OpenCharities

This text was generated using OCR and may contain errors. Check the original PDF to see the document submitted to the regulator.

2021-09-30-accounts

ANNUAL REPORT and financial statements

2

20-33

FINANCE

Contents

----- Start of picture text -----
INTRODUCTION 3-6
----- End of picture text -----

3 What we do 4 Welcome note from our Chair 5 Vision and mission Key numbers

OUR YEAR IN REVIEW 7-10

8-9 What we achieved 10 What we learned

STORIES FROM OUR WORK 11-15

20 Financial review

23 Audit report

26 Statement of financial activities 28

Principle accounting policies

29 Notes to the financial statements

33

----- Start of picture text -----
6
----- End of picture text -----

Working in genuine partnership

----- Start of picture text -----
12
----- End of picture text -----

Citizens and government working together for integrity in Kenya

13-14

Youth promoting accountability in Tanzania

15

Is it OK when citizens fix things themselves?

Reference and administrative details

PROGRESS TOWARDS OUR GOALS 16-19

17

Theory of Change

18

Progress towards our strategic objectives: 2020-21

19 34

Introducing our new Gender and Social Justice Approach

Restricted funds projects overview + Safeguarding

3

INTEGRITY ACTION

What we do

Integrity Action is a UK-based non-profit that supports people living in poverty around the world to identify, monitor, and fix the essential projects and services that are failing them.

Founded in 2003, we equip individuals and communities with the tools and guidance they need to report problems publicly and work directly with responsible bodies to fix them. Working with civil society partners from some 20 countries we have accelerated thousands of projects in collaboration with those most affected by inadequate infrastructure and services.

i|

Across Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, Integrity Action is proud to support citizens to demand safe water, improved sanitary facilities, better classrooms and more, building trust through sustained interaction with communities and government organisations while redefining social contracts for marginalized groups with limited political capital.

HOW WE WORK

HOW WE MAKE A DIFFERENCE

We work to put power back into the hands of citizens and rebuild trust between communities and the people who serve them. Whether it’s dispensaries that have run out of medicine, half-built roads that should have been finished years ago, or schools that don’t have enough teachers, Integrity Action establishes connections between those in need and those whose duty it is to provide.

We empower citizens as individuals and groups to monitor a wide range of projects and services, aiming to simplify the process of demanding accountability and providing a platform for citizens to be seen and heard. This work takes place both within local communities and through our digital innovations, including the DevelopmentCheck app.

DevelopmentCheck forms an integral part of the citizen monitoring process, placing an intuitive tool into the hands of community members. This ensures citizen monitors have instant and easily accessible ways in which to identify, report, and publicise both problems and solutions.

With more than 9,000 problems identified since 2014, and with solutions to over two thirds of them secured, our work has helped citizens, service providers and public officials to find potentially lifechanging answers to seemingly intractable problems. We also inspire organisations and governments to improve their approach to accountability and participation, so that citizens’ voices are acted upon whenever decisions are made.

----- Start of picture text -----
identified using our
since 2013 FIXED approach
% OF PRO
5 B
6 L
E
R
E M
OV S
----- End of picture text -----

4

Welcome note

FROM GAIL KLINTWORTH

Welcome to Integrity Action’s annual report for 2020-21.

CHAIR

It has been yet another year dominated by Covid, and the poor and vulnerable have borne the brunt of it – according to the World Bank, the poorest 20% have seen the steepest decline in income. Add the impacts of climate change, inequality, and widespread disillusionment with governments due to real and perceived corruption and nepotism, and we find ourselves in a discontent maelstrom.

Within this context, the work of Integrity Action remains critically important. When individuals and communities have personal agency, trust in accountable leaders and a belief that external support is there to enhance their own efforts, the cycle of hopelessness and helplessness can be disrupted.

One of the many places we saw this was in Kenya, where there has been a worrying pattern of student unrest in secondary schools. But in schools where Integrity Action

and its partners enabled students to monitor education services, and collaborate with management to solve problems, we have evidence that unrest was less likely. As one school leader put it: “Before they burnt the dormitories. Now they use the communication channels.” Read more about this on page 8.

In the past year the Integrity Action team has managed a difficult funding and operational environment whilst keeping our service to partner organisations and citizen monitors on track. The impact of 834 projects monitored by 11,377 citizens in 9 countries, despite the difficult circumstances (and a sudden funding reduction from a key government funder), was managed in the short term without needing to reduce support to communities.

Integrity Action is now strengthening its partnerships and service orientation to a broader

range of partners in further

countries including Ghana and South Africa. In addition, we are pursuing some interesting applications of our knowledge and tools in local climate change mitigation and adaptation mechanisms and in corporate community interventions.

We thank our funders, partners and monitors for their continued support to our joint commitment for a more accountable and transparent world of shared prosperity.

Gail Klintworth

Chair, Integrity Action’s Board of Trustees

5

Our Vision is for a just and equitable world, where citizens are empowered and integrity is central to vibrant societies.

Our Mission is to help build societies in which all citizens can – and do – successfully demand integrity from the institutions they rely on.

Key numbers

11,377 People involved in monitoring activities

----- Start of picture text -----
People involved Year 2021 Since 2013
10,112 infrastructure
199 1,204
Youth who are projects monitored
members of
500 monitoring
youth clubs
fc
635 services monitored 1,079
cS
2,116 problems found 9,238
53% FEMALE
io)
47% MALE
o¢€ 1,810 problems fixed 6,027
6 ©
GG)
86 @ 86% Fix Rate 65%
----- End of picture text -----

1,265 10,112 Adult Youth who are monitors members of 500 monitoring youth clubs

----- Start of picture text -----
53% 52% 50% 59% 65%
70%
60% e
50% o————— e —, ——
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
----- End of picture text -----

Cumulative Fix Rate over time

6

Working in genuine partnership

Integrity Action’s approach to serving citizens is always carried out with partner organisations and we strive to ensure our partnerships are balanced and reciprocal. Our approach to partnerships has been showcased by Bond, the UK’s foremost network for international development organisations, and the UK Aid Direct fund. In line with our Gender and Social Justice ~~TT~~ commitments this year (see page 19), we invited partners to complete an annual survey about their experience of working with us.

----- Start of picture text -----
“I like the “Our “Integrity
co-creation partnership has Action is the lead
approach, and enabled more partner for international
in particular the frequent meetings and global networking.
enthusiasm which with both county A centre of knowledge
the Integrity and national and innovation
Action team government for participatory
showed in the officials” methodology and
entire process.” integrity building.”
----- End of picture text -----

WE AIM TO: • Foster more collaborative design and decisionmaking with partners and see higher scores in 2022.

Year in review VNIVEIiSITV TY CLts8

8 _

What we achieved

Despite the many challenges posed by the continuing pandemic this year, Integrity Action has remained focussed on delivering impact in partnership with local, national, and international organisations, as well as working increasingly with governments. You can read more about our partners on page 6.

