GP&FB Home > Knowledge Base > 2002 Regional Conference on CSROs > CSRO Accountability
This paper is from a session at the Regional Conference on CSRO Accountability & Sustainability -- Critical Lessons from Best Practices, February 18-20, 2002. Text of this paper was prepared by the Philippine Business for Social Progress. Download printable PDF copy (325K) of the entire conference proceedings.
Good morning!
We are here because we are like-minded people. We always want to see society having more justice, peace and equal opportunity for the less well off in the society. We try so many methods toward achieving this. CSRO is one form by which we can try to bring about sustainability and assistance to those who can help themselves. The issue of sustainability and accountability became very important because we are working with multi-partners, with different capacities in helping out societies. The professionalization of the sector becomes an issue that is talked about in the conferences, as well as the governance of non-profit sector, a replica of the western models of governance. Should board be important? What about the indigenous model of accountability? the indigenous pattern of accountability? We accepted there are several patterns of accountability. An example is the savings group in Southern part of Thailand, using the micro-finance system within the community. The basic principle is having internal social sanction.
In the other level of accountability, there are always reasons behind and in that the legitimacy of civil society is important because of issue of public trust. Great importance is put on maintaining it. It may have consequences if it is violated. Our presenters for this session will show how public trust is maintained.
Top
Thank you to the organizers. I am happy to be following to Mr. Paiboon Wattanasiritham, as he laid down the principles and context by which I would like to proceed.
In the Philippines, the roles of NGOs were emphasized during the Marcos era. NGOs became useful in the delivery of basic social services. Then came the People Power I & II, all the more the number grew. Government recognition of the sector is enshrined in the 1987 Philippines Constitution, which provided that mechanisms be put up so NGOs and POs be involved in consultation with government especially in delivery of social services and decision making. The Local Government Code of 1991 also mandated Local Government Unit (LGU) to put up mechanisms so local special bodies are included in the pursuit of local autonomy.
With the democratic space and inflow of donor fund particularly during the Pres. Corazon Aquino's term, there arouse alarm among NGOs because of the sudden proliferation of fly-by-night NGOs. Their credibility and legitimacy cannot be accounted for. The CODE-NGO, the largest network of NGOs in the Philippines, came out with a covenant or code of ethics, but this didn't work out because of absence of mandate from the Philippine government.
In 1995, the Comprehensive Tax Reform Program came out, which wanted to take away deductibility of local donations to NGOs. This paved the way for lobbying. The government heeded. The Department of Finance agreed to retain the tax incentives provided that the sector could help in determining legitimacy of NGOs, which deserve the tax incentives. So in response to the emergency situation, six (6) networks took up the challenge. They are the Association of Foundations, the League of Corporate Foundations, PBSP, NCS, Bishop-Businessmen's Conference of the Philippines and CODE-NGO.
The Department of Finance authorized PCNC to certify NGOs to be given tax incentives or be given donee status. With the authorization, the Philippine Bureau of Internal Revenue followed and drafted the implementing rules and regulations (BIR #13-98).
Later, the PCNC Board decided to come up with its vision-mission and objectives. Its vision is: a self-regulating NGO, which is committed to the pursuit of development goals and respected by the government, donors, and international institutions. The PCNC mission reads: to be recognized as pre-eminent institution accrediting entity of Philippine NGO aspiring for a donee institution status and as such to continuously create an environment where NGOs enjoy credibility and confidence of its various stakeholders.
PCNC objectives include:
YAPPIKA is a civil society alliance for democracy meant to give rise to vision of democratic civil society Indonesia that respect pluralism and development of strong NGOs at local level. It is not merely giving grants but is conducting advocacy, public awareness campaign and creating support systems such as research clearing house, training to support partners to become more accountable professionals, enable them to be independent. Its activities include:
Accountability is the measure of our success toward development results that YAPPIKA is able to deliver. This could be done by:
To whom and how are we accountable?
Sustainability of what? It is sustainability of impact and maintaining the organization. YAPPIKA can change position and role for as long as the plans are achieved.
The Philippines Business for Social Progress (PBSP) has an established research and evaluation unit. It has established mechanism, which could be viewed as touchstone of PBSP. This is also proof of how important measurement is to the organization, and research has been the lead unit in this. Research though has a very colorful history in PBSP. At one point it was an independent unit. It was lodged at the Operations Unit, thereafter at the Training Unit. This showed how the priorities of information needed were brought to the units needing them most. When there was a need to measure effectiveness of enterprise development or community organization the research and evaluation was lodged at the Operations Unit. When developing curriculum for social development workers' or training institutions, it became part of the Training Unit.
Now as PBSP tried to develop, refine its direction within the 5-years, it tried to develop a corporate planning unit, with strong research and measurement support.
The PBSP's framework is fairly simple which was developed and adopted from community organizing experiences. It measures inputs and outputs, the effects of efforts against outputs; and the over-all impact of work done versus effects. There have been problems in measuring impact. Attempts to measure net results of impact, and present them to colleagues and acadame bring PBSP humbling experience. When results are presented to PBSP Research Advisory group, they would say it is difficult to say that poverty in the community can be attributed to the PBSP's area development program because who knows the increase in family level of income in communities served is due to member of family working abroad. As much as this could be argued further, the problem of attribution is there.
The problem of attribution is -- how much certainty do one have that benefits claimed are the effects of one's efforts. This is true not only to PBSP but to other organizations as well. It is important to bring this out, because now as a collegial body, CSRO here present could find ways to address this.
In the Philippines, PBSP has been talking with academicians and other sector on this. Actually, social scientists of the University of the Philippines are starting to develop tools to isolate specific outputs of specific inputs to overcome the problem of attribution. While for now, PBSP can't attribute entirely the impact of its work to its efforts, there are initiatives being done to finding ways to isolate variables which could directly be attributed to PBSP's efforts.
Program is a body of knowledge that serves as framework for various activities in various localities, which are called projects. So in measurement, we differentiate these two as distinct levels.
Q.: Do you have any idea of alternatives to Newtonian tools?
R. E. Caccam: That is what we are trying to find out. PBSP system of measurement, according to the Research and Advisory Group is subjective and unreliable. The tools developed could not stand the rigors of examination and proof. This is the reason, PBSP is working with the Institute of Strategic Studies to develop the appropriate tools.
Q. With regards to small NGOs that don't get certified or aren't quite ready to even ask for certification, what emphasis does PCNC put on capability building? Also you mentioned about help desk, what exactly does that means?
R. F. Soledad: The help desk is assigned to the network. They vary from one network to another, on how active they have been in promoting certification in the region. At the Associate of Foundation for example, a survey was conducted to determine needs of partners who need to be certified. After running the survey and the need was established, capability-building activities were conducted to help partners that are weak.
Among small NGOs, PCNC have quite larger number. They get certified easier than big ones. If an organization is good in financial management almost immediately they will pass. The rest of the evaluation areas balanced off somehow. Those that lack the criteria are deferred and given 6 months to comply with the requirement.
Q. Who gives accreditation to PCNC?
R. F. Soledad: In the Philippines, when we say accreditation, it really means accreditation of program, while PCNC certifies institutions as donee institution. In similar manner, PCNC underwent a process where the Department of Finance investigated the organization's systems and procedures, and see if they are above and over the mandate or authority given us through the Memorandum of Agreement and the Revenue regulations.
Copyright © 2002-2006 The Synergos Institute
