to fundraising Cancer Fund of America: in 2009 25% of its budget was spent on fundraising; in 2007 more than 56% was spent on fundraising. 11
  • http://blog.charitynavigator.org/2011_02_01_archive.html 12
  • Performance Metric 4: Fundraising Efficiency Charities spend money to raise money. Financially effective charities must in part be efficient fundraisers, spending less to raise more. We calculate a charity's fundraising efficiency by determining how much it spends to generate $1 in charitable contributions. In other words, we divide a charity's fundraising expenses by the total contributions it receives. For example, Charity Z, with fundraising expenses of $500,000 and total contributions of $3.4 million, has a fundraising efficiency of $0.147, which means it spends 14.7¢ to raise $1. 13
  • Converted Score: 10 7.5 5 2.5 0 General: $0.00 - $0.10 $0.10 - $0.20 $0.20 - $0.35 $0.35 - $1.00 > $1.00 Food Banks, Food Pantries & Food Distribution $0.00 - $0.03 $0.03 - $0.10 $0.10 - $0.15 $0.15 - $0.20 > $0.20 Community Foundations $0.00 - $0.03 $0.03 - $0.10 $0.10 - $0.15 $0.15 - $0.20 > $0.20 Public Broadcasting and Media $0.00 - $0.20 $0.20 - $0.30 $0.30 - $0.45 $0.45 - $1.00 > $1.00 Amount a charity spends to raise $1 (lower is generally better) 14
  • Performance Metrics 5 and 6: Primary Revenue Growth and Program Expenses Growth •As do organizations in other sectors, charities must grow over time if they are to sustain their programs and services. For charities, growth means first, increasing their primary revenue, which includes contributions from corporations, foundations, individuals, and government grants; program service revenue, contracts and fees; and revenue from membership dues and fees. • Second, growth means growing their programs and services. Organizations that demonstrate consistent annual growth in both primary revenue and program expenses are able to outpace inflation and thus sustain their programs year to year. •Charity Navigator analyzes a charity's average annual growth of primary revenue and program expenses over its four most recent fiscal years. 15
  • Measures growth of grants and contributions, revenue generated from programs and services, and membership fees and dues over the past three to five fiscal years. Converted Score: 10 Intermediate Score 0 General: > 10% Raw Percentage <0% Community and Housing Development > 7% Raw Percentage +3% < -3% Public Broadcasting and Media >4% Raw Percentage +6% < -6% Environmental Protection and Conservation > 6% Raw Percentage +4% < -4% Humanitarian Relief Supplies > 6% Raw Percentage +4% < -4% Medical Research > 4% Raw Percentage +4% < -4% Multipurpose Human Service Organizations > 5% Raw Percentage +5% < -5% Social Services > 8% Raw Percentage +2% < -2% Treatment and Prevention Services > 8% Raw Percentage +2% < -2% Wildlife Conservation > 7% Raw Percentage +7% < -7% 16
  • Performance Metric 7: Working Capital Ratio • Charities depend upon their reserves of liquid assets to survive downward economic trends and sustain their existing programs and services. If a charity has insufficient working capital, then it faces the difficult choice of eliminating programs or staff, amassing debts and liabilities, or dissolving. • On the other hand, when giving flows, those charities that build working capital develop a greater capability for expanding and improving their programs. •How long it could sustain its current programs without generating new revenue. • To obtain this ratio, we divide the charity's working capital by its total expenses, including payments to affiliates, for the most recent fiscal year. •For example, Charity Z holds 5.4 M$ in working capital. Its total expenses for the most recent fiscal year are 3.6 M$, including a $100,000 payment to an affiliate for its national dues. Thus, it has a working capital ratio of 1,5 years. 17
  • Converted Score: 10 7.5 5 2.5 0 General: > 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 0.25 - 0.5 0.0 - 0.25 < 0.0 Food Banks, Food Pantries and Food Distribution > 0.25 0.0833 - 0.25 0.042 - 0.0833 0 - 0.042 < 0.0 Development & Relief Services > 1.0 0.5 - 1.0 0.0833- 0.5 0 - 0.0833 < 0.0 Humanitarian Relief Supplies > 0.10 0.06 - 0.10 0.02 - 0.06 0.0 - 0.02 < 0.0 Community Foundations > 5.0 2.0 - 5.0 1.0 - 2.0 0 - 1.0 < 0.0 18
  • Food Banks, Food Pantries, and Food Distribution: The bulk of their expenses take the form of donated food and goods. Their median working capital ratio is far lower than the overall median for all of the charities that we rate. Development & Relief Services; Humanitarian Relief Supplies: Much of the expenses for these charities are in the form of donated food, goods, and supplies, and as a result they need only small amounts of working capital. Community Foundations: These charities exist to build and manage donor-advised funds and to distribute those funds over time. As a result, they maintain substantial investments in securities. The median working capital ratio among these charities is much, much greater than the median reported for among the rest of the charities rated by Ch. Nav. Working Capital > $250 Million: After a certain point raising additional funds for the purpose of increasing working capital becomes counterproductive. As a result, we have adjusted the working capital score so that any organization with $250 million or more in working capital receives 10 points. 19
  • Assigning financial scores and a financial health rating Financial Health Rating: 0 Stars Donor Advisory Financial Health Score: ≥ 60 50 - 60 40 - 50 25 - 40 < 25 N/A After evaluating a charity in the 7 performance metrics, CN converts the charity’s raw score to a numerical score ranging between 0 and 10.  CN calculates an overall score for each charity’s financial health by combining its scores in the 7 performance Categories. 20