We supported over 11,000 citizens to fix problems and build badly-needed trust

This year citizen monitors have been securing safe water and toilet facilities for pregnant women, ensuring the successful construction of school facilities, and much more besides. Overall they identified 2,116 problems relating to local services and projects and secured solutions to 1,810 of those – a Fix Rate of 86%. You can see the range of problems and fixes via developmentcheck.org.

As well as this mountain of fixes, we saw evidence that our approach may ~~—~~ have helped to reduce unrest in schools. In Kenya , where we have worked with partners to establish student monitoring clubs at secondary level since 2017, unrest in schools has been well-documented: a Parliamentary committee highlighted over 100 cases of such unrest in 2018, with some situations turning violent. The committee cited dissatisfaction among students and a “disconnect” between them and their teachers.

However, senior staff in multiple schools involved in our work have said the Integrity Clubs have made a big difference to the relationships between staff and students, and have given the latter a peaceful, constructive way to air grievances and seek solutions.

Before, they burnt the dormitories to address an issue. Nowadays they use the communication channels and are welcome to approach the teachers and management.

Duncan Orina

Deputy Principal Lutsangani Secondary School

We found a new way to deliver our added value

In 2021 we saw unprecedented demand for our expertise. To respond to this, we began providing mentoring and guidance to champions from civil society and government who are passionate about promoting accountability to citizens. This approach combines our international experience and technical knowledge with the expertise and delivery capacity of partners and institutions. For example, the Open Government ~~oo~~ Partnership called on us to provide an expert webinar to their new cohort of 50 local governments, followed by in-depth mentoring. We are also starting a partnership in South Africa which will enhance local government accountability.

We pushed for systemic change that lasts

More organisations and public bodies are adopting and embedding our approach well after projects are finished, for example:

9

We generated new and valuable knowledge for us and the sector

This year we published research and learning on a series of important questions facing our sector, from sustaining the impact of social accountability to understanding why public officials and other “dutybearers” act with integrity (see p10 for details). This knowledge received plaudits from influencers such as Twaweza in East Africa and the Accountability Research Center in the US, and shaped our approach to our work in 2022 and beyond.

We collaborated with leading sector voices to make the case for citizen-centred accountability

This year we joined forces with leading accountability sector partners BudgIT (West Africa), Integrity Watch Afghanistan and Twaweza (East Africa) to develop a fresh argument for citizen-centred accountability, envisioning a collaborative social compact between citizens and the state, rather than a transactional social contract. This will be essential to tackling the major challenges of our time, including climate change, Covid, and spiralling inequality. We are now taking this vision further to inspire fresh thinking in the wider sector including on how programmes are shaped and funds allocated.

In my community people call me to take photos if there is any broken tap in our dispensary. People call me ‘the saviour’ just because I use technology and report problems.

Lameck

Despite funding pressure, we made sure programmes left a legacy

Integrity Action, like many organisations, has faced funding cuts to several programmes this year. Some were forced to close early. In all cases, no matter the circumstances of closure, we worked hard with our partners to ensure those initiatives were phased out in a conscientious and purposeful way to maximise lasting impact.

In our partnership with Raleigh International in Tanzania , the programme promoted the approach in over 1,000 additional communities beyond those where monitors were active. Meanwhile 91% of the young monitors said the programme would continue in their community. In the SHINE programme which has promoted accountability in schools in DR Congo , Kenya , Nepal , Palestine and Afghanistan (see page 15 for more), partners have taken a range of approaches to ensuring sustainability, from influencing national school curricula to embedding student-led monitoring in schools.

In the Development Alternative, a consortium-led programme active in Uganda and Madagascar since 2019, the youth-led accountability model has been integrated within other programmes run by consortium members, ensuring the programme’s innovative approach can keep on delivering impact well after it closes. We are also working with partners to fundraise for follow-on activities and supporting them to adapt tools and methodologies so they can be continued at low cost.

THANK YOU to our funders

Integrity Action’s work to improve citizens’ lives would not be possible without the crucial support of our funders. This year we thank the following existing and new funders for their contribution to our work:

Community monitor Ngerengere village, Tanzania

10 a

What we learned

In 2021, Integrity Action transformed its research and learning offer to the wider field. We published three highly original research reports (see below), three learning papers, and various blogs and articles tackling questions that have preoccupied the transparency and accountability sector for many years. Altogether this was more learning than we have ever produced in a single year. We are thrilled to be turning our programming, and our long experience of citizen-centred accountability, into products that our peers can use to enhance their own work. More on our learning here ~~-~~ .

As well as contributing knowledge to the wider field, we are applying our learning to current and future programmes, by (for example) looking for ways to create alliances between citizens and local officials, deepening our focus on the need for quality and reliable information for citizens, and adapting our digital tools so they add more value to civil society and government. We are excited about our learning pipeline, with one study underway in Ghana exploring to what extent citizen monitoring can save public money. Watch this space!

Research we published in 2021

How to sustain mechanisms for accountability

Citizen monitoring, social audits, platforms for feedback… these are just a few ways in which citizens express their views on public services and hold them to account. But what’s the point in setting them up if we can’t make them last?

This research interviewed 25 top practitioners from around the world, ran an online brainstorm with 70 experts, and consulted Integrity Action’s partners and citizen monitors. Respecting the variety of contexts in which people work, this research provided “stimulation, not recommendation” and gave a host of ideas on funding models, ways to keep citizens motivated, and longterm partnerships with government.

What makes frontline dutybearers act with integrity?

What turns a problem into a fix?

If Integrity Action and our wider Through Integrity Action community are going to achieve programmes, monitors have impact that lasts then we must identified many thousands of better understand how to motivate problems with public services and and enable “frontline duty-bearers” projects – and fixed 65% of them. But – such as teachers and health what helps a problem become a fix? workers – to serve the public with We are uniquely positioned to tackle integrity. this question due to the wealth of problem-solving experience within To explore this, the research our programmes. conducted surveys and interviews with more than 100 teachers and This research looked at problemhealth workers, primarily in Kenya solving pathways in Palestine, Kenya ~~a~~ and Nepal. The researchers also and Afghanistan and found three consulted sector experts and did factors to be particularly important in a literature review. Among other catalysing a fix: mutual trust between findings, the study heard that dutycitizens and duty-bearers; citizens bearers primarily needed a decent having information on what they were work environment, and that they do promised; and duty-bearers having place value on citizen engagement. sufficient capacity to engage.

11 Stories from our work ,1111 Il 11

12 a

Citizens and government working together for integrity

IN KENYA

When local government official Hannah Ngala first started working with community monitors, she had little idea how popular she would become.

In rural Kwale County, Kenya – which has among the highest levels of poverty among Kenya’s counties – there is traditionally mistrust or resignation towards local government. But according to an independent evaluation of Integrity Action’s work with two partners, KYGC and KCNRN, that’s changing in the area where Hannah is based. Indeed, the evaluation said that people see Hannah as a “darling of the community”!

But why? Firstly, the community has recently seen the timely implementation of quality infrastructure projects like a new bus park, market wall fence and slaughterhouse – all projects which were kept on track by community monitors and local authority counterparts like Hannah. In Kwale

County, construction of planned government infrastructure and swift resolution of problems has previously not been the norm.

