 | « Back to article | Print this article |
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
The Foreign Contribution Regulation Act was passed in 1976. It seeks to regulate receipt of funds by non-governmental organisations (NGOs). It is managed by the Union ministry of home affairs.
Any organisation that wants to receive contributions from abroad has to apply and get approval from the home ministry.
All remittances are received into a single bank account of a scheduled bank. The NGO has to annually submit audited receipts and payments account, balance sheet, etc to the home ministry.
The ministry scrutinises the returns to ensure that contributions received for a particular purpose are used for that purpose only. It does a detailed check of randomly picked associations and then collates the data received to present the FCRA Annual Report, i.e. uploaded on the ministry's web site here.
As on March 31, 2009, there were 36,414 registered associations under FCRA. These organisations could be religious, social, educational, cultural and educational organisations.
Why do we need to analyse inflows under FCRA?
- Because of the sheer magnitude of inflows. Reported inflows into India were $2.4 billion in 2008-09, $2.15 billion in 2007-08 and $2.45 billion in 2006-07.
- Reported contributions received from 1993-94 to 2008-09 were to the tune of Rs 84,182 crore (Rs 841.82 billion). Actuals are much higher.
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Trends in Foreign contributions
| Year | Registered Associations (as on 31st March of FY) | Associations who gave details of remittances received | Amounts received Rs crore |
| 1993-94 | 15,039 | Not Available | 1,865 |
| 2003-04 | 28,351 | 61% | 5,105 |
| 2004-05 | 30,321 | 61% | 6,257 |
| 2005-06 | 32,144 | 58% | 7,878 |
| 2006-07 | 33,937 | 56% | 11,336 |
| 2007-08 | 34,803 | 54% | 9,663 |
| 2008-09 | 36,414 | 55% | 10,803 |
| Total 1993-94 to 2008-09 | | 84,182 |
There has been a steady increase in the number of registered associations. Taking 15,039 associations in 1993-94 as the base year, their number grew by 41 per cent in 2000-01, 101 per cent in 2005-06 and 142 per cent in 2008-09.
In 2008-09, as many as 7,679 of the 20,088 associations that submitted their accounts did not receive any foreign contributions -- meaning that reported contributions include amounts received by 43 per cent of the number of associations.
Reported inflows in 2008-09 were higher by Rs 1,140 crore (Rs 11.40 billion) -- 12 per cent -- as compared to the previous year.
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Largest donors country-wise (in Rs crore)
| Year | USA | Germany | UK | Italy, others |
| 2002-03 | 1680 | 715 | 685 | NA |
| 2003-04 | 1584 | 757 | 676 | 350* |
| 2004-05 | 1927 | 931 | 764 | 353# |
| 2005-06 | 2426 | 1181 | 1062 | 500* |
| 2006-07 | 2949 | 1033 | 1428 | 606& |
| 2007-08 | 2928 | 971 | 1269 | 515* |
| 2008-09 | 3433 | 1103 | 1131 | 547* |
| Total | 16,927 | 6,691 | 7,015 | 2,871 |
*Italy, #Netherlands, & Switzerland.
Largest donor countries are the United States of America - Rs 3,433 crore (Rs 34.33 billion), the United Kingdom -- Rs 1,131 crore (Rs 11.31 billion), Germany -- Rs 1,103 crore (Rs 11.03 billion), Italy -- Rs 547 crore (Rs 5.47 billion), the Netherlands -- Rs 513 crore (Rs 5.13 billion), and Spain -- Rs 437 crore (Rs 4.37 billion.
The top three donor countries are the USA, Germany, and the UK for many years now. The US is consistently the top donor.
In spite of the economic downturn in the US and the UK, rise continued contributions from these countries might be considered noteworthy. Donors should usually look at the needs of their own countrymen first before worrying about others!
Readers must be aware that most Germans pay some sort of a tax to the Church. Is there a correlation between tax paid and inflows into India? That is an issue worth pondering over.
