Home/Who we work with
Capability note
Civil Society Organisations and Associations
Governance, institutional structure and funding viability
Civil society organisations are judged on two things at once: whether their work matters, and whether their institution can be trusted to carry it. The second is where most of them are vulnerable, and it is the part that is rarely addressed until a funder, a board member or a member assembly forces the question.
This note sets out the problems we are most often asked to address in this sector, what we provide, and what a client receives.
Capability note
Civil Society Organisations and Associations
Problems we are asked to address
01
Governance that exists on paper but not in practice
Statutes were drafted at registration and never revisited. The board either does not decide, or decides everything. Meetings are held because they are required rather than because anything is resolved in them. The organisation cannot demonstrate how a given decision was taken, or by whom.
02
Structure that has not kept pace with growth
Arrangements that worked with five people fail with twenty-five. Responsibilities overlap, authority is unclear, and the founder or director remains the point through which everything passes. The organisation is held together by individuals rather than by systems.
03
Requirements that cannot be evidenced
A funder, auditor or partner asks for policies, procedures, financial controls or safeguarding arrangements. They exist in practice but not in documented form, or they exist as documents that do not describe what actually happens.
04
Funding dependence without a funding strategy
Income rests on one or two funders, or on a sequence of projects with no institutional core. Each cycle is survived rather than planned. Proposals are written under time pressure, which lowers their quality and reinforces the dependence.
05
Key-person dependency and founder transition
The organisation’s relationships, knowledge and credibility are concentrated in one person. There is no answer to what happens if that person steps back, and often no way to raise the question internally.
06
Unresolved authority between members, board and management
Where the boundary between governance and management is undefined, disputes are not resolved by rules because the rules do not address them. In member-based organisations this is the most common source of institutional crisis.
What we provide
Governance review and redesign
Assessment of how decisions are actually taken; redesign of governing body structure, composition and mandate; delegation of authority; separation of governance from management; committee structures and terms of reference.
Founding and internal documents
Revision of statutes and internal rules so that they reflect how the organisation works and can be complied with; conflict-of-interest, integrity and decision-recording frameworks.
Organisational structure and systems
Organisational design, allocation of responsibilities, operating model, standard operating procedures, internal control arrangements, and the documentation that allows them to be evidenced.
Funding strategy and proposal development
Funding strategy and diversification analysis, funder and donor mapping, proposal and grant application development, and the internal systems required to meet funder reporting and compliance requirements.
Institutional assessment and evaluation
Independent assessment of institutional capacity, organisational review, programme or project evaluation, and review against funder or regulatory requirements.
Institutional continuity
Succession and transition planning, documentation of institutional knowledge, and reduction of dependency on individuals.
What a client receives
Our outputs are written and usable. Depending on the mandate, they include:
A governance review report setting out findings, risks and prioritised recommendations
revised statutes and internal rules
a delegation of authority matrix
board or governing body charter and committee terms of reference
conflict-of-interest and integrity policy
organisational structure with defined responsibilities
procedure manuals
a funding strategy
completed proposals and grant applications
an institutional assessment or evaluation report
an implementation plan with sequencing and responsibilities
Where an engagement produces recommendations that the organisation cannot realistically implement with its current resources, we say so and sequence them accordingly. A recommendation that will not be applied is not a result.
How we work
Engagements are scoped in writing before they begin, with defined objectives, deliverables, timeline and responsibilities. We work alongside the people who will apply the recommendations, rather than delivering a document at the end of the process.
We recognise the constraints of the sector. Organisations of this kind rarely have the capacity to absorb a large reform programme alongside their operational work, and scope is set accordingly. Where a smaller mandate will produce a usable result, we propose the smaller mandate.
Independence applies here as elsewhere. We conduct no lobbying, campaigning or fundraising on a client’s behalf, and we accept no remuneration conditional on funds being secured. Advisory support on funding strategy and proposal development is distinct from soliciting funds, and is paid as advisory work.
For organisations established under French law, we work with the structures as they are defined in law and in the organisation’s own founding documents — assemblée générale, conseil d’administration, bureau, règlement intérieur — rather than applying a generic governance model to them.
How to begin
An initial confidential discussion to establish what the problem is, whether it is one we can address, and what scope would be proportionate. There is no cost and no obligation attached to it.
If there is a basis to proceed, we set out a written mandate with objectives, scope, deliverables, timeline and fee. No work begins before it is agreed.
