Brief Description
Our assessment framework encompasses five key thematic areas crucial for organizational efficacy and transparency.
Project Information delves into vital project specifics including titles, descriptions, funding sources, and timelines, offering a comprehensive outlook essential for strategic planning.
Governance Information scrutinizes management structures, decision-making processes, financial oversight, and monitoring mechanisms, ensuring robust and transparent organizational leadership.
Record Keeping and Financial Management evaluate practices concerning data management, financial software usage, record-keeping protocols, and duty segregation, bolstering operational efficiency and regulatory compliance.
Procurement Transparency assesses policies, tendering procedures, selection criteria, and subcontractor transparency, fostering equitable and accountable business practices.
Operational Transparency & Accountability examine operational intricacies such as whistleblower mechanisms, contact channels, beneficiary criteria, and partnership details, championing transparent and ethical organizational behavior.
This holistic assessment equips organizations to identify strengths, address areas for development, and elevate their overall impact and integrity.
Why take the evaluation?
Engaging in this evaluation offers significant benefits for organizations involved in developmental, aid, humanitarian, or related projects, as it delivers a comprehensive assessment of critical facets.
The evaluation encompasses detailed analysis of project specifics, governance structures, record-keeping practices, financial management protocols, procurement transparency, and operational accountability.
Participation in this assessment equips organizations with invaluable insights into their projects, facilitating effective planning and informed decision-making. It cultivates transparent governance, streamlines operations, and enhances accountability, laying the groundwork for organizational excellence.
By proactively participating, organizations can pinpoint areas for enhancement and align with international best practices. This assessment champions transparency, accountability, and adherence to industry standards, serving as a roadmap for continuous improvement.
Furthermore, it empowers organizations to foster trust with stakeholders, uphold ethical conduct, and make positive contributions to their communities. Ultimately, embracing this evaluation process drives success and amplifies impact.”
Assessment steps
Step One
Step Two
Step Three
Step Four
methodology
Totally welcome thoughtful collaboration and idea-sharing in order to contribute
The large increase in civil society’s work after the Beirut port explosion on August 4th, along with the increase in the amount of aid, made it more important than ever to monitor the management of the aid, and apply international measures of anti-corruption to ensure more transparency and accountability in the work of civil society organizations.
The goal of our Civil Society Transparency Checklist is to do just that, as a part of the Transparency International Lebanon and Nudge Lebanon’s work to reach a corruption-free civil society.
The checklist is meant to work as a tool for organizations and initiatives to help them identify the level of transparency and good governance that exist in their projects as well as their organizational governance.
The organizations are encouraged to do the assessment for every project.
The self-assessment questionnaire is filled in by organizations and initiatives, based on information they made public or sent to the Transparent Hearts platform. The questionnaire addresses 5 dimensions and has 29 questions. While there are optional questions that depend on the nature of the organization, most questions are required.
The entire process should take no more than 3 hours. In addition to the questionnaire, the organization must submit a declaration of certification for the data they used.
Our team at LTA will then review each questionnaire response, to ensure that the most appropriate answer has been given to each question, and that there is evidence to support each answer, submitted either through a link to an online source or documents submitted to the platform. Lastly, the review checks for consistency in answering the questionnaires.
When each questionnaire is reviewed and adjusted – if needed – [each indicator will be given a score, along with a total score for each of the 5 dimensions, or groups, of indicators. An overall transparency rating is also given to each organization, depending on their score.
The results and scores are then sent to each organization. Questions may be asked about some evidence that was not clear enough, and the organization will have 30 days to submit additional evidence and feedback, they can also request changes to the results if the evidence they submit can support their request. In addition, they can upload further information to their website or the Transparent Hearts platform during this time and retake the questionnaire, which might also change their score.
Once done, the final results of each organization will be published on the Transparent Hearts platform.
Each of the indicators is presented in the form of a question, in most cases with three possible answers: Yes/Partial/No (although in some cases there are only two possible answers; Yes/No). For each indicator, the following information is provided:
• Dimension
• Indicator number and name
• Indicator question
• Type of indicator (Core or optional)
• Guidance for answering the question (Yes/Partially/No)
• Type of information required to support the answer
Next to each indicator is a space for each organization/initiative to complete their responses with the following information:
• Answer: Yes/Partially/No, and, where relevant, a brief explanation for the answer given
• Sources: A space to provide either: (A) a description of the supporting evidence (document etc) submitted to the platform when that evidence is not available online; or (B) a link to where that evidence is publicly available online (this is the preferable option if possible).
The checklist filled by the organizations is based on 5 aspects using 29 indicators. The indicators and the guide on how to answer them are available in the figure above. Our team will provide support in person or online introductions when needed.
