sgs ngo benchmark audit
DESCRIPTION
The purpose of NGO Benchmarking is to provide NGOs, as well as the donor community and the public at large, with an independent assessment based on a comprehensive set of perspectives, namely: Dimensions of Best Practices: Board of Trustees, Strategic Framework, Integrity Management, Communication and Public Image, Human Resources, Fund-Raising - Resources Allocation and Financial Controls, Outcomes, Operations and Continuous Improvement. Contributors' Expectations: Transparency, Efficiency, Effectiveness Management Components: System, Activities (Programmes/Projects), Human Resources, Finance Continuous Improvement: Plan, Do, Check, Act.TRANSCRIPT
1
Who are we, What do we do?
InspectionInspection, Testing Testing and CertificationCertification stock-listed company.
52,000 staff, 120+ countries.
Independence and Third-Party:
We verify compliance of Agreements between business partners
Quality, Quantity, Price
We hold accreditations (80+ countries) to certify entities / products against national /
international standards
We support Governments and IFIs to implement "Good Governance" measures
Optimal use of resources, Accountability, Transparency, Revenue enhancement
We aim to offer trust and confidence
Aid Efficiency ServicesAid Efficiency Services
(Governments & Institutions Division)(Governments & Institutions Division)
Geneva HeadquartersGeneva Headquarters
3
““To verify the proper use of To verify the proper use of
grants and loans provided for the grants and loans provided for the
betterment of Civil Societybetterment of Civil Society””
Our Mission is
4
Aid Efficiency Services
Documentary Checks Documentary Checks Of Procurement StepsOf Procurement Steps
« No Objection »« No Objection »
+ By-Products+ By-Products
------Project
Implementation Monitoring
Risk Profiling
of Development Partners
(PEs, PIUs etc.)
Independent
Procurement
Reviews
EvaluationEvaluationPreparationPreparation ExecutionExecution
NGO Benchmarking
+ Technical Assistance / Capacity Building
5
We provide Answers tothe following Questions:
NGO Benchmarking Are You Truly Accountable?
Risk Profiling Are You Fit For The Job?
Project Monitoring Are You Doing Things Right?
Documentary Checks on Procurement Steps
Are You Playing By The Rules?
Independent Procurement Reviews
Have You Done The Right Things?
NGO BenchmarkingNGO Benchmarking
« Getting the Seal of Good « Getting the Seal of Good HousekeepingHousekeeping » »
7
No formal definition of a “Nonprofit”…
Independent, voluntary association of people
Acting together on a continuous basis for a common purpose other than Achieving government office Making money Being involved in illegal activities
As “third-sector”, 4 distinctive features: Independent from any direct control of a public authority Non-profit making (in a private sector sense) Not constituted as a political party and Non-violent, non-criminal
NPOs, NGOs, CBOs, PVOs, CSOs etc. ICNPO Classification
8
Nonprofits
Extremely diverse: Managerial abilities Working capital ratios Effectiveness of operations Leverage at the Public or Private sectors levels Attitudes vis a vis grantors …
Is their growing influence matched by increased
ACCOUNTABILITY ?
9
How to rise to the Accountability Challenge?
Self-Assessment: “We are very good”…1st Party
An interested party does the assessment
Each party has his own audit criteria. Multiplicity. Duplication
Focus is on projects > organization + potential Conflict of Interest?