There is also her close collaboration with citizen monitors. There is now a direct line of communication between Hannah and the monitors which keeps everyone in the loop and allows for the swift resolution of issues. This means that even when there is a problem that takes time to resolve, people aren’t left in the dark.

Hannah, and other stories like hers, have helped us to rethink the role public officials play in Integrity Action’s programming. Hannah isn’t just being “held to account” and responding to citizens – she is actively working with monitors to solve problems, sometimes approaching a contractor to secure a fix. Hannah even took part in the monitors’ training, which helped her to read crucial – though complex – project documents and contracts.

Another interesting outcome of the VOICE programme in Kenya is that

project management committees, or PMCs – community committees that oversee local projects and are required by local government – have been made stronger by monitors. PMCs can easily be duped by contractors who might wish to take shortcuts in construction, but now monitors are training some PMCs so they can ask the right questions.

This all adds up to some wonderful, and new, collaboration taking place in communities: monitors, local officials and PMCs working together to ensure vital infrastructure is delivered properly. See more here.

The community’s perception of women’s leadership improved… the community now sees Hannah as an opinion leader and potential future political leader in the community.

Independent evaluators

of VOICE programme

13

Youth promoting accountability in Tanzania: A story in 5 charts

Reaching its conclusion in July 2021, the Social Accountability through Youth in Tanzania (SAY) programme was a resounding success. The partnership between Raleigh International and Integrity Action saw around 400 young Tanzanians in 179 communities monitor projects and services while using DevelopmentCheck to record problems and solutions. Here’s the story of the programme - in data.

Problems & fixes over time (quarterly) The Fix Rate kept on rising

----- Start of picture text -----
1400 90%
80%
1200
70%
1000
60%
800 50%
600 40%
30%
400
20%
200
10%
0 0%
2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q4 2020 Q1 2020 Q2 2020 Q3 2020 Q4 2021 Q1 2021 Q2
Problems Fixes Fix Rate (cumulative)
% FIX RATE
# OF PROBLEMS & FIXES
----- End of picture text -----

----- Start of picture text -----
Monitoring suspended
due to pandemic
----- End of picture text -----

Monitor effectiveness grew and grew — despite Covid

Monitors identified over 4,000 problems over three years, and by the end of the programme had solved 80% of them – an outstanding Fix Rate. During the programme the Fix Rate continued to rise, save for the period in 2020 when Covid prevented monitoring altogether. All this suggests the young monitors became increasingly effective and progressively built trust during the programme.

“By collaborating with the local government leaders [the monitors] have brought together community members and service providers, and together discussed and managed to find solutions”

COMMUNITY MEMBER Mtoni, Tanzania

“Most of the issues that prevailed for a very long time like water supply problems … have been rectified, since we have been identifying them during monitoring and presenting them to the responsible authorities”

FEMALE MONITOR

SAY programme

----- Start of picture text -----
Solved within programme
(i.e. Fix Rate)
Solved within year
Solved within six months
Solved within quarter
Solved within month
Solved same week
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Total Total unfixed
----- End of picture text -----

Half of all problems were solved inside 3 months — but some took much longer

Out of all the problems identified, 27% were solved within a week, and half were solved within three months. This means there were plenty of “quick wins”, which are important for building trust and maintaining the motivation of monitors. That trust-building might have come in handy for the 229 problems (5%) that took over a year to solve.

14 a

Apart from these tHREE, all other approaches to problem-solving involved

. 3 All types of problem had a high Fix Rate

some form of face-to-face dialogue

DevelopmentCheck splits problems into core categories. Across all of these categories, Fix Rates were high – at least 76%. We might have expected problems concerning a lack of resources and capacity to be the hardest to solve, as this could indicate a systemic problem which can’t be fixed locally. But in SAY, this category had the highest Fix Rate of all – 85%.

I used Social media (Facebook, twitter, Whatsapp)

I met with someone who runs or implements the project

I didn’t need to do anything to fix this problem

Problem categories with Fix Rate

I met with the authorities/ government

----- Start of picture text -----
1400 82% 85% 90% government
79% 79%
76% 77%
80% I organised a
1200 community meeting
70%
I organised a Joint Working
1000 Group/Monitoring committee
60%
None of the above
800 50%
“Forming the joint
600 40% working group had the
30% greatest impact. Through the 4 The value of face-to-face
400
JWG we were able to solve
20% collaboration
200 many issues identified during
10% the monitoring, which before Among the 3,456 fixes registered
0 vlanhal 0% the SAY programme had . in DevelopmentCheck, there were
Lack of Impact to Poor maintenance Low quality or Problems with Not enough
information to surrounding incorrect accessibility or resources or seemed unfixable.” 666 cases in which the monitors
community environment resources inclusion capacity
MALE MONITOR highlighted the most important
Problems Fixes Fix Rate
% FIX RATE
# OF PROBLEMS & FIXES
----- End of picture text -----

I organised a Joint Working Group/Monitoring committee None of the above

Among the 3,456 fixes registered in DevelopmentCheck, there were 666 cases in which the monitors highlighted the most important thing they did to secure a solution. “Joint working group/monitoring committee” was far ahead of the other options. A joint working group is a key part of Integrity Action’s methodology — a regular, constructive meeting where the monitors discuss their findings with the people responsible for the project or service being monitored. This underlines the importance of face-to-face interaction in problem-solving.

MALE MONITOR SAY programme

----- Start of picture text -----
25 136 SDGs 5 Over 3,000 contributions
to the SDGs
1 No poverty
eo 136 . 12 Responsible consumption © 3,031 of the 3,456 reported fixes could
and production be linked to one of the Sustainable
13 Life on land
Development Goals. Indeed, each of
16 Peace, justice and
2294 239 strong institutions those fixes was linked to a specific SDG
3 Good health and indicator, giving a detailed picture of
well-being the impact of monitoring. SDG 6 – clean
5 Gender equality water and sanitation – was by far the
55 135 6 Clean waterand sanitation8 Decent work and largest because many water-related projects were monitored. Other fixes projects were monitored. Other fixes
11
oe - economic growth were linked to seven further SDGs.
----- End of picture text -----

3,031 of the 3,456 reported fixes could be linked to one of the Sustainable Development Goals. Indeed, each of those fixes was linked to a specific SDG indicator, giving a detailed picture of the impact of monitoring. SDG 6 – clean water and sanitation – was by far the largest because many water-related projects were monitored. Other fixes projects were monitored. Other fixes were linked to seven further SDGs.

15

Is it OK when citizens themselves? fix things

It’s one of the questions we are most often asked: what happens when citizens identify a problem, and it doesn’t get fixed?

We know many citizen monitors continue to follow things up, using their incredible energy and engagement to find a solution. But if the people responsible – whether it is building contractors or headteachers – aren’t able to provide that fix, then sometimes citizens decide to fix it themselves.

