CHRIST’S VALUES ALWAYS CENTRAL! THE ACCOUNTABILITY MOVEMENT
SINCE my election as the General I have been focused on issues relating to accountability. I have spoken about this at the 2014 International Conference of Leaders (ICL) in Singapore, and the keynote address at the General’s Consultative Council (GCC) in January 2015 followed this theme. This focus is not something that came as a blinding revelation to me at the 2013 High Council, but is the fruit of things that have preoccupied me for much of my 36 years of service as a Salvation Army officer. The subjects of accountability and impact measurement were widely discussed at the ICL in 2014 and were indeed a significant focus of that particular conference. The need for accountability was recognised as an urgent priority and endorsed by all the territorial and command leaders present. Since then, things have moved on. The four main work streams of the Accountability Movement are now well established. Their purpose is to help us strengthen accountability across the worldwide Salvation Army. I must stress that this is something that applies to every territory, command and region around the globe. It is therefore essential that we engage in this journey at all levels. The principles apply to the office of the General right down to the remotest corps or smallest Salvation Army programme. THE FOUR WORK STREAMS FO THE ACCOUNTABILITY MOVEMENT There has been considerable progress to report in each of the four work streams, and I am pleased to highlight the following examples: 1. GOVERNANCE The International Management Council has given approval for an overview of what needs to happen in this area and why. A reference group has been formed with 15 people from eight countries and has started work. At least five territories are exploring what a governance structure might look like according to their legal constitution or trust deed. 2. FINANCE The finance sub-group, formed in October 2014, identified a number of priority risk areas for review, based on an informed assessment of current practice. It has since formulated and developed a number of specific project proposals to mitigate identified risk factors, improve systems and process controls, and foster best practice. Targeted projects include updating of the 25-year-old Manual of Accountancy Policies and Procedures; a review of the key financial indicators reported from territories to IHQ; an International Property Project to address issues regarding land commercialisation strategies
and management of title deeds; measures for global capacity building of finance staff and the development of international, internal and external audit functions as ‘three lines of defence’. The finance work stream has made considerable progress in a short period of time, with further outcomes against already programmed milestones expected in 2016 and beyond. 3. SAFEGUARDING The emphasis of our safeguarding work has been on strengthening child protection policy and practice around the world. The IHQ Child Protection Working Group (CPWG) is working on plans to establish an IHQ safeguarding unit, so that a small team of specialists can oversee and support the essential work we must do to build child protection capacity around the world. Mandatory child protection training will soon be introduced at IHQ, together with mandatory police checks for all IHQ officers and travelling employees. Lessons learned from our experience at the Australian Royal Commission will be of value to us all as we work to develop best practice in every aspect of our work with children and young people. 4. IMPACT MEASUREMENT At the conclusion of the contract with the Bridgespan Group it was recommended that an experienced practitioner be appointed as an Impact Measurement Coordinator to oversee the five identified pilot test sites and to develop the embryonic ‘tool kit’ that would be rolled out as the basis of the impact measurement work stream. This appointment took longer than we originally thought, but it was preferable to await the appointment of the right person to oversee the implementation of the pilot sites scheme rather than embark on research that might then be counterproductive or abortive. Continued research is being undertaken among equivalent organisations to keep abreast of initiatives and developments in the field of impact measurement that might prove advantageous to the implementation of the IHQ initiative. Efforts have been undertaken to establish an Impact Measurement Support Group, largely from among those who contributed to the steering committee supporting Bridgespan. SHAPE A CULTURE OF INTEGRITY As officers and leaders of the Army, we are called to set the tone and shape the future. We need to give a clear sense of direction and indeed set the example required. Mary Bennett, Vice President of NAVEX Global’s advisory services, has said: ‘A culture of integrity must be intentionally shaped. A strong compliance programme built on an organisation’s values and principles creates the bedrock for a culture that is focused on outstanding quality and business outcomes.’ The same principles applied in the world of business apply to a movement like The Salvation Army that is in the business of ‘saving souls, growing saints and serving suffering humanity’. This is something that should and does concern us directly, but there are other driving forces that cause us to take issues of accountability seriously. It is not just a Western concept either. There are strong voices calling for greater accountability from all around the world.