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Key Donors: Country-wise trends (In Rs crore)
| Country | 2008-9 | Country | 2007-08 |
| USA | 3433 | USA | 2928 |
| UK | 1131 | UK | 1269 |
| Germany | 1103 | Germany | 971 |
| Italy | 547 | Italy | 515 |
| Netherlands | 513 | Netherlands | 414 |
| Spain | 437 | Spain | 401 |
| Switzerland | 370 | Switzerland | 364 |
| Canada | 303 | Canada | 276 |
| France | 193 | France | 196 |
| Australia | 131 | Australia | 138 |
| Belgium | 124 | Belgium | 100 |
| Austria | 106 | Austria | 99 |
| Sweden | 103 | Sweden | 89 |
| UAE | 146 | UAE | 79 |
| Ireland | 69 | Ireland | 77 |
Countries where contributions in 2008-09 have increased significantly as compared to the previous year are: The US 17 per cent, Germany 14 per cent, the Netherlands 24 per cent, Belgium 24 per cent and the United Arab Emirates 86 per cent.
Note that, except for the UAE, countries above belong to the West -- read as the Christian world.
Media reports indicate that some countries in the Middle East, notably Saudi Arabia, made large remittances to India (http://www.southasiaanalysis.org:80/papers38/paper3725.html). Barring the UAE, the contributions are not reflected above.
So either contributions are not coming in or are coming in through the hawala route.
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Largest Donors: Agency-wise trends (In Rs crore)
| Donor Name & Country | 2008-9 | Percent Increase* | Donor Name & Country 2007-08 |
| World Vision International USA | 706 | 22 | World Vision International USA |
| Gospel For Asia Inc USA | 596 | 63 | Gospel For Asia Inc USA |
| Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Barcelona, Spain | 459 | 85 | Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Barcelona, Spain |
| Shyam Shyam Dham Samiti India | 359 | NA | Bramhanand Saraswati Trust UK |
| Action Aid International, UK | 228 | 24 | Action Aid International, UK |
| Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Spain | 241 | 53 | Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Spain |
| Plan International, USA | 191 | 26 | Plan International, USA |
| Oxfam India Trust, UK | 163 | 23 | Oxfam India Trust, UK |
| BAPS, Inc USA | 199 | NA | Dr Vikram Pandit USA |
| Christian Children Fund, USA | 197 | 55 | Christian Children Fund, USA |
| Compassion International, USA | 347 | 187 | Compassion International, USA |
| Om Foundation, USA | 188 | NA | Save the Children, UK |
| Ahmadiyya Muslim Association, UK | 178 | NA | Christian Aid, UK |
| Mata Amritanandmai Centre, USA | 176 | NA | EED Evagelishcher Entiwicklungsdienst e.v. Germany |
| The Global Fund to Fight aids, Tuberculosis, Malaria Switzerland | 166 | 61 | The Global Fund to Fight aids, Tuberculosis, Malaria Switzerland |
| From Top 15 donors | 4,394 |
|
*% increase between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Contributions from top 15 donors increased by 55 per cent to Rs 4,394 crore (Rs 43.94 billion).
Largest donors were World Vision USA -- Rs 706 crore (Rs 7.06 billion); Gospel for Asia Inc USA -- 596 crore (Rs 5.96 billion); Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Barcelona, Spain -- 459 crore (Rs 4.59 billion); Shyam Shyam Dham Samiti India -- Rs 359 crore (Rs 3.59 billion); Action Aid International -- Rs 228 crore (Rs 2.28 billion); and Fundacion Vicente Ferrer, Spain Rs 241 crore (Rs 2.41 billion).