But wait – isn’t this a problem? Citizens have the right to decent services. They shouldn’t be stepping in to fix those services themselves, should they? One story from Nepal shows it’s not that simple.

Increasingly frustrated at the smelly, dirty, single toilet that was continually blocked, students at Jaya Bageshwari School wrote to the principal about the unacceptable conditions that were deterring children, especially girls, from attending school. Those students were part of an Integrity Club, set up as part of Integrity Action’s SHINE programme.

When the principal failed to reply, the students next tried the School Management Committee – and despite an agreement to act, after two months nothing was done.

At this point, the Integrity Club and focal teachers began to think outside of the box — and the school. They raised 50,000 Nepalese rupees from the community (about

US$415), which was matched by the same amount from the municipal authorities. This was enough to construct new, gender- and disability-sensitive toilets – but it seems this wouldn’t have happened without the community pitching in.

We saw a similar story at a school in DR Congo, where neighbouring communities were using a public area by a school to dump hazardous waste. The fix? Integrity Club members cleared the area themselves, but then worked with a local government official to educate the community, while also convincing the school to construct a fence to prevent the problem from recurring.

So Integrity Action’s approach to these “DIY fixes” is more nuanced

than it used to be. Citizens do deserve their entitlements – like decent toilets and a safe environment at school – but when governments lack resources and trust might be low, “doing it yourself” might be one way to get things working again.

It is also worth asking: to what extent is international development a “DIY fix”, with social change organisations stepping in when governments can’t? Sometimes that is the case – and sometimes that is what is needed. But Integrity Action takes a different approach. We are dedicated to making things work in the way that they should , so that citizens can consistently and sustainably receive the services they are entitled to.

16 Progress towards our goals E611IT¥

17

INTEGRITY ACTION’S

Questions for 2021-22

Theory of change

How should our strategy and approach take account of…

What we have seen in 2020-21

Like many organisations, Integrity Action has a theory of change which maps our goal and the changes we believe are needed to reach it. So, are we seeing those changes? What’s the evidence? Read on for more - and head to our website for our detailed theory of change!

Citizens are motivated, able and have the knowledge they need to demand integrity

GOAL

Xi Pt Societies in which all owe citizens can -and do - • High Fix Rates (>70%) in Tanzania and Kenya indicate successfully demand responsiveness. integrity from the institutions they • VOICE (Kenya) evaluation showed that, through problem-solving, rely on Trusted duty-bearers can gain greater status in their community. Institutions are platforms are • Our research showed frontline duty-bearers in Kenya, Nepal, committed, permitted sustainably embedded DR Congo and Afghanistan are keen for more citizen and have the capacity and accessible to engagement. to respond to citizens’ all citizens and demands institutions • Our research also demonstrated human capacity of dutybearers 8 a a

• Citizen monitoring can strengthen participation platforms that are institutionalised. In Kenya, some monitors have joined pre-existing project management committees. Members of those committees have joined monitor training.

Changes needed to bring about our goal

Links showing how change in one area can strengthen another Monitor A citizen monitor taking part in an Integrity Action programme

Duty-bearer Someone who performs a duty or provides a service to citizens

18

Progress towards our strategic objectives

2020-21

At the end of 2020-21, Integrity Action shifted to an adaptive approach to its organisational strategy, in response to the rapidly changing climate in which we work.

This will boost our ability to test new solutions and adapt rapidly to the major crises we are observing, including Covid, climate breakdown, and rising inequality. It will also help us to maintain cost efficiency while accelerating progress towards our mission.

This means the strategy is currently not “time-bound”, and the first adjustments will manifest in 2021-22. We are proud to have made the progress outlined here.

ACHIEVE

Achieve results for citizens that maximise quality, durability, and inclusivity

AMPLIFY

Collaborate to amplify results and fuel further innovation

CONVINCE

Build a robust case for open citizen feedback to inspire its mainstreaming

19

INTRODUCING

Our new Gender and Social Justice Approach

Based on our experiences of gender equality and social inclusion over the past four years, we are excited to have launched our new Gender and Social Justice Approach. Built around 23 commitments to our field and, most importantly, the people we work with, it is divided into three areas of change – our organisation, our programming, and our sector.

The partnership with Integrity Action has improved our understanding of Gender and Social Inclusion and how to integrate it in all our programming

Integrity Action partner feedback provided via anonymous partner survey (see page 6)

Combining incremental and transformational change promises, the leitmotifs of our approach include intersectionality, participation of and accountability to local voices, recognition of power and privilege, collaboration, and sector decolonisation.

In line with the idea that ‘no goal should be met unless it is met for everyone’, development of the approach was a team effort, where staff could contribute with their promises and take full ownership of what we want to achieve.

To ensure accountability, we will publicly report on our commitments and achievements each year, as well identifying lessons learnt and how our work is adapted from that learning.

For the coming financial year, we will be focusing on areas including how to rebalance unequal relationships with our partners in the spirit of #ShiftThePower, recruiting two trustees to help catalyse our justice agenda and devising a fairer and more inclusive staff hiring process.

20

Financial review

RESERVES POLICY

We aim to hold sufficient reserves to:

Integrity Action’s reserves policy is reviewed on an annual basis as part of the overall risk management of the organisation. Reserves can only be spent with the explicit permission of the Board and on the advice of the Audit Committee.

In view of the greater level of uncertainty caused by the Covid pandemic and shifts in our funding environment, while maintaining the approach that the reserves should not be set too high as this would tie up funds which could and should be spent on charitable activities, the Board has set the following reserves:

Support for technological platform and communication objectives: £120k - £150k

Working capital requirements (30% of target project spend for following year): £360k - £400k

6 months of fixed expenditure: £350k - £450k

Total target: £830k - £1m

The balance sheet shows unrestricted reserves of £823k (£29k increase in FY21) excluding the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation grant which is not allowed to be added to reserves (2021: £251k).

Total funds were £1.2m (2020: £1.25m) and included a restricted fund balance of £99k (2020: £220k). This restricted balance will be used in the next accounting period for specific programme-related purposes.

INCOME

The majority of our income comes from institutional donors and private foundations. It decreased by 16% this year from £1.35m to £1.14m. The decrease has been due to an especially challenging fundraising environment created by the Covid outbreak.

----- Start of picture text -----
£52 716 £601 889
USAID-AKF Yetu Swedish International
Development
£85 155 Cooperation Agency
Restless (Sida)
Development
(DFID AID Connect £188 800
funding) Norwegian Agency
for Development
£182 981 Cooperation (Norad)
The William and
Flora Hewlett £20 477
Foundation Other
----- End of picture text -----

FUNDRAISING POLICY

As noted above our funds come mainly from institutional donors and foundations. We do not raise funds from the general public. Our funding policy, which aligns with our organisation’s values, can be found on our website.

EXPENDITURE

Our total expenditure of £1.19m (2020: £1.32m) was in line with plans for the projects already in progress at the start of the year.

COVID IMPACT

The pandemic has continued to negatively impact our operations and fundraising. The operational effect was mainly reflected in limits on movement of monitors and school closures. Unlike in FY20, some confirmed contracts were terminated due to funders’ reduction in funds.