2nd Party
3rd Party An independent body, referring to a Standard
10
TypicalTypicalAccountability FrameworkAccountability Framework
Proper accountability
Shall consider ALL stakeholders and
Be assessed by bodies that are no party to the “transactions”
NGO1st PARTY
“NGO Clients” 2nd PARTY
“NGO Clients” 2nd PARTY
Grantors Beneficiaries
Grantee
Surrounding Surrounding
?? Communities Communities
LocalLocal
?? Authorities Authorities? ? SuppliersSuppliers ? ? ContractorsContractors
11
Purpose of NGO BM
Institutional Due Diligence:
Beyond programs & projects: Overall assessment to determine if leadership and management have the capacity, willingness and readiness to accomplish what they claim
i.e. To provide assurance to stakeholders that an NGO is – Fit for purpose– Accountable– Sustainable
…In reference to a consolidated Standard of Best Practices
12
NGO BM Certification Audit
IS NOT:
An Impact Assessment of projects, activities
A financial or a management audit
A substitute for dialogue with Stakeholders
IS
A Measure of Compliance with International Best PracticesA Measure of Compliance with International Best Practices
……to be translated into an to be translated into an internal management toolinternal management tool
……for for Continuous ImprovementContinuous Improvement Purposes Purposes
DDesigned for the NGO to keep control over its processes / results, using it for the outside world, whenever necessary and appropriate.
13
Referenced Codes and StandardsReferenced Codes and Standards
Grantors and civil society organizations have established International Codes & Standards for eligibility / funding purposes (25 today)
Based on their specific requirements Humanitarian principles Quality of Deliveries Finances Ethics etc.
None is truly comprehensive in terms of Accountability Risk Assessment
14
Approach to these Standards: Our Rationale (1):
Focus on the RISKS an NGO could face and their consequences in terms of Image, Performance, Resource Allocation, Control Mechanisms etc.
Identified risks shall be assessed Comprehensively (scope) and At different time intervals (validity)
15
Types of Risks
Management: Leadership
HR: Profiles in line with exigencies
Market: Stakeholders going to buy
Competition: Offering something similar/better
Funding : Fundraising ability to sustain itself
Insurance: Liability and property
IP : Right to use the intellectual property it is using
Technology : Appropriateness
Projects: Reasonable, feasible, outcomes measurable
…
Awareness, through independent audit, and downstream Action shall minimize these risks and enhance the value of the organization.
16
“IF YOU CANNOT MEASURE IT, YOU CAN NOT IMPROVE IT”Lord Kelvin (1824 – 1907)
Identify, in reviewed Standards, “Objectively Measurable Indicators”
108 criteria in NGO BM V1
Establish a rating system so that:
Clear identification of strenghts / weaknesses
Over time, improvements can be traced
Data bases for comparison purposes
Our Rationale (2):
17
Standard DesignStandard Design
Nonprofit SectorCodes & Standards
“NGO BENCHMARKING”
STANDARD
108 criteria
ObjectivelyObjectively
Verifiable Verifiable
IndicatorsIndicators
18
Perspectives
P1: Dimensions of Best Practices
P2: Stakeholders’ Expectations
P3: Management Components
P4: Continuous Improvement
Each and every stakeholder shall be able to Each and every stakeholder shall be able to
select his select his ““entry pointentry point”” into the results: into the results:
19
P1: 9 Dimensions of Best Practices
Continuous Improvement
Fundraising, Resources AllocationAnd Financial Controls
Communication, Advocacy,Public Image
Strategic Framework
Board of Trustees
Human Resources
Integrity Management
Outcomes
Operations
20
8. Outcomes:
9. Continuous Improvement:
Overall:
7. Operations:
42.2%
46.7%
88.9%
6. Fundraising, Resources Allocation and Financial
3. Integrity Management:
4. Communication,Advocacy and Public Image:
5. Human Resources: 12
15
18
100
90.7%
75.0%
88.2%
71.4%
17
7
8
74.3%
5
# of Criteria
12
694.4%
Score
58.3%1. Board of Trustees:
2. Strategic Framework:
25% 50% 100%0 75%
P1: Dimensions of Best Practices
A Certificate is awarded if (a) A Certificate is awarded if (a) 7070++ % % , (b) , (b) no major NCno major NC and (c) and (c) D1, 2, 6, 7 >50%D1, 2, 6, 7 >50%
Validity: 12 – 18 monthsValidity: 12 – 18 months
21
P2: Contributors’ Expectations
3. Score by Contributors' Expectation
77.8%
Effectiveness Overall
75.8%77.3% 66.7%
EfficiencyTransparency
70%
100%
50%
25%
0%
# of Criteria: 50
70%
100%
50%
25%
0%
# of Criteria: 16
70%
100%
50%
25%
0%
# of Criteria: 36
70%
100%
50%
25%
0%
# of Criteria: 102
22
P3: Management Components
78.1%VM CR Total =
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
System Program/Project
HumanResources
Finance
23
All organizations need a "feedback loop" to improve!