  • How does CN rate charities’ accountability and transparency? What CN is looking for….. Accountability is an obligation or willingness by a charity to explain its actions to its stakeholders. Transparency is an obligation or willingness by a charity to publish and make available critical data about the organization.  Does the charity follow good governance and ethical best practices?  Does the charity make it easy for donors to find critical information about the organization? What data does CN use….. ❶Information available from the IRS Form 990, and ❷ A review of the organization’s website 21
  • The IRS expanded the Form 990 in 2008 to collect additional information from charities that can accept tax-deductible donations. Several changes were designed to inform the public about :  potential conflicts of interest,  board oversight,  executive compensation, and record keeping. The IRS states that, "by making full and accurate information about its mission, activities, finance, and governance publicly available, a charity encourages transparency and accountability to its constituents." 12 of the 17 Accountability & Transparency categories that CN analyzes are collected from the expanded Form 990. If a charity fails to submit an answer to any of the following 12 items on the Form 990, then CN deducts the points from their Accountability & Transparency score. 22
  • 23 What CN is looking for…..  Independent board No material diversion of assets Audited financials prepared by independent accountant with an audit oversight committee Loan(s) to or from related parties Board Meeting minutes documented Provided copy of Form 990 to organization’s governing body in advance of filing. Best practice
  • What CN is looking for…..  Conflict of interest policy Whistleblower policy : This policy outlines procedures for handling employee complaints, as well as a confidential way for employees to report any financial mismanagement. CEO listed with salary Process for determining CEO compensation Compensates Board : The executive director of the organization frequently has a seat on the board, for instance, and is compensated for being a full time staff member. However, it is rare for a charity to compensate individuals only for serving on its Board of Directors. Although this sort of board compensation is not illegal, it is not considered a best practice. 24
  • Review of Charity’s website….. Board members listed Key staff listed Audited financials  Form 990 Privacy policy 25
  • http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=3993 The Health On the Net Foundation (HON) promotes and guides the deployment of useful and reliable online health information, and its appropriate and efficient use. Created in 1995, HON is a non-profit, non-governmental organization, accredited to the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. For 15 years, HON has focused on the essential question of the provision of health information to citizens, information that respects ethical standards. A multi-stakeholder consensus on standards to protect citizens from misleading health information. HON is funded by the State of Geneva, several European projects, the French National Health Authority (HAS) and the Provisu foundation. HON is also supported by the Geneva Hospital since its inception. http://www.lls.org/#/ 26
  • THE VISCIOUS CYCLE Misleading reporting: The majority of nonprofits under-report overhead on tax forms and in fundraising materials. Unrealistic expectations: Donors tend to reward organizations with the “leanest” profiles. They also skew their funding towards programmatic activities. Pressure to conform: Nonprofit leaders feel pressure to conform to funders’ expectations by spending as little as possible on overhead, and by reporting lower-than-actual overhead rates. 27 The most direct pressure came from funding sources (government agencies, individuals, and foundations). The survey also found, however, that external watchdog organizations played a role in influencing donor behavior, a sentiment that was echoed by our interviewees. Two of the major nonprofit watchdog groups, Charity Watch and Charity Navigator, include financials in their ratings and explicitly recognize the program ratio as part of their assessment. Source : Nonprofit Overhead Costs: Breaking the Vicious Cycle of Misleading Reporting, Unrealistic Expectations, and Pressure to Conform. (2008). Author(s): William Bedsworth Ann Goggins Gregory, Don Howard
  • Afrique du Sud Une tendance générale • The Independent Code of Governance for Non-Profit Organisations in South Africa was introduced in July 2012 and consists of a set of principles, values and responsibilities intended to guide and inform the way civil society organisations are managed and conduct their affairs. • It is also intended to serve as a standard or measure to assess performance, and guide members of governing boards, and others who carry responsibility for governance. Un document téléchargeable 28
  • The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International 29 The Rwanda report : The Joint Evaluation on the International Response to the Genocide recommended that agencies strengthen their systems for improving accountability to recipients of assistance Vision and mission The vision of HAPI is a humanitarian system with a trusted and widely accepted accountability framework, which is transparent and accessible to all relevant parties. Its mission is to make humanitarian action accountable to its intended beneficiaries through self-regulation by its members linked by common respect for the rights and dignity of beneficiaries. Value proposition Quality, accountability and programme results are inextricably linked. By improving agency accountability in a systemic way, programme quality, impact and outcomes will also be enhanced. The essential tools for driving this virtual circle are the application of a programme quality management system, reinforced through shared learning and independent verification. All stakeholders, intended beneficiaries, affected communities, donors and agencies alike, make measurable gains as a consequence of the work undertaken by the partnership.