21

PAY POLICY FOR SENIOR STAFF

The Chief Executive Officer and the trustees are the key management personnel of the charity. The Chief Executive Officer is in charge of directing, controlling, running and operating the charity on a day-to-day basis.

The total employee benefits of the key management personnel are included in Note 3 to the accounts.

Executive Pay is reviewed and set by the Remuneration Committee on an annual basis.

All trustees give their time freely and no trustee received remuneration in the year for this role. Details of trustees’ expenses and related party transactions are disclosed in Notes 4 and 12 to the accounts respectively.

RISK

Sustaining impact

Integrity Action’s approach does not have the level of sustainability or scalability that is expected by donors and the sector.

MITIGATING MEASURES

Integrate research findings with our work to achieve more sustainable interventions. Work with a coalition of organisations to achieve systemic changes (firstly urging funders to devote more funds to our field). Ensure learning and research has the broadest reach and impact possible. Pursue design and mentoring partnerships to achieve more systemic change within countries.

RISK MANAGEMENT

The Board has considered the major risks to which the charity is exposed and satisfied themselves that systems or procedures are established in order to manage those risks.

A detailed strategic and operational risk register is updated by the senior management team ahead of each quarterly Board meeting. The risk register states the risk appetite for each risk, estimates the likelihood and impact of the risk, notes the changes since the last review, details the actions which have been taken to manage the risk and calculates a post-mitigation risk score. This ensures the Board effectively tracks significant risks and are assured that the control procedures are adequate to manage these risks. The key risks identified for the coming financial year are as follows:

Technology

Investment in technology fails to deliver sustainable and user-friendly solutions.

Funding

We are unable to generate the funding needed to deliver the objectives and to cover our overheads.

IT system failure

Key digital systems are hacked, or fail/crash (including DevCheck, finance system, Google drive, Epay). Data is compromised or corrupted.

Technology review to assess how the current system (DevCheck) responds to the present environment and to suggest ways forward.

Scenario planning is repeated on a periodical basis to maintain clarity of long-term view of the likely impact of fundraising. Use integrated FY Business Plan + Development Plan + programmatic vision and monitor progress regularly (e.g. Funding KPIs). Explore new approaches to fundraising.

Use of industry standard security software and maintenance of regular contact with all providers. Business continuity plan in place and implemented.

22

PUBLIC BENEFIT

The Board confirms they have complied with their duty in Section 17 of the Charities Act 2011 to have due regard to the public beneft guidance published by the Charity Commission for England and Wales. The trustees further confirm that the activities of Integrity Action are carried out, in line with its objectives, for the public benefit as described in this report.

STRUCTURE, GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

The Board of Trustees governs the organisation in line with its Memorandum and Articles of Association, vision, aims and charitable objectives, as well as providing overall policy direction. The Board is responsible for compliance with all the legal and statutory requirements of a UK charity and of a registered company.

The organisation is run by the CEO who has overall responsibility for strategic and programmatic development and design, operations, fundraising and finances. The CEO manages the Senior Management Team that includes the Head of Operations, Head of Programme Development and Head of Funding. The Board is governed by a Governance Manual. The Governance Manual stipulates the provisions for appointments to the Board, their term limits and nominations and appointments to the positions of Chair and the various committees of the Board. These include:

STATEMENT OF TRUSTEE’S RESPONSIBILITIES

TRUSTEE ATTENDANCE AT BOARD MEETINGS

----- Start of picture text -----
BOARD MEMBER 16 DEC 20 17 MAR 21 16 JUN 21 22 SEP 21
Alan Barlow Yes Yes Yes Yes
Sam De Silva Yes Yes Yes Yes
Gail Klintworth Yes Yes Yes Yes
Merryl Lawry-White No Yes Yes Yes
Laurence Lee No Yes Yes No
Paul Maassen Yes Yes Yes No
Siobhan Turner Yes Yes Yes Yes
Philip Welply Yes Yes Yes Yes
----- End of picture text -----

Each Board member has taken responsibility for monitoring the charity’s activities in specific operational areas and constant attention is paid to the skills mix of the trustees to ensure that the Board has all the necessary skills required to contribute fully to the charity’s development.

The trustees (who are also directors of Integrity Action for the purposes of company law) are responsible for preparing the trustees’ report and financial statements in accordance with applicable law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

Company law requires the trustees to prepare financial statements for each financial year which give a true and fair view of the position of the charitable company and of the incoming resources and application of resources, including the income and expenditure, of the charitable company for that period. In preparing these financial statements, the trustees are required to:

23 _

The trustees are responsible for keeping adequate accounting records that disclose with reasonable accuracy at any time the financial position of the charity and enable them to ensure that the financial statements comply with the Companies Act 2006.

They are also responsible for safeguarding the assets of the charity and hence for taking reasonable steps for the prevention and detection of fraud and other irregularities.

The trustees are responsible for the maintenance and integrity of the corporate and financial information included on the charitable company’s website. Legislation in the United Kingdom governing the preparation and dissemination of financial statements may differ from legislation in other jurisdictions.

Each of the trustees confirms that:

This confirmation is given and should be interpreted in accordance with the provisions of s418 of the Companies Act 2006.

Gail Klintworth, Chair of the Board 24 January 2022

Independent auditor’s report to the members of Integrity Action

OPINION

We have audited the financial statements of Integrity Action (the ‘charitable company’) for the year ended 30 September 2021 which comprise the statement of financial activities, the balance sheet, and statement of cash flows, the principal accounting policies and the notes to the financial statements. The financial reporting framework that has been applied in their preparation is applicable by law and United Kingdom Accounting Standards, including Financial Reporting Standard 102 ‘The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland’ (United Kingdom Generally Accepted Accounting Practice).

In our opinion, the financial statements:

BASIS FOR OPINION

We conducted our audit in accordance with the International Standards on Auditing (UK) (ISAs (UK)) and applicable law. Our responsibilities under those standards are further described in the auditor’s responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements section of our report. We are independent of the charitable company in accordance with the ethical requirements that are relevant to our audit of the financial statements in the UK, including the FRC’s Ethical Standard, and we have fulfilled our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with these requirements. We believe that the audit evidence we have obtained is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion.

24

CONCLUSIONS RELATING TO GOING CONCERN

In auditing the financial statements, we have concluded that the trustees’ use of the going concern basis of accounting in the preparation of the financial statements is appropriate.

Based on the work we have performed, we have not identified any material uncertainties relating to events or conditions that, individually or collectively, may cast significant doubt on the charitable company’s ability to continue as a going concern for a period of at least twelve months from when the financial statements are authorised for issue.

Our responsibilities and the responsibilities of the trustees with respect to going concern are described in the relevant sections of this report.

OTHER INFORMATION

The trustees are responsible for the other information. The other information comprises the information included in the annual report and financial statements, other than the financial statements and our auditor’s report thereon. Our opinion on the financial statements does not cover the other information and, except to the extent otherwise explicitly stated in our report, we do not express any form of assurance conclusion thereon.