P4: 4 Steps towards Continuous Improvement
1.PLAN: Define / Prepare
2.DO: Apply /
Execute
3.CHECK: Confirm it works!
4.ACT: Modify / Adjust
Plan
Act
Do
Check
Higher QualityNGO BENCHMARKING
24
P4: Continuous Improvement
78.1%VM CR Total =
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Plan Do Check Act
25
Continuous Improvement Recommendations
26
.
27
Certification Mark
28
Consolidated Report
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
1 Board of Trustees 0.76 0.75 0.72 0.58 0.78 0.83 0.78 0.81 0.55 0.58 0.58 0.69 0.58 0.72 0.72 0.81 0.72 0.64 0.76 0.61 0.70
2 Strategic Framework 0.90 0.92 0.88 0.79 0.88 1.00 0.75 0.83 0.57 0.67 0.63 0.79 0.67 0.88 0.88 0.92 0.71 0.96 0.71 0.63 0.88
3 Integrity Management 0.23 0.78 0.67 0.49 0.78 0.90 0.60 0.55 0.29 0.21 0.33 0.31 0.18 0.29 0.23 0.60 0.27 0.71 0.07 0.02 0.27
4Communication, Advocacy and Public Image
0.80 0.87 0.80 0.87 0.93 0.93 0.53 0.87 0.33 0.47 0.67 0.80 0.40 0.67 0.67 0.87 0.47 0.87 0.87 0.60 0.73
5 Human Resources 0.86 0.81 0.72 0.70 0.92 0.94 0.83 0.83 0.19 0.61 0.78 0.89 0.42 0.58 0.58 0.61 0.39 0.89 0.97 0.33 0.61
6Fundraising, Resources Allocation and Financial Controls
0.73 0.76 0.64 0.78 0.92 0.89 0.70 0.71 0.48 0.33 0.48 0.52 0.40 0.39 0.44 0.73 0.51 0.91 0.70 0.44 0.76
7 Operations 0.95 0.90 0.80 1.00 1.00 0.96 0.84 0.90 0.45 0.67 0.84 0.93 0.65 0.84 0.71 0.78 0.69 0.98 0.85 0.83 0.88
8 Outcomes 0.95 0.86 0.76 1.00 1.00 0.90 0.67 0.52 0.24 0.57 0.76 0.95 0.62 0.81 0.67 0.81 0.43 0.95 1.00 0.86 1.00
9 Continuous Improvement 0.67 0.88 0.63 0.42 0.96 0.92 0.63 0.29 0.17 0.13 0.71 0.29 0.29 0.25 0.67 0.79 0.25 0.88 0.79 0.17 0.58
0.73 0.82 0.72 0.74 0.91 0.92 0.70 0.70 0.38 0.46 0.61 0.69 0.47 0.60 0.62 0.77 0.49 0.86 0.75 0.50 0.50
NOT CERTIFIEDCERTIFIED
1. Score by Dimension of Best Practices
Consolidated(Cells highlighted in light orange are those below the 70%
threshold)
Overall:
29
Distribution of “low scores” by criteria
Proportion of respondents with a "0 or 1" score (from 0 to 3), for this criteria:
1
1. BOARD OF TRUSTEES Occurrence ratio
6 Is there a Register of Trustee’s interest? Is this Register reviewed on a regular basis (12 months or less)?
90.9%
10 Is there a periodic performance evaluation of the Board’s members? If so, is there a follow-up procedure on the results of such evaluation (training, coaching, etc.)?