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Top 15 recipient associations 2008-09 (In Rs crore)
| Association | 2008-9 | Association | 2007-08 |
| World Vision of India, Tamil Nadu | 192 | World Vision of India, Tamil Nadu | 212 |
| Rural Development Trust, A.P. | 155 | Rural Development Trust, A.P. | 125 |
| Believers Church India, Kerala | 100 | Believers Church India, Kerala | 102 |
| Action Aid, Karnataka | 77 | Action Aid, Karnataka | 92 |
| Shyam Shyam Dham Delhi | 109 | Caritas India, Delhi | 90 |
| Gospel for Asia, Kerala | - | Gospel for Asia, Kerala | 86 |
| Women Development Trust, A.P. | 82 | Women Development Trust, A.P. | 80 |
| Plan International Inc, Delhi | 66 | Plan International Inc, Delhi | 74 |
| Church Auxiliary for Social Action, Delhi | 61 | Shri Gajanam Maharaj Sansthan, Maharashtra | 70 |
| Sri Sri Jagadguru Shankaracharya, Karnataka | 60 | Oxfam India Trust, Delhi | 67 |
| Mata Amritanandmayi Math, Kerala | 116 | Mata Amritanandmayi Math, Kerala | 102 |
| Caruna Bal Vikas, Tamil Nadu | 74 | Caruna Bal Vikas, Tamil Nadu | 93 |
| Boachasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, Gujarat | 78 | Boachasanwasi Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, Gujarat | 93 |
| Christian Children Fund Inc, Karnataka | 62 | Christian Children Fund Inc, Karnataka | 83 |
| Pratham Mumbai Education Initiative Maharashtra | 67 | Pratham Mumbai Education Initiative Maharashtra | 83 |
| SOS Children's Village of India, Delhi | 83 | NA | |
| Top 15 recipients received | 1,382 | 1452 | |
| Total Contributions received | 10,803 | 9,663 |
Largest recipients were World Vision of India Tamil Nadu -- Rs 192 crore (Rs 1.92 billion), Rural Development Trust AP -- Rs 155 crore (Rs 1.55 billion); Mata Amritanandmayi Math -- Rs 116 crore (Rs 1.16 billion); Shyam Shyam Dham -- Rs 109 crore (Rs 1.09 billion); Believers Church India, Kerala -- Rs 100 crore (Rs 1 billion); SOS Children's Village of India, Delhi -- Rs 83 crore (Rs 830 million).
The top fifteen donors constitute 41 per cent of reported contributions while corresponding percentage for top fifteen recipients is 11 per cent.
This means that big donors distributed their contribution across many NGOs. For example, World Vision International USA contributed Rs 706 crore but World Vision of Tamil Nadu received only Rs 192 crore (Rs 1.92 billion).
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Trends of state-wise receipt of foreign contributions (In Rs crore)
| State | 2008-9 | % rise* | 2005-06 | 2002-03 |
| 1.Tamil Nadu | 1650 | (1) | 1609 | 775 |
| 2. Delhi | 2013 | 17 | 1556 | 881 |
| 3. Andhra Pradesh | 1244 | 7 | 1012 | 630 |
| 4. Maharashtra | 953 | 8 | 664 | 505 |
| 5. Karnataka | 1009 | 13 | 621 | 489 |
| 6. Kerala | 991 | 24 | 656 | 409 |
| 7. Jharkhand | 154 | 20 | 97 | 58 |
| 8. West Bengal | 598 | 11 | 355 | 272 |
| 9. Gujarat | 464 | 23 | 301 | 272 |
| 10. UP | 225 | 11 | 103 | NA |
| 11. Orissa | 228 | 29 | 129 | NA |
| 12. MP | 160 | 16 | 77 | NA |
| 13. Bihar | 161 | 20 | 101 | NA |
| 14. Rajasthan | 138 | 13 | - | NA |
| 15. Himachal Pradesh | 129 | 8 | 83 | NA |
| 16. Assam | - | - | NA | |
| 17. Punjab | - | 82 | NA | |
| 18. Others | 686 | 16 | 432 | 756 |
| Total | 10,803 | 12 | 7,878 | 5,047 |
*% increase between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
In absolute terms the contributions received by individual states are huge.
Most of the reported inflows are concentrated in the four southern states, and Delhi and Maharashtra. Wonder why?
The '% rise' (in the table) compares contributions received in 2007-08 against those received in 2008-09. As compared to 2007-08, the percentage increases are significant in Delhi, Karnataka, Kerala, Gujarat, Orissa, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh and Jharkhand.
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Top recipient districts of foreign contributions (In Rs crore)
| District | 2008-09 | 2007-08 | 2002-03 |
| Chennai | 756 | 731 | 363 |
| Mumbai | 575 | 470 | 284 |
| Ranchi | - | NA | |
| Bengaluru | 702 | 670 | 358 |
| Kolkata | 371 | 352 | NA |
| Uttara Kanada | - | NA | |
| Hyderabad/Sec | 301 | 291 | 181 |
| Ananthpur | 309 | 278 | 169 |
| Pathanmthitta | 250 | - | |
| Ahmedabad | 237 | 207 | NA |
| Tirunelveli | - | NA | |
| Madurai | 181 | 187 | NA |
| Quilon (Kollam) | 377 | - | NA |
| Ernakulam | 209 | 207 | NA |
| Pune | 178 | 173 | NA |
| Krishna | 138 | 134 | NA |
| Tiruchirapalli | 96 | NA | |
| Kancheepuram | 101 | 122 | NA |
| Trivandrum | - | NA | |
| KangraDharamsala | 116 | 104 | NA |
| Kottayam | 98 | NA | NA |
NA stands for not available.
