Upload
eileen-jean-mitchell
View
214
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Certification of fundraising in the Netherlands–
Dutch experiences with International Perspective
Adri KempsDirector CBF and Secretary General ICFO
www.cbf.nl - [email protected]
Sydney, 22 July 2011
In 2009 € 1.3 billion was available for:
Nature
Social Welfare
Culture
Internationaldevelopment
Health
Independent Monitoring?Independent Monitoring?
1 - State Regulation via - Registration,
- Fiscal Oversight
2 - Self Regulation via- Code of Conducts, issued by umbrella bodies- Capacity Building- Direct Transparency
3 - Independent Monitoring via- Seals-of-Approval (Accreditation) by independent
agencies- Donor Advice by “Watchdog” agencies
Independent Monitoring of Charities – the “Third Way” Independent Monitoring of Charities – the “Third Way”
ICFO - the association of national monitoring bodiesICFO - the association of national monitoring bodies
Founded 1958
Members in Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, USA,
Independent monitoring agencies, not yet ICFO members but extablished contacts , in: Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines
International Committee onInternational Committee onFundraising OrganizationsFundraising Organizations
ICFO’s MissionICFO’s Mission
Donors’ trust – a decisive factor
“Informed Trust” instead of “Blind Trust”
ICFO Standards for NPOs working internationally
Independent Monitoring Agencies are “Partners” and “Supporters” of the reliable Charities
ICFO and its members are building ICFO and its members are building BRIDGES OF TRUSTBRIDGES OF TRUST
Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving (CBF)Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving (CBF)
Register and website (voluntary reporting) approx 1.350 ngo’s
Knowledge Centre (database, Report on Fundraising and digi- newsletter)
Seal-of-Approval: 272 sealed charities, 77 certified small charities (1.3 billion EUR donations) and 19 Statements of no objection for start up charity
annual monitoring, on-site-visits, audit report, also used by goverment, the media
Donor Advisory Service: approx. 1300 non-sealed charities (descriptions, judgements, warnings); individual advice
The The NetherlandsNetherlands
CBF Seal for charitiesCBF Seal for charities
Fundraising: truthful, accurate, not misleading, no pressure to donors
Finances: > audited by CPA based on RJ 650 standard developped by CBF, 25% fundraising
costs, policyplan, controlsystem on expenditures, annual report.
Controlsystems: > policyplan and expenditures
Governance: well functioning planning and supervision, evaluation methods effectivity / efficiency, stakeholders, transparency on salary
Normative and principle based Normative and principle based standardsstandards
Independent MonitoringIndependent Monitoring
membership based <-> charities not being members
Professionals <-> also: Volunteers
only accrediation <-> also: information on other charities (sometimes even: warnings)
100% own income <-> also: public subsidies
admin. cost ceiling <-> “reasonable” amount for admin + fundraising costs
““Watchdogs” worldwide: STRENGTH BY Watchdogs” worldwide: STRENGTH BY DIVERSITYDIVERSITY
Independent MonitoringIndependent Monitoring
Quality measurement: Outcome and effectiveness of the charitable activities
Administration and Fundraising costs: more detailled rules (maybe, more ceilings)
Professional staff instead of Volunteers
TRENDS towards further Common PatternsTRENDS towards further Common Patterns
State RegulationState Regulation
Charitable activities and civil engagement are voluntary and private acts of citizens. Therefore, state involvement in those activities should be restricted to an absolute minimum.
State can protect and support civil engagement by prosecuting criminal
abuse of donations and charitable organizations and by leaving further regulation or ruling to independent monitoring agencies and self
regulation schemes – in the best sense of SUBSIDIARITY.
State authorities are not very accustomed to the special character of public benefit activities, their dynamic development, and the mentality
of their leaders. Therefore, a significant degree of state regulation bears a permanent risk of being not adequate or disproportionate.
Strengths and WeaknessesStrengths and Weaknesses
Self RegulationSelf Regulation
“Self Regulation is the voluntary acceptance of a code of conduct by the members of a club. This code is usually created by an ‘umbrella’ organization. (…) The main problem with codes of conduct is their reliance on self-reporting, i.e. the organizations are trusted to follow the
regulations without any follow-up checks, leaving significant space for abuses and release of false information.” (Prof. Dr. Andreas Ortmann, 2005)
Self Regulation can significantly contribute to a culture of transparency and reliability in the Third Sector, as well as to an improvement of the sector’s processes and practices (capacity building).
In order to sustainably enhance DONORS’ TRUST in charities, self regulation needs to be completed by INDEPENDENT MONITORING.
Strengths and Weaknesses Strengths and Weaknesses
ConclusionConclusion
Use clear concepts and terminologies:Transparency has to be transparent itself
Umbrellas = self regulation (code of conducts, etc.)
Monitoring bodies: third party regulation (accreditation, certification, seals/labels)
Public oversight bodies = state regulation
Trust, Transparency, and
Ethical Issues in Fundraising
ConclusionConclusion
Information by the NGOs themselves:Direct Transparency
Information by independent „watchdogs“Monitored Transparency
Independent information creates „Bridges of Trust“
Reliable Information
ConclusionConclusion
State Regulation, Independent Monitoring, and Self Regulation: all of them have their special strengths and limitations.
DONORS’ TRUST can be served best if the three methods are properly combined without mixing up their procedures and
terminologies.
CombinationCombination, not , not AmalgamationAmalgamation