72.7%
4 Is there a rotating policy for Board members, so as to avoid changing the whole Board at the same time?
27.3%
1
Is the Board of Trustees fully independent and voluntary? Are board members totally unrelated to each other? Are all board members unrelated to paid staff? Does the organization have a policy that addresses direct or indirect conflicts of interest for its Board of Trustees?
27.3%
5
Local/Transnational NGO: Is there a provision in the statute of the Board of Trustees that specifies the obligation of residency in the country for the majority of its members? Is that obligation complied with today? International NGO: Is there a provision in the statute of the Board of Trustees that requires a large diversity of national origins for the majority of the members (including overseas partners)? Is that obligation complied with today?
27.3%
9
Are newcomers to the Board of Trustees provided with written guidance about their role, responsibilities and legal liabilities? Does this guidance document(s) include information about financial obligations and specify the due diligence process when exercising their responsibilities?
27.3%
11
When nominating new Board members, does the organization have a written policy and procedure that ensures (a) fairness and transparency of the process and (b) that critical know-how, such as finance etc., are represented at all times?
27.3%
3 Is there a documented procedure to ensure a periodic change of its Board Members?
9.1%
30
NGO BM Key Features
Consolidates and complements Best Practices from 25+ Standards / Codes towards a Due Diligence tool
“If you cannot measure it, you cannot improve it” Rating from different perspectives for various Stakeholders Enables to objectively trace improvements Mapping of strengths and weaknesses Action Plan towards Continuous Improvement
Generates a Data Base for Benchmark of benchmarks Identification of Recurrent non-conformities towards capacity
building for affiliates / branches
31
Scope of NGO BM Certification Audits
Scope 1: Headquarters only:
We refer to Operations & Outcomes Supervision
~ 5 manday-process incl ~ 4 mandays on the spot
Scope 2: Headquarters + a representative sample of branches / operations / projects
We refer to Operations and Outcomes
Duration depends on # sites + logistics
32
Status as of August 2009
International Classification of Nonprofit Organisations. 1.Culture and Recreation, 2. Education and Research, 3. Health, 4. Social Services, 5. Environment, 6. Development and Housing, 7. Law Advocacy and Politics 8. Other Philantropic Intermediaries and Voluntarism 9. International 10. Religion 11. Business and Professional Associations and Unions 12. [Not Elsewhere Classified]
Certified NGO’s: 51.3%
Average score: 69.6%
Scopes: 1: 105 2: 12
Re-certifications: 27%
Continent Audits Performed ICPNO Codes*
Europe 15 3,4,5,6,8,9,11
Africa 33 3, 4, 7, 9,12
America’s 38 2,4,5,6,7,8,9,11
Asia 31 2,3,4,5,6,8
Total 117
33
Services provided under NGO BENCHMARKING
Design of
“Second-Party Standards”
based on
client’s by-laws or specific
requirements
+
application through audits
CONSULTANCYCONSULTANCYTRAININGTRAINING
NGOsTrainers
Coverage: The 50 most important
Best Practices criteria
2 to 3-day sessions
with case studies, exercices etc.
AUDITAUDIT
Self-Assessment (web)
Pre-Audit
Documentary Assessment
Certification Audit
ConsolidatedConsolidated
ReportsReports
34
www.ngobenchmarking.sgs.com
Contact:Robert Jourdain
Aid Efficiency Services
Phone: +41 22 739 94 26
Mobile: +41 79 610 20 44
Fax: +41 22 739 98 39
Email: [email protected]
35
ExampleExample P1 P2 P3 P4
Standard V1.01 (May 6th, 2005)Dimensions
of Best Practices
Contributors' Expectations
ManagementComponents
ContinuousImprovement
108 Objectively Verifiable Indicators
1to9
TransparencyEfficiency
Effectiveness
SystemActivities
HRFinance
PlanDo
CheckAct
Q:-----------------------------------------------
Q:-----------------------------------------------
SCORES SCORES SCORES SCORES
D
Q: Does the organization implement an impact assessment of each of its projects?
