1. Certification of fundraising in the Netherlands– Dutch experiences with International Perspective Adri Kemps Director CBF and Secretary General ICFO www.cbf.nl - a.kemps@cbf.nl www.icfo.org Sydney, 22 July 2011

2. Fundraising income as registred by CBF 1965 - 2008

3. In 2009 € 1.3 billion was available for: Nature Social Welfare Culture International development Health

4. Independent Monitoring?  1 - State Regulation via - Registration, - Fiscal Oversight  2 - Self Regulation via - Code of Conducts, issued by umbrella bodies - Capacity Building - Direct Transparency  3 - Independent Monitoring via - Seals-of-Approval (Accreditation) by independent agencies - Donor Advice by “Watchdog” agencies Independent Monitoring of Charities – the “Third Way”

5. ICFO - the association of national monitoring bodies  Founded 1958  Members in Austria, Belgium, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, UK, USA,  Independent monitoring agencies, not yet ICFO members but extablished contacts, in: Cambodia, India, Indonesia, Mexico, Philippines International Committee on Fundraising Organizations

6. ICFO’s Mission  Donors’ trust – a decisive factor  “ Informed Trust ” instead of “Blind Trust”  ICFO Standards for NPOs working internationally  Independent Monitoring Agencies are “ Partners ” and “Supporters” of the reliable Charities ICFO and its members are building BRIDGES OF TRUST

7. Centraal Bureau Fondsenwerving (CBF)  Register and website (voluntary reporting) approx 1.350 ngo’s  Knowledge Centre (database, Report on Fundraising and digi- newsletter)  Seal-of-Approval : 272 sealed charities, 77 certified small charities (1.3 billion EUR donations) and 19 Statements of no objection for start up charity annual monitoring, on-site-visits, audit report, also used by goverment, the media  Donor Advisory Service : approx. 1300 non-sealed charities (descriptions, judgements, warnings); individual advice The Netherlands

8. CBF Seal for charities  Fundraising : truthful, accurate, not misleading, no pressure to donors  Finances : > audited by CPA based on RJ 650 standard developped by CBF, 25% fundraising costs, policyplan, controlsystem on expenditures, annual report. Controlsystems: > policyplan and expenditures  Governance : well functioning planning and supervision, evaluation methods effectivity / efficiency, stakeholders, transparency on salary Normative and principle based standards

9. Independent Monitoring  membership based charities not being members  Professionals also: Volunteers  only accrediation also: information on other charities (sometimes even: warnings)  100% own income also: public subsidies  admin. cost ceiling “reasonable” amount for admin + fundraising costs “Watchdogs” worldwide: STRENGTH BY DIVERSITY

10. Independent Monitoring  Quality measurement: Outcome and effectiveness of the charitable activities  Administration and Fundraising costs : more detailled rules (maybe, more ceilings)  Professional staff instead of Volunteers TRENDS towards further Common Patterns

11. State Regulation  Charitable activities and civil engagement are voluntary and private acts of citizens. Therefore, state involvement in those activities should be restricted to an absolute minimum.  State can protect and support civil engagement by prosecuting criminal abuse of donations and charitable organizations and by leaving further regulation or ruling to independent monitoring agencies and self regulation schemes – in the best sense of SUBSIDIARITY.  State authorities are not very accustomed to the special character of public benefit activities, their dynamic development, and the mentality of their leaders. Therefore, a significant degree of state regulation bears a permanent risk of being not adequate or disproportionate. Strengths and Weaknesses

12. Self Regulation  “Self Regulation is the voluntary acceptance of a code of conduct by the members of a club. This code is usually created by an ‘umbrella’ organization. (…) The main problem with codes of conduct is their reliance on self-reporting, i.e. the organizations are trusted to follow the regulations without any follow-up checks, leaving significant space for abuses and release of false information.” (Prof. Dr. Andreas Ortmann, 2005)  Self Regulation can significantly contribute to a culture of transparency and reliability in the Third Sector, as well as to an improvement of the sector’s processes and practices ( capacity building ).  In order to sustainably enhance DONORS’ TRUST in charities, self regulation needs to be completed by INDEPENDENT MONITORING. Strengths and Weaknesses

13. Conclusion Use clear concepts and terminologies: Transparency has to be transparent itself Umbrellas = self regulation (code of conducts, etc.) Monitoring bodies: third party regulation (accreditation, certification, seals/labels) Public oversight bodies = state regulation Trust, Transparency, and Ethical Issues in Fundraising

14. Conclusion  Information by the NGOs themselves: Direct Transparency  Information by independent „watchdogs“ Monitored Transparency  Independent information creates „Bridges of Trust“ Reliable Information

15. Conclusion  State Regulation, Independent Monitoring, and Self Regulation: all of them have their special strengths and limitations.  DONORS’ TRUST can be served best if the three methods are properly combined without mixing up their procedures and terminologies. Combination, not Amalgamation