Bond transparency beyond iati apr14

  • View

  • Download

Embed Size (px)

Text of Bond transparency beyond iati apr14

  • 1. Transparency: Beyond IATI Michael ODonnell, Head of Learning & Effectiveness 4th April 2014, IELG Meeting

2. A Reminder: Why Be Transparent? Right to Information perspective: transparency re public funding Transparency as a first step to improving accountability; exposure to scrutiny and feedback By donors and supporters By those your work is intended to help Improving coordination across aid providers: who is providing what, where and when? Requires use of a common standard Who knows what uses other people may find for your data? Research, journalism Active vs Passive transparency; donor publishing 2 3. Audiences for Transparency Beneficiaries: varied methods, linked to work on beneficiary feedback Individual supporters: website as a key method; generate funds and retain public trust Donors: IATI as the common standard DFID contractual requirement (UK Aid Transparency Guarantee); others to follow? Southern Governments: Aid Information Management Systems and IATI to coordinate aid and budget data (and monitor NGOs?) Media 3 4. IATI Data: this doesnt look useful 4 5. IATI Data: but this is 5 6. IATI data: and so is this 6 7. IATI and UK NGOs the story to date UK NGOs constitute 132 out of 229 publishers globally to IATI as of 28/2/14 Of whom i.e. publishing to IATI is primarily a compliance exercise at present (only 10% of NGOs are publishing anything on non-DFID funding) 7 DFID Minimum Fields > DFID Minimum Fields DFID Funding Only 71 47 DFID + Other Funding 13 1 8. Why not publish more? Too much hassle to publish to IATI (staff time, systems), and not funded to do so Cant see evidence of the value of publishing/ of data being used yet! Dont use the data themselves But is culture and behaviour also a problem? Is there too much fear about being open? Or do we not think about it enough? 8 9. Bonds Transparency Assessment New survey to be launched in April Based on consultations with Bond Transparency Working Group Aims to review NGOs websites for transparency and make recommendations for improvements Indicators are based on a set of information that NGOs would be expected to make available Does not assume that supporters, beneficiaries and others would always seek out this information, but it is reassuring to know it is there Low cost to achieve high scores Indicators reflect Bond Charter, INGO Accountability Charter 9 10. What is Covered? Open Information Policy Organisational Information (mission and strategy) Governance Financial information Activities Results 3 levels for each area, plus a star for making information comparable (e.g. via IATI, use of Evidence Principles) Considers volume published, frequency, timeliness and accessibility 10 11. How the Assessment Will Work Organisations self-nominate to be assessed Bond will review websites against the indicators NGO can check score before being finalised Tailor-made report and recommendations showing your score and the range/ average for all those assessed Overall report on the exercise showing anonymised data ranges and averages (no naming and shaming) Based on recommendations from the Transparency Working Group 11 12. What we hope will happen Individual organisations given ideas for simple ways to increase transparency Organisations think of their websites as a vehicle for transparency Remove some of the fear of publishing Inject some healthy competition around transparency! Becomes an annual survey Enables us to communicate the transparency of the sector publicly Follow-up services, e.g. support on Open Info Policies, consultants for website improvement 12 13. Let us know If you would like to participate in the assessment, email: We aim to start the survey in late April/ early May Report in June Stay in touch by signing up to the Transparency Working Group at (Next meeting: April 30th) 13