Q: Is there a specific Ethics / Conduct related clause in all employees and volunteers' contracts?
Q: Has the organization measured its cost of raising 100$?
TIntegrity Management
Fundraising, Resources
Allocation and Financial Controls
Outcomes
SC
OR
ES
CO
RE
SC
OR
E
ES A C
PHR
EY F
36
Process: Process: System Integration and Value AddedSystem Integration and Value Added
.
Site AuditAuditor’s Manual
Auditor’s Software
Main Software
E D TBenchmarking
Report
All
Audits Data Base: Benchmark of BenchmarksConsolidated
Report
+ Technical Annex+ Technical Annex
NGO NGO
StandardStandard
2-week preparation
AuditPreparation
Questionnaire/
Contract
37
Accountability
To Inform interested parties (Implies knowing them all)
To Listen to their concerns (Implies participation)
To Report i.e. to assume responsibility for the means and the results (Implies sound management practices)
38
1. Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs Disaster Relief
2. Inter Action's Private Voluntary Organization (PVO) Standards
3. Canadian Centre for Philanthropy: "Ethical Fund-Raising Accountability Code"
4. The Drucker Foundation self-assessment tool for non-profit organizations
5. Malcolm Baldridge National Quality Award, ISO 9000, SA 8000 and ISO 14000 Standards
9. National Charities Information Bureau standards in philanthropy
10. American Institute for Philanthropy "Charity Rating Guide"
11. Canadian Council of Christian Charities "Standards for Organizational and Financial Integrity"
12. Charities Review Council of Minnesota "Standards"
13. Guide Star database on non-profit organizations and performance ratios / Charity Navigator
14. Standards de la ZEWO (Bureau Central des Oeuvres de Bienfaisance)
15. USAID NGO Sector Strengthening Program
16. The SPHERE Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response
17. Humanitarian Aid Office of the European Commission (ECHO)
18. ICFO International Committee on Fundraising Organizations International Standards
19. Maryland Association of Non Profit Organizations
20. Guidance Document to the Code of Ethics of the Canadian Council for International Co-operation
21. Global Accountability Project: Charter 99 / One World Trust
22. Charte de Déontologie des Organisations Sociales et Humanitaires faisant appel à la générosité du public
23. AUSAID Accreditation for Non-Government Organisations
24. Credibility Alliance Norms
25. Charities Review Council Standards of Accountability
Referenced Codes and StandardsReferenced Codes and Standards
39
“Money talks”
How to identify an organization that
– Is trustworthy, reliable, sustainable, compliant…
– Could make a difference?
Grantors (and any stakeholder) are entitled to receive
proper accounts on how their trust and money is being utilized
40
Comprehensive?
