A Discussion with Richard Marsh, Director, ImpACT (Improving Accountability, Clarity, and Transparency), United Kingdom

With: Richard Marsh Berkley Center Profile

June 19, 2008

Background: This interview between Richard Marsh and Katherine Marshall took place over e-mail as part of preparatory work for a June 24, 2008 workshop in the Hague on "Global Development and Faith-Inspired Organizations in Europe and Africa." Marsh, Director of the UK-based ImpACT Coalition, has worked for 20 years on issues at the intersection of faith and development issues. In this discussion, he speaks about the organization's two-fold mission: communicating the good work of many charities in the country and helping NGOs and development-related institutions operate with more transparency. He addresses both the strengths and weaknesses of faith-inspired development organizations, commenting specifically upon the need for more accountability.

Can you tell us something about your path and current work? How did you get involved in your organization?

For 20 years I worked in faith-inspired organizations. I wrestled with all the issues about the connection between a faith-inspired philosophy of development, coupled with unique networks of delivery to the heart of communities and the international and national architecture of development. I saw the places where we seemed to be missing opportunities to learn from faith organizations and other areas where faith organizations failed to see themselves as part of a greater civil society whole.

So when I left overtly religious organizations, these questions still preoccupied me. I wanted to find out whether I could think the same thoughts, wrestle with the same questions in a different context. My present post at ImpACT (Improving Accountability, Clarity and Transparency) offers just that opportunity. Historically, it was founded against a background of a significant drop in public confidence and trusts in charities and non-profits. Moreover, it was also clear that the public really had very little understanding of how modern charities, religious or secular, actually worked. What might be done to preserve public trust and maintain support? I suspect some people thought that if we just maintained that we were doing a good job people would believe us and it would be ok. We have learned that we have to be far more systemic in our thinking.

What does the organization do? What is its driving philosophy?

The first thing to say is that we are a coalition that began about three years ago. It was a donor coalition at first that was addressing some erosion of donor confidence.

So what we are trying to do is to harness the power and insight of over 150 (and growing) charities, principally in the UK, but now from the outside as well. It's an extraordinarily diverse membership ranging from huge charities to tiny ones. That is exciting. We aim to do three basic things. First, to help charities of all types and sizes become more transparent and accountable. Second, to communicate the reality of modern charities to the public. Third, to cascade good practice throughout the non-profit world. Driving philosophy? It goes something like this. Charities and non-profits are a significant part of civil society. As such we have a responsibility to demonstrate in our own life and work the best of thinking about transparency and accountability. We benefit from a very high level of trust, we must not squander that. We can make a contribution to the world, not just because we do things that are good and right and change injustices and wrongs, but because we do it in a way that is clear and takes into account the needs and express opinions of our stakeholders.

We are growing, fast. The labels do sometimes interfere. We do need to keep probing what terms like transparency really mean. It is really about being open, and about how you handle your relationships.

Any explicit or implicit faith link?

A large number of those who have joined the coalition are charities with an explicit faith link. That's not surprising. There are nearly 190,000 charities or NGOs in the UK. A large percentage are rooted in faith communities. I think, within the coalition we have some of the smallest and largest faith-based organizations and representatives from many different faith traditions.

What are core issues around NGO accountability?

There are two key ways of understanding accountability. And I think that you need to keep them both in creative tension. The first is learning to listen to those who will benefit from what you do, and those who provide you the resources to make it possible. Stakeholder engagement for want of a better phase. The second has to do with your understanding of the change that you want to bring about. Both of these go well beyond straightforward accounting and reporting compliance. It's about the vision you have of the work you do and your capacity not just to tell me what you have done, but also what difference you have made.

What are successes, failures?

Success is a charity that weaves transparency and accountability seamlessly into its life and work. There are plenty of examples; I hope I can point to some in The Hague. Failures, I'm afraid that there are far too many. NGOs and charities that think that because they do good things no one has any business to ask questions of them. Charities that are so burdened by history, brand identity or hubris they can't see that they have a wider responsibility. I don't believe that you can ‘be sufficiently transparent and accountable' just by obeying a few rules or ticking boxed. It's about your outlook on the world.

Any special issues for faith organizations?

On a positive note, faith organizations come with the advantage of a clear vision and mission of what they need to achieve. That's a brilliant starting point. But from there they need to be better, much better, at distinguishing outputs and outcomes. I rather fear that a disproportionate number of faith based charities and NGOs get themselves into difficult situations because they don't always have the capacity to manage themselves in a complex regulatory framework.

Also, I fear that they are not always good at coping with questioning or criticism, which is a shame. They should be proud both of what they do and of the religious and ethical conviction that gives them the insight to do it. I remember talking to a very senior religious leader in Africa once, about his acceptance of money that was clearly the result of serious corruption. He maintained that it was ok to accept it because the tainted money was hallowed by its use in the religious context for good works. I've thought hard about this. I know that it was wrong of him to argue in the way he did. Money is never morally neutral. I think we have to have a much better understanding of our responsibility as stewards of resources provided on trust by others.

Issues on links to official agencies?

I am presuming that you mean the overreaching international architecture. I think that we need to expect both a little and a lot from them. A little because needs and the capacity to address them are always going to be mismatched. There are no magic bullets out there! A lot because they themselves need to get much better at accountability. Yes, I know it's hugely complicated for them to do stakeholder maps, etc. Yes, of course they are improving. But there are big principles that they need to get hold of.

What should we be talking about in the Hague? Knowledge gaps, policy, mobilization, action?

I shall be listening for a few things. I want to know how we can be better at telling the story of the difference that faith-inspired organizations make. So I hope to be listening carefully both for individual instances but also strategic imperatives.

I shall also be looking for the sorts of resources that people like me can put together and make available. That's some of the philosophical and technical expertise that I bring with me. I have one or two thoughts. Perhaps I can test them out on the group.

We have in the NGO world a surfeit of knowledge and information; I figure that a good percentage of it is useless. We have got to get better at asking the right questions so we can do our work more graciously and effectively. Did I use the word gracious? I surely did, and I believe passionately that we must be less nervous about using language of values and ethics. I also believe in measurement! The two are not exclusive.

Opens in a new window