Among the districts, the largest recipients of contributions were Chennai -- Rs 756 crore (Rs 7.56 billion); Mumbai -- Rs 575 crore (Rs 5.75 billion); Bengaluru -- Rs 702 crore (Rs 7.02 billion); Kolkata -- Rs 371 crore (Rs 3.71 billion); Hyderabad/Secunderabad -- Rs 301 crore (Rs 3.01 billion); Ananthpur -- Rs 309 crore (Rs 3.09 billion); Ernakulam -- Rs 209 crore (Rs 2.09 billion);and Ahmedabad -- Rs 237 crore (Rs 2.37 billion).
These are huge sums for individual districts, be it Rs 756 crore for Chennai or Rs 309 crore for Ananthpur in Andhra Pradesh.
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Utilisation of foreign contributions (In Rs crore)
| Expenditure Head | 2008-09 | % rise* |
| Establishment expenses | 5,022 | 47 |
| Rural Development | 2,835 | 59 |
| Relief/rehabilitation of natural calamities | 1,345 | (20) |
| Welfare activities for children | 2,304 | 74 |
| Construction/maintenance of schools/colleges | 2,031 | 68 |
| Maintenance of Priests/preachers/others | 837 | 105 |
| Religious school/education of priests/preachers | 693 | 62 |
*% increase between 2007-08 and 2008-09.
Note the percentage increase for expenditure heads 1, 6 and 7 is very high.
Why did Indian NGOs receive Rs 837 crore (Rs 376 crore from the US, Rs 101 crore from Germany, etc) for maintenance of priests is difficult to fathom? Ditto for education of priests/preachers. This might hold good if India were exporting priests to the West.
So also Rs 57 crore (Rs 570 million) was received towards theatre/films. It would be interesting to know the nature of films produced.
Further, the US/the UK/Germany remitted Rs 101 crore (Rs 1.01 billion) towards publication and distribution of religious literature and Rs 186 crore (Rs 1.86 billion) for religious functions. For what type of literature and functions is important to know?
Click NEXT to read on . . .
Foreign funds to NGOs: Why better scrutiny is needed
Food for thought
- NGOs are required to file their accounts by December 31 of the subsequent year. The FCRA report for year ended March 31, 2009 was signed in December 2010, i.e. nearly 12 months after the due date of receipt. So either NGOs filed reports late or there was a delay at the ministry of home affairs. Either way a delayed report has historical value.
- NGOs should file their audited accounts within six months of March 31 so that FCRA report is ready by December. The MHA site now allows NGOs to file returns electronically, a welcome move. It should help in speedier consolidation.
- Since 45 per cent of the NGOs have not filed audited accounts, any NGO which does not file accounts for two years should not be allowed to receive further remittances. The bank branch that is authorized to receive remittances should be empowered to ask the NGO for proof of filing annual return.
- Is the field inspection of books of accounts of a few NGOs good enough to monitor the activities of over 36,000 NGOs countrywide who receive in excess of $3 billion annually?
- Since that does not seem to be the case, should the ministry of home affairs involve the home departments of respective states? The ministry of home affairs sources say that states have refused to co-operate. The issue should be resolved through a dialogue between the ruling and the opposition parties.
- The deeper intent behind the Western world remitting thousands of crores (billions) into India annually needs to be probed and acted upon. After all poor people live in the West, the East and also in the Middle East.
- More importantly should a country growing at 8 per cent-plus per year allow Western NGOs to have such a toehold in India?
- Would the United States, Germany, the Netherlands, the UAE, and the UK allow Indian NGOs similar freedom as does the government of India?
Speaking in the Rajya Sabha in 2010, whilst moving certain amendments to the FCRA, Home Minister P Chidambaram said that the government would like to ensure "that the foreign money does not dominate social and political discourse in India. There is enough money within India."
Intent exists! However, India needs to improve the monitoring mechanism for funds received.
The author is a chartered accountant and founder www.esamskriti.com.