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.

1. 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

2. Eviter les mauvaises surprises
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk3XFqSaGt8&feature=r
elated
2

3. 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”.

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10.  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

11. 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

12. http://blog.charitynavigator.org/2011_02_01_archive.html
12

13. 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

14. 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

15. 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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. 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. 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

24. 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

25. Review of Charity’s website…..
Board members listed
Key staff listed
Audited financials
 Form 990
Privacy policy
25

26. 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

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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.

30. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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