This is the first of a two-part series of blogs about accountability in the non-profit sector and how funders can better understand how this relates to localization.

Being accountable is expensive. At Accountability Lab we have found that since we first wrote about this issue 5 years ago, that while people are becoming more aware of the costs of being accountable, it is more difficult, and  more expensive to fund than ever.

The much-needed localization agenda has committed development partners (in particular the US Government) to directly channel a larger portion of official development assistance (ODA) to local partners in an effort to shift power and create space for them to influence and exercise leadership over priorities, activity design, and implementation. While the localization agenda is a positive step towards fostering ownership and sustainability, it also introduces a host of unexpected expenses for local CSOs and NGOs. 

Typically, accountability is framed as a set of activities, policies and procedures that those who receive donor funding need to demonstrate to ensure the effective use of finances. At Accountability Lab (AL), as with many other organizations working within civil society, accountability is not just about financial and programmatic oversight. It encompasses a holistic approach to approaching the development eco-system that includes supporting staff and partners, and ensuring their sustainability, health, and well-being. This entails addressing legal, physical, digital, social, and financial needs, thereby enabling everyone to carry out their work safely and effectively both individually and collectively. While many of the measures highlighted below may not be mandated by donors, we have realized over the last 12 years of operations that they are essential to maximize development outcomes and safeguard the integrity of civil society. This all comes at a cost.

Across the development sector, organizations, irrespective of size, are expected to undertake and finance a lot more accountability measures than they are given credit (or funding) to do, dipping into their limited allowable overhead or program savings to cover these costs. In this series of blogs, we are not advocating for reduced accountability; rather, we are attempting to underscore the need for financial capacity and programmatic flexibility to enhance accountability and responsibility towards those impacted by the work of civil society.

AL operates as a translocal network, with each entity independently registered, operated, and governed in accordance with local laws and regulations. Despite our decentralized structure, we are fortunate to have a structure through which we can try to cover our accountability commitments strategically by pooling critical resources, competencies, and capacities among Labs, and sharing organizational best practices, policies, and communication resources across the network to minimize overhead costs and increase efficiencies. 

Mental healthcare services, in particular, are rarely, if ever, covered by grants, even though teams are regularly working on issues that put a strain on their mental well-being. 

Wellbeing, both physical and mental, is critical to the safeguarding of our teams. As with the majority of locally registered and staffed CSO’s we are not eligible to access expat health, safety, and security resources. Some (not all) grants make allowances for fringe benefits (such as pension and healthcare support); however, in many places, health insurance providers are inadequate, and rarely does they allow for specialist care (outside of the country).  In response, with support from a visionary donor, we were able to set up a small Safety and Security Fund. In the last year we were able to use these USD-based and invested funds to support a colleague to receive emergency surgery on his ear in Rwanda and heart surgery for another collegue in South Africa. Mental healthcare services, in particular, are rarely, if ever, covered by grants, even though teams are regularly working on issues that put a strain on their mental well-being.  We have also used the fund to pay for psycho-social support for a LGBTQI staff member for a particularly impactful but challenging project related to inclusion and equal rights. 

We all need to prioritize inclusion, but this can be costly. We have learned that if budgets don’t include specific lines to support the participation of women and marginalized groups, it is very difficult to ensure meaningful inclusion.  We have had some success finding support for specific allowances in grants that include safe transport; childcare services; additional security; braille translation/ sign language interpretation; and disability-accessible venues (often at a higher cost). However, these budgetary inclusions remain unjustifiable for many donors.

You can read our list of 105 inclusion policies we are actively working towards achieving now- and this will begin to demonstrate how challenging and costly it is for local organizations to be inclusive.

More than ever, there is a need to safeguard our data and information from malign agents. Organization-specific servers, IT hardware and software are expensive (and often beyond the budgets of most non-profits), so we rely on what exists. Google for non-profits (not available globally) is free and relatively secure; however, you only receive access to 30GB of storage per person, inadequate when we are legally required to maintain documentation over multiple years (for legal and audit purposes). Most organizations therefore resort to paying $6 per person per month. This does not sound like much but if you are a small local organization with 7 staff, that is over $500 a year.

TechSoup (not available globally) provides a fantastic service that has allowed us discounted versions of Zoom ($75 per person per year but only up to 10 seats at which point it moves to $100 per seat per year), Quickbooks ($1,500 per year for the 5 eligible Labs), Dropbox ($2,000 per year for 13 people), MS Office, Mailchimp ($600 per month) and other comms tools ($1500 per month). While some network labs are able to access/ pay for these services themselves (when grants allow for it), many are not able to do so because access requires a credit card, a facility that is not readily available in many Global South countries, let alone for non-profit organizations operating in those countries.

Reliable access to the internet and electricity is often difficult or impossible due to a lack of service provision or poorly maintained infrastructure in most of the countries in which we work. Few grants allow for capital investment in equipment such as solar panels (which often cost upwards of $45,000), generators ($3,000 – $5,000 minimum excluding running costs), laying of cables for fiber, and so on. The lack of basic infrastructure makes working uninterrupted very challenging and consistent communication is frequently impossible. 

Financial accountability includes project and organizational audits. Those who receive large direct, multi-year grants can generally pay for organizational audits. For sub-awardees however, the cost of an audit is usually covered by cobbling together small amounts from various grants (when overheads are allowed) and as a result, all too often, audits become a casualty of budget compromises resulting in future grant ineligibility. Alternatively, organizations are forced to dip into program savings to cover the deficit. This issue is exacerbated when donors also require program/ project audits (on top of organizational audits)- an additional cost. 

Donors can and should find ways to pool our collective documents and knowledge and open source these to allow smaller organizations to align with donor requirements.

We need organizationally appropriate policies and procedures tailored to support the growth, sustainability, and overall health and well-being of our organizations.  At the Lab, it took us almost a year to produce and tailor the full list of donor mandated (an organizationally required) policies and procedures that support and guide the practices around our work.  Few sub-national implementing partners have the time, networks, and proximity to do this, and so they remain ineligible for/ unable to receive larger government grants directly. Donors can and should find ways to pool our collective documents and knowledge and open source these to allow smaller organizations to align with donor requirements.  In an effort to even the playing field and give organizations something from which to work, we have shared all our accountability policies on our website, free for download. 

We need to show that we are currently accountable to our partners, donors, and constituencies, but we also need to be ready to take on new and unplanned accountability challenges, particularly when working in difficult places. Access to membership organizations like Accountable Now, and paid-for technical support from organizations like Open Briefing are often seen as a ‘nice to have’ but ultimately unnecessary (and unfunded) organizational resilience tools. We believe that they are critical to ensuring that we are being accountable, not as a box-ticking exercise but rather in way that is holistic, strengthens the organization and improves learning. 

In part two of this blog series, we will highlight detailed recommendations for addressing the accountability priorities highlighted above.

Jean Scrimgeour