In connection with our audit of the financial statements, our responsibility is to read the other information and, in doing so, consider whether the other information is materially inconsistent with the financial statements or our knowledge obtained in the audit or otherwise appears to be materially misstated. If we identify such material inconsistencies or apparent material misstatements, we are required to determine whether there is a material misstatement in the financial statements or a material misstatement of the other information. If, based on the work we have performed, we conclude that there is a material misstatement of this other information, we are required to report that fact.

We have nothing to report in this regard.

OPINIONS ON OTHER MATTERS PRESCRIBED BY THE COMPANIES ACT 2006

In our opinion, based on the work undertaken in the course of the audit:

MATTERS ON WHICH WE ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT BY EXCEPTION

In the light of the knowledge and understanding of the charitable company and its environment obtained in the course of the audit, we have not identified material misstatements in the trustees’ report. We have nothing to report in respect of the following matters in relation to which the Companies Act 2006 requires us to report to you if, in our opinion:

RESPONSIBILITIES OF TRUSTEES

As explained more fully in the trustees’ responsibilities statement, the trustees (who are also the directors of the charitable company for the purposes of company law) are responsible for the preparation of the financial statements and for being satisfied that they give a true and fair view, and for such internal control as the trustees determine is necessary to enable the preparation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error.

In preparing the financial statements, the trustees are responsible for assessing the charitable company’s ability to continue as a going concern, disclosing, as applicable, matters related to going concern and using the going concern basis of accounting unless the trustees either intend to liquidate the charitable company or to cease operations, or have no realistic alternative but to do so.

25

AUDITOR’S RESPONSIBILITIES FOR THE AUDIT OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Our objectives are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance, but is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with ISAs (UK) will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if, individually or in the aggregate, they could reasonably be expected to influence the economic decisions of users taken on the basis of these financial statements.

Irregularities, including fraud, are instances of non-compliance with laws and regulations. We design procedures in line with our responsibilities, outlined above, to detect material misstatements in respect of irregularities, including fraud. The extent to which our procedures are capable of detecting irregularities, including fraud is detailed below:

Our approach to identifying and assessing the risks of material misstatement in respect of irregularities, including fraud and non-compliance with laws and regulations, was as follows:

We assessed the susceptibility of the charity’s financial statements to material misstatement, including obtaining an understanding of how fraud might occur, by:

To address the risk of fraud through management bias and override of controls, we:

In response to the risk of irregularities and non-compliance with laws and regulations, we designed procedures which included, but were not limited to:

As a result of our procedures, we did not identify any key audit matters relating to irregularities.

There are inherent limitations in our audit procedures described above. The more removed that laws and regulations are from financial transactions, the less likely it is that we would become aware of non-compliance. Auditing standards also limit the audit procedures required to identify non-compliance with laws and regulations to enquiry of the trustees and other management and the inspection of regulatory and legal correspondence, if any.

Material misstatements that arise due to fraud can be harder to detect than those that arise from error as they may involve deliberate concealment or collusion.

A further description of our responsibilities for the audit of the financial statements is located on the Financial Reporting Council’s website at www.frc.org.uk/auditorsresponsibilities. This description forms part of our auditor’s report.

26 |

USE OF OUR REPORT

This report is made solely to the charitable company’s members, as a body, in accordance with Chapter 3 of Part 16 of the Companies Act 2006. Our audit work has been undertaken so that we might state to the charitable company’s members those matters we are required to state to them in an auditor’s report and for no other purpose. To the fullest extent permitted by law, we do not accept or assume responsibility to anyone other than the charitable company and the charitable company’s members as a body, for our audit work, for this report, or for the opinions we have formed.

Hugh Swainson (Senior Statutory Auditor) 31 January 2022 For and on behalf of Buzzacott LLP, Statutory Auditor 130 Wood Street London EC2V 6DL

Statement of Financial Activities

(incorporating the income and expenditure account)

YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

Note Unrestricted Restricted 2021 2020
funds funds Total funds Total funds
£ £ £ £
Income
Investment income 3,511 16 3,527 1,555
Charitable activities
Grants, donations and
consultancies 1 784,871 347,148 1,132,019 1,346,089
Total income 788,382 347,164 1,135,546 1,347,644
Expenditure
Raising funds 62,973 - 62,973 43,421
Charitable activities
Open Citizen Feedback 688,856 439,514 1,128,370 1,274,227
Total expenditure 2 751,829 439,514 1,191,343 1,317,648
Net income/
(expenditure) before
transfers
Transfers between		 36,553
(92,350)
(55,797)
29,996
~~a~~
funds 9 29,258 (29,258) - -
Net movement in funds 65,811 (121,608) (55,797) 29,996
Funds as at 1 October 1,031,718 220,122 1,251,840 1,221,844
Funds as at 30
September 9 1,097,529 98,514 1,196,043 1,251,840

The Statement of Financial Activities includes all gains and losses recognised in the year. All income and expenditure derives from continuing activities.

27 _

BALANCE SHEET AS AT 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

Note 2021 2020
£ £
Current assets
Debtors and accrued
income 7 82,262 13,956
Cash at bank and in hand 1,175,134 1,284,231
Total current assets 1,257,396 1,298,187
Liabilities
Creditors: Amounts
falling due within one year 8 61,353 46,347
Net current assets and
net assets 1,196,043 1,251,840
The funds of the charity
Unrestricted 1,097,529 1,031,718
Restricted 98,514 220,122
Total funds 9,10 1,196,043 1,251,840

STATEMENT OF CASHFLOWS YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

Note 2021 2020
£ £
Net cash (outflow)/inflow from operating
activities 13 (109,097) 10,035
Change in cash and cash equivalents
in the year (109,097) 10,035
Cash and cash equivalents at 1 October 1,284,231 1,274,196
Cash and cash equivalents at 30 September 1,175,134 1,284,231

No separate statement of changes in net debt has been prepared as there is no difference between the net cash and net debt of the charity.

Approved by the trustees and signed on their behalf by:

Gail Klintworth

Chair of the Board 24 January 2022 Company registration number: 4884328

28

PRINCIPLE ACCOUNTING POLICIES YEAR ENDED 30 SEPTEMBER 2021

Basis of accounting

Critical accounting judgements and estimates

The financial statements have been prepared in accordance In preparing these financial with Accounting and Reporting statements, management has by Charities: Statement of made judgements, estimates Recommended Practice (Charities and assumptions that affect SORP) applicable to charities the application of the charity’s preparing their accounts in accounting policies and the accordance with the Financial reported assets, liabilities, income Reporting Standard applicable in the and expenditure and the disclosures UK and Republic of Ireland (FRS 102). made in the financial statements. Estimates and judgements are Integrity Action meets the definition continually evaluated and are based of a public benefit entity under FRS on historical experience and other 102. Assets and liabilities are initially factors, including expectations of recognised at historical cost or future events, which are believed transaction value unless otherwise to be reasonable under the stated in the relevant accounting circumstances.

