CIVICUS - Strengthening NGO accountability

As the network of civil society organizations continues to proliferate across the globe, the sector faces increasing pressure to respond to growing concerns about legitimacy, transparency and accountability. A new initiative of CIVICUS, the Legitimacy, Transparency and Accountability (LTA) Programme, launched in July, aims to tackle this.

Charity Navigator measures itself

When Ken Berger spoke at the Valuing Impact conference in London last May, he caused quite a stir by suggesting that a one-dimensional focus on non-profit finances, if not supplemented by other information, can lead a donor/funder to make the wrong decision about which organization to support and that an overemphasis on overheads is misleading. The surprise was due to the fact that many have criticized Charity Navigator in the past for precisely that.

Full text available to subscribers only Click here to read ...

A last word …

GuideStar International Assembly

Event  GuideStar International Assembly
Date 2-3 December 2008
Venue London, UK
Theme From Local to Global: The importance of CSO information

This year’s GuideStar International (GSI) Assembly, entitled ‘From Local to Global: The importance of CSO information’, brought together 90 delegates from 19 countries. The theme of the Assembly was the importance of civil society organization (CSO) information for effective policy-making and for social action at all levels, but the most interesting thing for me was the GuideStar project itself. Click here to read ...

GuideStar in demand in Europe

This year should see several national GuideStars and a Pan-European Platform established in Europe. This is the upshot of an 18-month programme, concluded in December 2008 and co-funded by the European Commission and various governmental, private sector and philanthropy sources, to undertake ‘market feasibility’ assessments in those countries. This is part of GuideStar International’s (GSI) project to build a global network of websites to present information on different countries’ civil society organizations. GSI is currently supporting development programmes in nine countries.

Trade associations are … just that

As Mr Gunderson notes in his comments on my ‘Watchdog or lapdog?’ article in the September issue of Alliance, the call for foundation accountability is ‘hardly new’. Nor is the limited progress the foundation sector continues to make on accountability. Both Mr Gunderson and Mr Salole react quite strongly against the notion that either the Council on Foundations in the US or the European Foundation Centre, both ‘membership organizations’, have significant roles to play as watchdogs.

Watchdog or champion?

I have been reading with interest and some bemusement the exchange of articles concerning the merits of external watchdog organizations. I am sympathetic to the notion of watchdog organizations and I also believe that further regulation of the foundation sector is inevitable. However, I must say that I find some of the premises and arguments that have been put forward by Rick Cohen and my good friend David Emerson to be misguided.

Preferring the carrot to the stick

When history looks back on the philanthropic world in the first decade of the 21st century, I suspect it will define us in basic ways. It will record that during this time philanthropy grew in size, service and scrutiny. Of these three, I think the most dramatic change will have been the growth in scrutiny.

While Rick Cohen’s call to accountability is appropriate, it is hardly new; in fact, it has always been with us. And it is even more critical as we seek to gain the confidence of a new generation of potential philanthropists.

What about the media?

Although it is true that foundations – like any other human institution – need watchdogs to assure good governance, civil society organizations might not always be the best choice to perform this role. As Rick Cohen and David Emerson acknowledge, these watchdogs come from the same sector as the foundations, from whom they receive their funding.

Tilting the balance of power towards the middle

I must take issue with David Emerson’s response to Rick Cohen’s article on philanthropic watchdogs.

The experience of the American foundation sector speaks forcefully to the need for both government regulation and enforcement and the oversight of watchdog non-profit organizations. The Internal Revenue Service is responsible for monitoring the compliance of more than 90,000 foundations with the legislation and regulations that govern them. To date, the IRS has had neither the funds nor the will to do a decent job. Its approach to monitoring has been permissive and lacklustre, and its willingness to enforce the rules has been weak at best.