Most of the indicators are “core” indicators which means they must be answered by all users. However, some indicators are optional and only require answers from large organizations or projects. For example, Indicators 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. are about procurement and sub-contracting processes, which is not something done by smaller organizations that only receive funds without using it to fund other organizations or external projects. All organizations who do are required to answer these questions. Likewise, Indicators 1.9 and 3.6 are concerned with organizations that run multiple projects or have multiple projects and donors, so organizations with only one project do not need to answer them.
Most of the indicators are “core” indicators which means they must be answered by all users. However, there are also “optional” indicators, which should only be answered where applicable. It is important to emphasize that optional indicators are only optional for smaller organizations and initiatives for whom the indicator in question may not be applicable due to their size. Medium and larger NGOs should therefore answer all the indicators. Specifically for users that:
• Indicators 3.3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4. relate to procurement and sub-contracting processes. These indicators would therefore not be applicable to organizations/initiatives that do not undertake procurement or sub-contracting, i.e., that only receive funds but do not channel these funds to others. All other organizations and initiatives should answer these indicators.
• Indicators 1.9 and 3.6 relate to organizations/initiatives that have more than one project and/or more than one donor. If an organization/initiative is only running a single project, then these indicators would not be applicable. All other organizations and initiatives should answer these indicators.
1.1 Project/Initiative Title CORE
1.2 Project/Initiative Description CORE
1.3. Type of assistance delivered CORE
1.4. Funding Sources CORE
1.5. Types of support received CORE
1.6. Project/Initiative Dates CORE
1.7. Project/Initiative Current Status CORE
1.8. Project/Initiative Total Budget CORE
1.9. Aggregate Budget OPTIONAL
2.1 Management structure CORE
2.2 Decision-making CORE
2.3 Financial oversight CORE
2.4 Monitoring CORE
3.1. Record keeping CORE
3.2. Personal data CORE
3.3. Procurement records OPTIONAL
3.4. Financial management software CORE
3.5. Segregation of duties in financial management CORE
3.6. Multiple bank accounts OPTIONAL
4.1. Procurement policy OPTIONAL
4.2. Transparent tendering OPTIONAL
4.3. Transparent selection procedure OPTIONAL
4.4. Sub-contractor transparency OPTIONAL
5.1. Operational information CORE
5.2. Whistleblower/CRM mechanism CORE
5.3. Multiple contact channels CORE
5.4. Beneficiary selection criteria CORE
5.5. Partnerships and communication CORE
• Organizations and initiatives have to complete the tabs of the basic info and instructions on the questionnaire, and the questionnaire itself.
• Most questions can be answered with yes, partial, or no, but some questions can only be answered with yes or no. If a question is not answered, it will be assumed that the answer is no, and will be taken into consideration as such when scoring.
• After each question is answered, the organization / initiative is required to submit evidence of its answer, either through a direct link that leads to a source on the web, or through a document uploaded directly to the Transparent Hearts platform if no link is available, such as when the answer requires information on the internal processes of the organization, or other information that is not found online.
• If the evidence provided was not enough to prove the accuracy of the answer, the answer will be neglected and considered as a “no”.
• The organization / initiative can add information to its own website or platform that meet the requirements of a specific indicator, and have it taken into consideration when reviewing the answers. This is meant to encourage organizations / initiatives to make more information public.
• The organization is also asked to submit a representational letter which guarantees the accuracy of the answers, evidence, and information it has provided, along with noting why any of the questions was not supported by evidence or information. For example, if there was difficulty in providing information to support answers 3.1 to 3.6, the letter could note that certain confidentiality or personal data restrictions made it better not to submit information, but it must explain why this was the case.
Once the questionnaire is submitted, each answer is verified by a reviewer that makes sure the answers (Yes/Partial/No) are:
a. accurate and that the respondent has correctly interpreted the instructions and guidance provided in the questionnaire;
b. accompanied by an explanation, where relevant; and
c. supported by evidence (as explained above)
When an answer cannot be verified, it should be modified accordingly. It is also important to note that the reviewer cannot guarantee the accuracy of information, only that it is available and does address the answer it is meant to support. In case of information provided online, the reviewer is advised to download or screenshot the information given so that it is saved, unedited, and can be used to justify the review process if it came into question, this is particularly important in a fast-moving environment where websites are constantly being updated
Once the answer to each indicator has been verified it will be given a score, as follows:
• Yes= 2
• Partially = 1
• No= 0
In order to calculate the dimension scores (in %), simply add up the indicator scores for a given dimension and divide by the total possible score for that dimension, then multiply the result by 100.