2 | P a g e
As you will be aware, the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York recently ratified the new Sustainable Development Goals. All 193 member states have committed to 17 goals which are to be achieved over the next 15 years. Goal 16 states: ‘Promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels.’ This is therefore not a matter we have the luxury to ignore. There will be an increasing focus by governments around the world on the whole issue of accountability and governance. A THEOLOGY OF ACCOUNTABILITY Accountability is essentially about doing the right thing, not just for the sake of legal compliance. It has its foundation in a ‘theology of accountability’ which highlights principles and characteristics (as outlined in a paper presented by Commissioner Robert Donaldson to the GCC) that are central in the faithful exercise of authority and practice of accountability: ● The source and example for authority and accountability is God God the Creator, Preserver and Governor of all things is the source of all authority (see John 1:3-4). He is the Head of the Church (Colossians 1:15-18). It is God who gives to leaders in the Church their authority to lead (1 Corinthians 12:28). They are accountable first of all to him. If they are unfaithful in its use, authority can be taken away (Matthew 25:14-28). ● Mutual accountability We are accountable to God and to one another for our relationships, our actions and our stewardship of resources – for justice, harmony and development within the community. We should not think too highly of ourselves (Romans 12:3) but value every part of the Body of Christ (1 Corinthians 12:12-31), remembering that gifts are given not only to leaders. Being accountable to each other requires us to learn how to ‘speak the truth in love’ (Ephesians 4:15) so we can become the mature Body of Christ. ● Parameters define the limits of authority In his teaching – and by calling the disciples to account for their ministry (Luke 10:1-3, 1720) – Jesus sets the pattern. The parameters are set within the context of relationship with God and of living in the power of the Holy Spirit. When the relationship with God – Father, Son and Spirit – is right, we live within the parameters; then right relationships with one another will follow. When necessary, the exercise of authority may require the administering of corrective discipline. ● Authority is entrusted to an individual for the purpose of the common good within the community. All people participating in God’s mission through The Salvation Army are accountable to God and to one another for staying within the parameters set by the Bible and applied by The Salvation Army. Authority is not about coercion or brute force. It is about leading others in the Spirit of Jesus. It is essential that the different parts of the Body of Christ are held to account for the part they are called to do to achieve the common good (1 Corinthians 12). For example, some are called to govern while others are called to manage. These are different roles and a separation of powers is required for the common good. 3 | P a g e
CORE VALUES When we forget, neglect or ignore our core values, we are in for trouble! Where there is lack of accountability, we are in for trouble! In the United Kingdom a row has been brewing between trade unions and the employers’ lobby group on the issue of executive salaries. A BBC news report recently highlighted that the pay gap did not increase dramatically between 2014 and 2013, when chief executives earned 182 times the average worker’s pay, but it is much wider than in 2010, when CEOs earned 160 times more. ‘Pay packages of this size go far beyond what is sensible or necessary to reward and inspire top executives,’ said Deborah Hargreaves, Director of the High Pay Centre, an independent non-party think tank established to monitor pay at the top of the income distribution. She then went on: ‘It’s more likely that corporate governance structures in the UK are riddled with glaring weaknesses and conflicts of interest.’ There is a lot of material that has been produced for the business world and the not-for-profit sectors dealing with ethics and good governance. Generally speaking much of it talks about values and principles, including some that organisations such as ours should aspire to, such as: ● Fidelity to purpose; all resources, energies and activities devoted to promoting its public benefit. ● Altruism and benevolence; underlying motivation of public interest, not self-interest. ● Integrity; commitment to the highest standards of integrity. ● Optimising resources; ensuring that valuable and limited resources are spent in an appropriate manner (avoiding undue risk). ● Avoiding conflicts of interest; when a person in a position of trust makes a decision or enters into a contract from which they themselves, friends, relatives or associates stand to benefit. ● Equality and non-discrimination; proactive steps to prevent unfair discrimination in the conduct of an organisation (eg race, gender or disability). ● Democracy and empowerment; decisions should be informed by knowledge, research and a participative process allowing for wide-ranging consultation and feedback. ● Independence and impartiality; all eligible beneficiaries must be treated equally and fairly, without special favour or prejudice. While our accountability is based on Christ’s values, there is nothing in this list that conflicts with the way we should work for God. Christ’s values must be central in the way we govern The Salvation Army. Our governance structures and systems must ensure Christ’s values are protected and promoted in the way we work. IMPACT MEASUREMENT When we talk of impact measurement here are two things we would want to consider: 1. What should change in society? 2. What is the added value we want to achieve in the next few years? Impact measurement will help us to be good stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us. That is why it is important we measure not just the easy statistics – numbers of people 4 | P a g e