  • La qualité des programmes (Care) 30 Les projets sont menés par CARE France dans le respect des principes programmatiques, gages de qualité pour leur mise en œuvre. Ces principes sont au nombre de 6 : 1. Promouvoir le renforcement les capacités locales : Solidaires des populations pauvres et marginalisées, CARE soutient leurs efforts afin qu’elles puissent être maîtres de leurs vies et jouissent de leurs droits, assument leurs responsabilités et réalisent leurs aspirations. Nous faisons en sorte que les principaux participants et organisations représentant les populations bénéficiaires soient nos partenaires dans la conception, la mise en œuvre, le suivi et l’évaluation des programmes. 2. Travailler avec les partenaires : CARE travaille avec d’autres ONG, institutions, groupes, afin de maximiser l’impact de ses programmes. Ce principe se concrétise par la mise en place d’alliances et de partenariats avec d’autres organisations qui offrent des approches complémentaires et qui sont capables d’adopter des approches programmatiques à grande échelle.
  • 31 3. Rendre des comptes et promouvoir le sens des responsabilités : CARE rend des comptes aux populations pauvres et marginalisées dont les droits sont reniés. Nous identifions les individus et les institutions ayant des obligations envers les populations les plus vulnérables et nous soutenons leurs efforts afin qu’ils soient à la hauteur de leurs responsabilités. 4. Éliminer la discrimination : Dans la réalisation de nos programmes et au sein même de nos équipes, CARE met tout en œuvre pour éliminer la discrimination basée sur le sexe, la race, la nationalité, l’ethnie, la classe, la religion, l’âge, le handicap physique, la caste, l’opinion ou l’orientation sexuelle. 5. Promouvoir la résolution non-violente des conflits : CARE encourage des moyens justes et non-violents de prévention et de résolution des conflits à tous les niveaux, reconnaissant que de tels conflits contribuent à la pauvreté et au reniement des droits. 6. Rechercher des résultats durables : CARE s’attaque aux causes profondes de la pauvreté et du reniement des droits. En outre, CARE suit scrupuleusement toutes les étapes du cycle du projet, en ayant un système rigoureux de contrôle de son action. La politique d’évaluation globale de CARE garantit la transparence et la responsabilité envers les donateurs, les instances politiques et les populations les plus vulnérables.
  • 32  CARE est signataire du Code de conduite pour le Mouvement international de la Croix-Rouge et du Croissant-Rouge et pour les organisations non gouvernementales lors des opérations de secours en cas de catastrophe. Le code de conduite a été formulé et adopté par huit des plus grosses organisations humanitaire internationale en 1994. Il représente une impulsion sans précédent vers l’élaboration de standards pour répondre aux besoins des populations en cas de catastrophe. Ce code de conduite compte, à présent, plus de 460 signataires.  CARE fait partie des membres permanents de l’organisation ALNAP (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action), créée en 1997 suite au génocide rwandais. Cette agence a pour but de faciliter l’apprentissage entre ONG grâce au partage d’expériences passées et d’améliorer les pratiques du secteur humanitaire grâce au développement de la responsabilité à travers la qualité des évaluations : www.alnap.org
  • 33 CARE fait aussi partie de l’organisation SPHERE, qui a pour but d’améliorer la qualité de l’assistance aux populations touchées par les catastrophes naturelles ainsi que la responsabilité des organismes humanitaires envers les donateurs et les populations affectées. > Plus d'informations : www.sphereproject.org  CARE fait également partie de l’organisation HAP , agence créée en 2001 qui a pour but de promouvoir la notion de responsabilité au sein des organisations travaillant dans le secteur humanitaire. Que ce soit dans l’urgence, la reconstruction ou le développement, CARE souhaite partager ses connaissances avec les autres acteurs. Dans une démarche d’apprentissage continu, les projets donnent lieu à un partage d’expériences au sein de CARE mais aussi avec d’autres ONG. Ces échanges permettent aux salariés de CARE d’apprendre des expériences passées et d’améliorer l’efficacité de nouveaux projets. Pour ce faire, CARE dispose d’une bibliothèque en ligne qui permet à tous les membres de CARE de consulter et mettre en ligne les documents qu’ils jugent utiles au partage des connaissances. : pqdl.care.org/default.aspx
  • 34 Herrick du Halgouët, France hduhalgouet@hotmail.fr Blog : le choc des valeurs http://ong-entreprise.blogspot.fr/ https://twitter.com/chocdesvaleurs http://fr.linkedin.com/in/herrickduhalgouet