Minutes of the First Meeting of the Task Force on Accreditation appointed by the Planning Commission

vide Notification No.P-11011/1(2)/2007-VAC dated 13^th May, 2009

1.               The first Meeting of the Task Force on Accreditation of Voluntary Organisations was held on Thursday, the 2^nd July 2009 in the Conference Room of CAPART.

The list of participants is at Annex A.

2.               The meeting began with the Director General, CAPART, the Convenor of the Task Force welcoming all the members of the Task Force as well as special invitees, particularly, representatives of CRISIL who had been invited to make a presentation. He mentioned that prior to the issue of extant notification by the Planning Commission setting up this task force, the Executive Committee of CAPART had set up a Task Force to work out norms and modalities for accreditation of voluntary organisations. In order to facilitate wider consultation, as well as avoid duplication of efforts, members of CAPART appointed Task Force have also been invited for the meeting.

3.               The Convenor suggested that the Committee, to begin with, may like to agree to a methodology “to look more deeply into the issues” before making recommendations.  The Convenor recapitulated the distance already covered in this regard. An Expert Group of the Planning Commission had in its meeting held on 26^th February, 2009 had in a way taken stock of the work done in this area.  Presumably, it has pondered over the length and breadth of the work done in this area by various stake holders including some well known Civil Society Organisations. Apparently the Planning Commission to great lengths to emphasize the need for a deeper and comprehensive analysis of the issues involved. It has used the past deliberations to not only enumerate and specify the issues calling for greater understanding as ‘terms of  reference’ but also provided the Task Force nine months of time.  The Convenor hoped that with everybody’s cooperation it should be possible to create a report that will provide the Planning Commission enough comfort and satisfaction that the issues have been examined comprehensively and also a set of action points that will facilitate rolling out a practical regime for accreditation of VOs.

4.               The exercise of accreditation has to encompass processes as rudimentary and simple as registration, say, by advocates with the Bar Council to the highly complex process adopted by credit rating agencies. Only then it could be presumed to be doing justice with the microcosm of VO that populates our country.

5.               The DG, CAPART and the Convenor of  the Task Force flagged some developments that have changed the funds and interventions being routed through VOs. There has been significant increase in international funding to VOs since 2004 when the Government of India stopped accessing bilateral aid.  The corporates also decided to apportion one percent of their net profit to Corporate Social Responsibility.  Add to this enhanced budgetary provisions to be routed through VOs and the private philanthropy in this growing economy where millionaires are also multiplying, to comprehend the full volume of the funds flowing into the voluntary sector.

6.               Shri Gagan Sethi taking the discussion forward in the similar vein stated that there is an ongoing national debate on the subject of formulating standards of good governance and accountability and answerability in the voluntary sector. At present the entire sector is borne out of two or three Acts, that are quite old and have not kept pace with the changes everywhere else with regard to concerns for governance and transparency. There is a need to modernise the process of registration of voluntary organisations.

7.               Shri Sethi felt that the moment someone claims tax exemption for a donation, the concerned voluntary organisation becomes accountable to the public. He stressed the need to find a common ground among voluntary organisations after wider consultation amongst VOs as well as civil society stakeholders. This could be achieved by inviting suggestions from people at large and initiating a debate in the media.

8.               Ms Ruth Manorama cautioned that accreditation should emerge as an enabling provision and not a policing mechanism. As voluntary organisations act as bridge between the government and people and represent voice of the people, that may or may not be getting reflected through the normal channel of  political articulation and dissent. Accreditation, she hoped will provide the VOs the hallmark of legitimacy they at times so badly need.

9.               Convenor supplemented the view expressed by the member that accreditation should empower voluntary organisations and improve their accessibility of funds. If the exercise failed to achieve this objective, the entire process will be rendered meaningless.  He further observed that this might be the thumb rule as well as the barometer for assessing a recommendation before it is included in our report.

10.     Shri B.N. Makhija felt that for an in-depth analysis that is focused, the six terms of reference could be assigned to sub groups where one of the task force member takes the lead responsibility for creating  ‘basic document’ which will be circulated to all and even to the civil society stake holders for comments etc. in the light of  which it will be finalised and included as a chapter in the report.

11.     Shri Pushpendra Kumar Singh stated that the proposal has evoked mixed views from voluntary organisations. Grass root organisations face a host of problems and feel harassed while registering a voluntary organisation - a fairly time consuming process. They would not be looking forward to additional hassles if accreditation was to become another such hurdle to be crossed.

This apart, a large number of voluntary organisations are at loggerheads with the local administration for all kinds of issues and any interference by local administration in the process of accreditation may not always be welcome.

Shri Singh also felt that process of rating will help large organisations particularly those associated with the corporate sector as they would be in a position to present their documents and highlight their achievements more systematically, than village based grass root organisations with limited resources.

12.     Shri Sawetan Sagar suggested that the Task Force should draw up the key questions that need answers and set up sub-groups to go into the details.

13.     Shri Gagan Sethi stated that  any evaluation has two aspects – a set of norms that can be clearly measured and the other comprising of  basically softer areas like governance and goodwill that are somewhat more difficult to reduce to numbers.

