DEC defends its new accountability framework 1

Fundraising | Ian Allsop | 17 Sep 2008

The Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) has hit back at criticism of its new accountability framework, saying that it will help improve standards and result in more meaningful evaluations of its appeals.

Last week, Charity News Alert revealed the the DEC will no longer release post-appeal evaluation reports, a move which critics described as “opaque” and “retrograde”.

However, DEC chair Mike Walsh has defended the decision, arguing that instead of being a retrospective snapshot of the members’ individual performance which was often subjective and ill suited to driving improvement, the new system was “a complete set of assurance tools and reporting frameworks with help from the NAO and leading accountants”.

Walsh said: “The aim of this initiative is to produce a consistent set of principles and results across agencies that can be measured and audited year-on-year. These include accountability to beneficiaries and, crucially, a pledge to learn lessons from our experience.

“Far from being a retrograde step, placing the focus on both our member agencies and on the secretariat in delivering against these objectives is entirely justified.

“Our experience has shown that that the historical concentration on basic frameworks against which agencies were originally evaluated, such as the code of conduct of the International Red Cross, were often impractical and difficult to define.

"By testing member agencies against the criteria in the new framework, our trustees – including six independent members with extensive senior experience in the corporate world and the NHS - will provide a more thorough examination of the work the DEC carries out and ultimately help us to improve our operations on an ongoing basis.”

Positive results

After the first report was presented to DEC’s trustees at its AGM, DEC say it showed a strong management response in terms of the use of appeal money, as well as positive results in achieving intended objectives and in commitment to standards.

It has also identified areas to make even greater progress, including looking at how far member agencies are accountable to beneficiaries for the programmes delivered.

Walsh continued: “It is also important to remember that our approach is still evolving, and is driven by desire not to duplicate the excellent accountability work of our member agencies.

“By September our member agencies will have to flag up their progress in meeting a series of membership commitments, including an agreement to be evaluated, accountability to beneficiaries and agreement to change based on recommendations made.

"Our commitment is that this would lead to a programme of improvements for member agencies to implement that would simply not have arisen under the previous system.

“Central to this, if the members have failed to meet these conditions by 2011, is the fact that they could be asked to leave."

Directory: Disasters Emergency Committee
Who's Who: Ian Allsop

Place a comment

John Cosgave
Independent Evaluator
24 Jul 2008

The problems with the new approach is that it is all going to be internal. If the DEC asks the UK public to trust it with their money, it should trust the UK public with data about agency performance. The DEC is a membership organisation and the DEC secretariat is not in a position to call the members to account. Imagine if the UK government had to rate itself against 6 criteria and did not have to publish any of the underlying data - how objective would that rating be? If the UK government publishes what are effectively evaluation reports from the National Audit Office, why not the DEC? This new policy runs completely counter to the transparency that many DEC members urge on the governments of the countries that they work in. Transparency is the mother of all accountability.

[Reply]

Comments

[Cancel] | Reply to:

Name *

Email *

Organisation

Job Title

Comments *

Verification *

* Please read our Community Standards

Close »

Community Standards

The civilsociety.co.uk community and comments board is intended as a platform for informed and civilised debate.

We hope to encourage a broad range of views, however, there are standards that we expect commentators to uphold. We reserve the right to delete or amend any comments that do not adhere to these standards.

We welcome:

Robust but respectful debate
Strongly held opinions
Intelligent relevant discussion
The sharing of relevant experiences
New participants

We will not publish:

Rude, threatening, offensive, obscene or abusive language, or links to such material
Links to commercial organisations or spam postings. The comments board is not an advertising platform
The posting of contact details for yourself or others
Comments intended for malicious purpose or mindless abuse
Comments purporting to be from another person or organisation under false pretences
Gratuitous criticism, commentary or self-promotion
Any material which breaches copyright or privacy laws, or could be considered libellous
The use of the comments board for the pursuit or extension of personal disputes

Be aware:

Views expressed on the comments board are left at users’ discretion and are in no way views held or supported by Civil Society Media
Comments left by others may not be accurate, do not rely on them as fact
You may be misunderstood - sarcasm and humour can easily be taken out of context, try to be clear

Please:

Enjoy the opportunity to express your opinion and respect the right of others to express theirs
Confine your remarks to issues rather than personalities

Together we can keep our community a polite, respectful and intelligent platform for discussion.