Integrity Action meets the definition of a public benefit entity under FRS 102. Assets and liabilities are initially recognised at historical cost or transaction value unless otherwise stated in the relevant accounting policy note.

Income and expenditure

Preparation of accounts on a going concern basis

Income from charitable activities is recognised when the charity is legally entitled to the income, any performance conditions attached to the income have been met, receipt is probable and the amount can be measured reliably.

Based on a review of the financial position, reserves levels and future plans, the Board of trustees considers that there are no material uncertainties about the charity’s ability to continue as a going concern. In making this assessment, the trustees have considered the impact of the Covid pandemic on the charity, as outlined in the Trustees Report.

Income is deferred when the charity has to fulfil conditions before becoming entitled to it, for example if activities related to the income have not yet begun or the funder has specified that the income is to be expended in a future accounting period.

Investment income is recognised on a receivable basis once the amounts can be measured reliably.

Expenditure is recognised when there is a legal or constructive obligation to make a payment to a third party, it is probable that settlement will be required and the amount of the obligation can be measured reliably.

Partnership costs are amounts paid/payable to our implementing partners. They are recognised in the period in which they are payable. An accrual is made when activities have been undertaken but payment is in arrears and has not been made at the year end.

Tangible fixed assets

All assets costing more than £3,000 (including VAT) and with an expected useful life exceeding one year are capitalised.

Software development costs are not capitalised.

Restricted funds

Income received for purposes specified by the donor are shown as restricted income in the Statement of Financial Activities. Expenditure for the purposes specified is applied to the relevant fund and any unexpended amount at the balance sheet date is carried forward within restricted funds.

Foreign currencies

Assets and liabilities in foreign currencies are translated into sterling at the rates of exchange ruling at the balance sheet date. Transactions in foreign currencies are translated into sterling at the rate of exchange ruling at the date of the transaction. Exchange differences are taken into account in arriving at the net movement in funds.

Employee termination benefits

Termination benefits are accounted for on an accrual basis and in line with FRS 102.

Pension scheme

Integrity Action operates a defined contribution pension scheme for the

29

benefit of its employees. The assets of the scheme are held independently from those of the charity in an independently administered fund. Pension costs charged in the financial statements represent the contributions payable during the year.

Notes to the financial statements

Operating leases

Rental charges are charged on a straight-line basis over the life of the lease.

GRANTS, DONATIONS AND CONSULTANCIES

Debtors

Short term debtors are measured at transaction price, less any impairment.

Creditors and provisions

Creditors and provisions are recognised where the charity has a present obligation resulting from a past event that will probably result in the transfer of funds to a third party and the amount due to settle the obligation can be measured or estimated reliably. Creditors and provisions are normally recognised at their settlement amount after allowing for any trade discounts due.

Cash at bank and in hand

Cash at bank and cash in hand includes cash and short term highly liquid investments with a maturity date of three months or less.

Taxation

Integrity Action is a registered charity and, as such, is exempt from taxation on its income to the extent it is applied to its charitable purposes.

Financial instruments

The charity only has financial assets and financial liabilities of a kind that qualify as basic financial instruments. Basic financial instruments, including trade and other debtors and creditors are initially recognised at transaction value and subsequently measured at their settlement value.

Unrestricted
Swedish International Development
Cooperation Agency (Sida)
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Total unrestricted
Restricted
Norwegian Agency for Development
Cooperation (Norad)
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
Raleigh International Trust
(DFID Aid Direct funding)
Restless Development
(DFID AID Connect funding)
Terre des Hommes
USAID-AKF Yetu
Total restricted
Total grants, donations and consultancies		 2021
2020
£
£
601,890
563,017
182,981
201,733
784,871
764,750
188,800
282,208
-
44,290
20,477
22,421
85,155
208,979
-
23,441
52,716
-
347,148
581,339
1,132,019
1,346,090

30

2 EXPENDITURE

STAFF COSTS

Note
Partnership
costs
Staff costs
3
Technical
assistance
IT and software
development
Rent, rates and
other ofce
costs
Travel and
events
Governance
(excluding staff
costs)
Programme
development
costs
Other costs
Total
expenditure		 Open
Citizen
Feedback
£
Raising
funds
£
Total
£
379,357
-
379,357
547,574
28,724
576,298
535
-
535
9,311
-
9,311
43,999
2,308
46,307
776
-
776
22,699
-
22,699
110,156
31,941
142,097
13,963
-
13,963
2021		 2021
2020
£80,000 - £89,999
1
1
£70,000 - £79,999
-
-
£60,000 - £69,999
1
1
2021
£
2020
£
Wages and salaries
499,986
461,008
Employer's National Insurance costs
51,313
46,743
Employer's contribution to defned contribution
pension scheme
24,999
22,812
Redundancy costs
-
-
576,298
530,563
Open
Citizen
Feedback
£
Raising
funds
£
Total
£
365,471
-
365,471
494,336
36,227
530,563
30,119
-
30,119
120,182
-
120,182
98,172
7,194
105,366
19,354
-
19,354
16,617
-
16,617
68,937
-
68,937
61,039
-
61,039
1,274,227
43,421
1,317,648
The average headcount in 2021 was 11 (2020: 11).
No redundancy payments were agreed in the year (2020: nil).
The number of employees who earned £60,000 per annum or more
(including taxable benefts but excluding employer pension contributions
and employers’ national insurance contributions) during the year was as
follows:
The above higher paid employees received employer pension
contributions of £7,400 (2020: £7,146).

2020		 2021
£
2020
£
499,986
461,008
51,313
46,743
24,999
22,812
-
-
576,298
530,563
1,128,370
62,973
1,191,343

The total employee benefits of the key management personnel of the Charity, including employer’s National Insurance and pension contributions, were £97,389 (2020: £94,696).

Key management personnel includes the CEO.

31

TRUSTEES’ REMUNERATION4

No trustee received remuneration in respect of their role as trustee of the charity.

Trustees’ expenses of £260 were reimbursed to one trustee (2020: £152, one trustee).

TAXATION

Integrity Action is a registered charity. The charitable company is not subject to corporation tax on income derived from its charitable activities as it falls within the various exemptions available to charities.

FLOATING CHARGE6

The company has a floating charge over its assets in favour of the bank in order to operate its credit card facility. At 30 September 2021, the facility was for £25,000 (2020 - £25,000).