14.     Shri H.R. Dave felt that the Task Force should examine the possibility of evolving a self-regulatory mechanism for accreditation and should seek tools that would facilitate rather than entrust the task to outside agencies. The process of accreditation should be used for building partnerships between voluntary organisations on one hand and donor agencies and loan agencies on the other. A country as large as India with more than a million voluntary organisations cannot depend on external evaluations. It has to evolve mechanisms for self-regulation.

15.     Shri Somasekhar Vemuri dwelt on the need to have a national body like the proposed National Accreditation Council. Such a body could specify and lay down the norms of governance for the voluntary sector but should leave the actual process to other agencies.  Accreditation involves and confirms to adherence to a minimum set of norms  A far more intensive evaluation would need be there to judge whether the organisation has at its disposal the capacity to utilize funds effectively.

16.     Shri H.R. Dave felt that once sub-groups start discussing the issues, other issues will automatically emerge. For example, was there a need to have a common set of guidelines and standards or where different sector needed different set of measuring scales.

17.     DG also flagged the concern of some people who felt that the process of accreditation will mean increasing documentation and expense and therefore was tilted against smaller VOs. On the other hand, there are equally strong views which emphasize the need to examine whether a voluntary organisation that is so poor in documentation and accessing a public office for legal rights, would be in a position to lift people out of poverty or even voicing their concerns.

18.     Making a presentation Shri K.N. Rattan stated that accreditation and rating will surely uplift the standards and therefore there was a need to make it compulsory.  In any endeavour for achieving quality, the question is not one of measurement but whether one was continually improving. These processes will thus improve the effectiveness on a continuous basis.

19.     Dr Sumedh Gurjar stated that all the NGOs that receive government grants are covered under the Right to Information Act and provisions of mandated as well as proactive/voluntary disclosure apply to them as much as they do to any public authority.

20.     In his presentation, Shri B.N. Makhija stated that the Credibility Alliance had come up with a set of norms that could be termed as minimum – a standard that could not be diluted any further.  He felt that there were significant differences between organisations registered under the Trust Act and those registered under the Societies Registration Act and thus norms for the two had to be worked out separately.

Similarly, there was need to classify organisations on the basis of their core competence before rating them. Organisations could largely be classified on the basis of their work – services like health and education, capacity building, advocacy groups and micro-finance organisations.  Separate sets of tools would be needed for each such category.

21.     Director General flagged that when the accreditation mechanism is visualised, it should also provide for some kind of built in social safety net for the Voluntary Organisation sector. This would work as an incentive for NGOs to get accredited.  Once social safety net issues get included it might be germane to look in to the geographical dispersal of Council’s offices.

22.     Mr Gagan Sethi felt that the proposed National Accreditation Council should have modest aims to begin with rather than try and achieve everything in one go.

23.     The question of providing funds to the National Accreditation Council was discussed at length and several suggestions like fee based system, self financing arrangements, public funding etc were discussed.  The DG and Convenor flagged that VOs spent up to 10% in resource mobilisation. Even if the numbers being talked about are taken with abundant caution - a small surcharge on the pattern of  TDS levied from donors will take care of both the cost of administering the council as well as the social safety net obligations.

24.     To examine each terms of reference in detail, the Task Force decided to set up four sub-groups. It was decided that each sub-group will give its recommendations by the first week of August 2009. These recommendations will be circulated among all the members of the Task Force. Subsequently, the Task Force will meet again towards the end of August 2009.

25.    The following Sub Groups were constituted

Sub Group I – To frame minimum norms/standards as well as programme/sector specific add-ons (for select sectors)

        i.                  Shri B. N. Makhija

        ii.               Shri K.N. Rattan

Sub Group II – (i) To conceptualize the organisational structure and composition of the National Accreditation Council and its state/regional offices (ii) To define the functions of National Accreditation Council

            i.                  Shri Gagan Sethi

            ii.               Ms. Ruth Manorama

            iii.             Shri Pushpendra Kumar

            iv.              Dr Nandita Chatterjee

Sub Group  III – (i) To define the procedure for accreditation (ii) To identify the possibility and mechanism of grading of VOs/NGOs

            i.                  Dr Sumedh Gurjar

            ii.               Representative of CRISIL

            iii.             Shri Alok Misra/Shri Swetan Sagar, M-CRIL

    Sub Group IV – To suggest viable financial models for accrediting VOs/NGOs

            i.                  Shri Alok Misra/Shri Swetan Sagar, M-CRIL

            ii.               Shri H.R. Dave, NABARD

            iii.             Representative of CRISIL

            iv.              A representative from Give India

26.     The Task Force decided to request the Planning Commission to facilitate holding of meetings of the various Sub Groups.

27.     The DG and the Convenor of the Task Force apprised the members that the contact details along with e-mail IDs of all the participants had been circulated.  It may be a good idea to keep everybody in the communication loop so that those who want to contribute/respond may do it at the earliest opportunity. It was suggested that a web-based discussion forum be created to facilitate exchange of  ideas amongst the members of the Task Force. It may even be desirable to create a Blog so that others interested in the subject may contribute.  CAPART IT division should take over this responsibility.

28.     The Meeting ended with a vote of thanks to CAPART for hosting the first meeting.