coming to meetings, numbers of meals served or nights of shelter offered – but we try to measure the extent to which people have been positively impacted in their lives and also in their relationship with Christ. This is not easy but it is essential we do it. Inevitably there are serious consequences when we do get things wrong. Just recently in the UK, a prominent children’s charity was closed. This charity had courted widespread and high political supporters as well as significant sums of government funding. Great concerns have been expressed as to how the children living in deprived inner-city areas who relied upon this charity can now be effectively supported. Following the drastic closure, however, the focus then turned to the charity’s trustees, with strong criticism for their apparent lack of effective controls and strategies for sustainability. The media reports cited three main reasons why things went so badly wrong: 1. Allegations from former staff raised concerns that the safeguarding procedures were insufficiently robust. With everything we have gone through and are still going through in Australia with the Royal Commission, this should be a strong wake-up call to The Salvation Army. We do need to get moving on making sure the culture is changing in all parts of the Army. The safeguarding work stream under the leadership of Major Janet Robson has begun, making some very robust recommendations. My concern is, now that the recommendations are on paper, we must show that we are taking action – or else we will be doubly culpable if something potentially damaging happens. 2. The charity failed to build a serious evidence base behind its work. That made it hard even for lots of very sympathetic funders to back it. We do not know how many young people used the service, let alone how many gained qualifications, found jobs or were spared prison because of its work. If we ever needed confirmation that our focus on impact measurement is important, I think we need look no further! 3. The charity was run with an unusually threadbare financial safety net, which made it more vulnerable to financial shocks than it ought to have been. The finances of the institution have long looked precarious – especially for a charity whose clients are so reliant upon it. That was evident from its last accounts, from 2013 – meaning financial decisions were being made on out-of-date and perhaps inaccurate financial information. Sadly this is also at times a reality here and there in the Army world. Make no mistake, we must ensure – as a matter of utmost priority! – that our finance and accounting services are in a fit state everywhere. A COMMITMENT TO ACCOUNTABILITY To assist us in ongoing development of the Accountability Movement in The Salvation Army, each of the four work streams – governance, safeguarding (child protection), impact measurement and finance – has endorsed the following four commitments: 1. Accountability, measurement and ongoing learning primarily help people to improve their progress on the journey. 2. A faithful culture of accountability will result in more quality and integrity in our work and ministry. 3. Accountability is part of being good stewards of the resources God has entrusted to us, including caring for people and his creation. 5 | P a g e
4. Accountability is strengthened by using a reflective, faith-based way of working (such as Faith-Based Facilitation and the Mission Accountability Framework). Every long journey commences with the first step, and we have begun the process of analysing our governance and accountability tools. We certainly do not suffer from lack of information. In fact sometimes it is quite the opposite. There is an impressive list of documents, reports, review questionnaires, audit reports and the like that generate an annual torrent of information. There are incredible amounts of data and information that flow to and from various frontline units to divisional, command and territorial headquarters, then on to IHQ. And it’s not a one-way flood. Information is being sent back and forth at prodigious rates, but not in an easily accessible or usable form, and many people within the Army have a feeling of being overwhelmed! People are already too busy to begin trying to sift through vast volumes of information, and as a result we never seem to learn from what we are doing. At the moment, despite all the work and commitment of people to submit the required reports at just about every level, we are still lacking the ability to highlight key information which enables us in real time to take appropriate action. In some respects we suffer from information overload and we, in turn, overload people with vast quantities of information. Hopefully the journey we are embarking on will also enable territories to take a good hard look at the various reports and demands for information that they themselves produce. I cannot do that for every territory or command, but I can do that as far as IHQ is concerned. The reporting system we develop through the GCC must align with the five functions of governance which encompass the following key areas: (1) vision and strategy, (2) performance measurement, (3) accountability, (4) policy approval, (5) risk management. So, if we are to be serious about this we need to take a close look at our information-gathering tools. This is not just an intellectual exercise, but something that must assist us in ensuring we only ask for the critical information we need and that these documents will fulfil their primary purpose – which is to be tools that enable us to capture key information that will assist us in our monitoring; but also, more critically, to take timely, appropriate action to deal with situations that may be slipping out of control. People regularly point out to me any inconsistencies with things we say which do not translate into action. Sometimes I feel there is in some people’s minds a huge sense of futility when we begin to unpack everything that the Accountability Movement is highlighting. Some perhaps shrug their shoulders and say: ‘What is the point? Things will never change!’ If that is indeed our attitude, then nothing will ever change! We may not yet have reached perfection, but we must never stop striving for it! André Cox GENERAL
6 | P a g e