7 DEBTORS

Accrued income 2021
£
2020
£
82,262
13,956
82,262
13,956

CREDITORS: amounts falling due within one year

Expense creditors
Taxation and social services benefts
Accruals		 2021
£
2020
£
28,613
-
17,257
14,025
15,483
32,322
61,353
46,347

FUND MOVEMENTS

FUND MOVEMENTS
9
At 1
October
2020
£
Income
£
Expenditure
£
Transfers
£
At 30
September
2021
£
Unrestricted funds
The William and Flora
Hewlett Foundation
Swedish International
Development Cooperation
Agency (Sida)
Other unrestricted funds
Total unrestricted funds
Restricted funds
Students Acting for
Honesty, Integrity and
Equality (SHINE)
From participation to open
feedback in Kwale County,
Kenya
Youth demanding
accountability from
development agencies in
Tanzania
The Development Alternative
Yetu Initiative – Increasing
Self-Reliance of Kenyan
CSOs
Total restricted funds
Total funds		 240,695
182,981
(172,335)
-
251,341
-
601,890
(579,494)
-
22,396
791,023
3,511
-
29,258
823,792
1,031,718
788,382
(751,829)
29,258
1,097,529
147,514
188,816
(254,297)
(10,262)
71,771
64,415
-
(46,201)
-
18,214
-
20,477
(17,961)
(2,032)
484
8,193
85,155
(75,696)
(16,964)
688
-
52,716
(45,359)
-
7,357
220,122
347,164
(439,514)
(29,258)
98,514
1,251,840 1,135,546
(1,191,343)
-
1,196,043

See the Year in Review in the annual report for details about the restricted funds projects. Further details can also be found on our website.

A transfer was made to unrestricted funds in respect of income received for the reimbursement of core costs.

Unrestricted funds include £251k (2020: £241k) in relation to The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation which must be spent over the grant period and cannot be added to reserves.

32

ANALYSIS OF NET ASSETS BETWEEN FUNDS 10

ANALY
10		 SIS OF NET ASSETS BETWEEN FUNDS
Net current
assets		 Unrestricted
funds
£
Restricted
funds
£
Total
funds
£
1,097,529
98,514
1,196,043
2021		 2020
Unrestricted
funds
£
Restricted
funds
£
Total
funds
£
1,031,718
220,122
1,251,840
1,097,529
98,514 1,196,043		 1,031,718
220,122
1,251,840

COMMITMENTS UNDER OPERATING LEASES 11

The charity had no commitments under non-cancellable operating leases (2020: £nil). Due to remote working introduced in response to Covid, space requirements were assessed and it was decided to terminate the office lease.

RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS12

Other than trustees’ expenses as disclosed in note 4, there were no related party transactions in either 2021 or 2020.

13 RECONCILIATION OF NET INCOME TO CASH FLOW FROM OPERATING ACTIVITIES

COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL ACTIVITIES 14

Income
Investment income
Charitable activities
Grants, donations and
consultancies
Total income
Expenditure
Raising funds
Charitable activities
Open Citizen Feedback
Total expenditure
Net income/(expenditure)
before transfers
Transfers between funds
Net movement in funds
Funds as at 1 October
Funds as at 30 September		 Note
Unrestricted
funds
£
Restricted
funds
£
2020
Total funds
£		 Note
Unrestricted
funds
£
Restricted
funds
£
2020
Total funds
£
1
1
2
9
9		 1,043
512
1,555
764,750
581,339
1,346,089
765,793
581,851
1,347,644
43,421
-
43,421
660,692
613,535
1,274,227
704,113
613,535
1,317,648
61,680
(31,684)
29,996
67,374
(67,374)
-
129,054
(99,058)
29,996
902,664
319,180
1,221,844
1,031,718
220,122
1,251,840
Net movements in funds
(Increase) decrease in debtors
Increase (decrease) in creditors
Net cash (outfow) infow from operating activities		 2021
£
2020
£
(55,797)
29,996
(68,306)
15,371
15,006
(35,332)
(109,097)
10,035

33

Reference and administrative details

FUNDRAISING COMMITTEE

TRUSTEES

Alan Barlow

Alan Barlow

Sam De Silva

Gail Klintworth

REMUNERATION AND NOMINATION COMMITTEE

Merryl Lawry-White Laurence Lee Paul Maassen Siobhan Turner Philip Welply

Siobhan Turner Philip Welply

REGISTERED AND BUSINESS OFFICE AUDIT COMMITTEE c/o Buzzacott LLP Gail Klintworth 130 Wood Street Siobhan Turner EC2V 6DL

AUDITOR

Buzzacott LLP 130 Wood Street EC2V 6DL

BANKERS

HSBC Bank, 60 Queen Victoria Street, London EC4N 4TR

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Jasmina Haynes jasmina.haynes@integrityaction.org

Company registration number: 4884328 (England and Wales)

Charity registration number: 1120927 www.integrityaction.org

34

Restricted funds

PROJECTS OVERVIEW

Monitoring for financial savings (M4FS)*

This initiative aims to discover the value that citizen-centred accountability programmes can bring to service providers in northern Ghana by asking: “Does monitoring by citizens save public money?” Communities monitor the delivery of health and education infrastructure, comparing what was promised with what is being delivered, and engaging with those responsible to address any issues identified.

Students Acting for Honesty, Integrity and Equality (SHINE)

In this four-year initiative, students identify and solve integrity problems in their schools and communities. 500 Integrity Clubs have been established in secondary schools in Afghanistan, DR Congo, Kenya, Nepal, and Palestine.

Youth demanding accountability from development agencies in Tanzania (SAY)

Around 400 young citizen monitors from some 180 communities monitor local projects and use our app DevelopmentCheck to report their findings. They then identify and target key stakeholders in order to ensure that the issues they find are addressed.

The Development Alternative

The programme combines Integrity Action’s approach to open citizen feedback with Restless Development’s youth leadership and accountability model. In Madagascar and Uganda, youth monitors report on livelihoods and other projects and engage with key power holders in order to demand that projects are being delivered as promised.

From participation to open feedback in Kwale County, Kenya* (VOICE)

Citizens act as community monitors and check local services, reporting problems they identify using the DevelopmentCheck app. They work with key stakeholders in order to get issues addressed, reporting fixes in the app. The aim is to improve how county authorities and other duty-bearers listen and respond to citizens’ concerns on services/infrastructure.

*these projects are financed by Integrity Action’s core funding

Safeguarding

Ensuring that our initiatives do no harm to the people we work with remains critical at Integrity Action. Our approach to safeguarding reflects the sector’s best practice. We place emphasis on prevention, risk mitigation and accessibility of reporting mechanisms.

Safeguarding incidents reported in 2021

Yetu Initiative – increasing the self-reliance of Kenyan CSOs

The Yetu Initiative supports local Kenyan organisations to build a collective voice for their county’s citizens that empowers them to solve their own problems and promote equitable participation by women and young people. Our monitoring approach is integrated into the programme to give citizen monitors the tools to demand equitable local development. This Initiative is supported by the Aga Khan Foundation and USAID.

In FY 2020/21 Integrity Action directly received two reports of safeguarding incidents, which were dealt with in line with our policy and procedure and reported to the Charity Commission and relevant donors. Our partners received four safeguarding reports during the year, one of which which turned out not to be a safeguarding concern while another related to broader concerns within the community and did not fall within Integrity Action’s safeguarding remit. Finally, two reports were dealt with by our partners according to their own procedures.

35

IntegrityAction Act4Integrity - integrity action

integrityaction.org

Integrity Action is an independent non-governmental organisation. Company registration number: 4884328 (England and Wales) Charity registration number: 1120927