SystemActivities$HR
P3 P3 Management ComponentsManagement Components
Act
Check
Do
Plan
P4
P4
Con
tinu
ous
Impr
ovem
ent
Con
tinu
ous
Impr
ovem
ent Numerous criteriaNumerous criteria
VirtuallyVirtuallynonenone Virtually Virtually
nonenone
VeryVery
fewfew
41
BENEFITS
CREDIBILITY REQUIRES AN INDEPENDENT THIRD-PARTY
Enhance Good Governance, Accountability to Stakeholders
Detect weaknesses towards corrective / preventive actions
Reduce / prevent reputation risks
Efficient processes lead to better results
Ensure stakeholders’ commitment
Comply with grantors’ growing demand for accountability
…
42
NGO BM vs ISO 9000
NGO BM
1. Specific to nonprofits
2. Organized along risks stakeholders may be confronted to
3. Performance criteria defined by the Standard (same for all)
4. Flexibility to integrate concerns such as sector specifics
5. Detailed Report with scoring from different perspectives (“Stakeholders’ entry points”)
6. Scoring enables to measure progress over time + compare results / identify patterns in a network of NGOs
ISO 9000
1. Generic across sectors
2. Provides means to implement, in a generic way (tool-box)
3. Auditee defines its own threshold (performance criteria are left for him to assess)
4. Flexibility achievable at cost
5. Pass or fail
6. No mapping for serial audits
43
LEGISLATION
“Reactive” approach (CORRECTIVE MESURES)
MANDATORY(Laws and Regulations)
NGO BM
VOLUNTARY(“Market” laws)
MECANISMS OF COMPLIANCE TO BEST PRACTICES
“Proactive“ Approach (PREVENTIVE MESURES)
VOLUNTARY STANDARDS
44
1. Consolidated Reports
To compare units / branches / affiliates To compare units / branches / affiliates within a networkwithin a network
To identify recurrent non-conformitiesTo identify recurrent non-conformities
To establish focused improvement To establish focused improvement programsprograms
To position an organization vs competitionTo position an organization vs competition
45
31 2 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20
Consolidated # of Zero & One
NGO Benchmarking Certification Audits of Group of NGOs in Sectors / Countries
Consolidated Report
Dimensions of Best Practices
Contributors' Expectations
Mngt. ComponentContinuous
Improvement Steps
Operational Style
Operational Status
Number of years of field experience
Lead Auditor
ICNPO Group
Copyright © 2005 - 2009 SGS Société Générale de Surveillance S.A. All rights reserved.This spreadsheet has been designed by SGS Aid Efficiency Services, ROHQ Manila, Philippines.
Dashboard of Consolidated Results
46
Other features
Ranking
9
5
6
8
4
7
1
3
20.85
Correlation Factor (C.F)
0.86
0.85
0.79
0.76
0.83
0.79
0.74
0.83
D9 Continuous Improvem.
Dimensions
D5 Human Resources
D6 Finances
D7 Operations
D8 Outcomes
D1 Board of Trustees
D2 Strategic Framework
D3 Integrity Management
D4 Com. Adv & Pub Image
Correlation Between Dimension 1 & Overall Score
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Score in Dimension 1
47
Distribution of Management Component Scores by Organizations’ Size
Rating 1
Full staff members of the audited unit
SystemProgram/Project
HumanResources
Finance Overall Score# of Surveyed
NGO
1 to 9 80.7% 64.9% 47.7% 57.3% 59.8% 110 to 20 84.4% 92.2% 82.5% 76.8% 85.4% 121 to 50 67.5% 74.2% 36.9% 54.4% 58.4% 251 + 68.8% 78.0% 63.4% 65.9% 70.4% 7
Average score All NGOs 71.1% 77.4% 58.9% 64.0% 68.6% 11
Std 7.4% 9.8% 17.2% 8.7% 1
01
01
01
Mngt Component
Comparison by Full staff members of the audited unit per Management Component
Comparison by Full staff members of the audited unit under System
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 to 9 10 to 20 21 to 50 51 +
Comparison by Full staff members of the audited unit under Program/Project
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 to 9 10 to 20 21 to 50 51 +
Comparison by Full staff members of the audited unit under Human Resources
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 to 9 10 to 20 21 to 50 51 +
Comparison by Full staff members of the audited unit under finance
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
1 to 9 10 to 20 21 to 50 51 +
48
2. Second-Party Standard / Option a
To complement NGO BM with technical criteria (D10) defined by client
Objectively Verifiable Indicators and Rating
D10 is audited during NGO BM process
Separate Report, D10 certificate issued by client
49
Second-Party Standard / Option b
Based on client’s own By-Laws and objectives Based on client’s own By-Laws and objectives
Towards more specific compliance expectationsTowards more specific compliance expectations1.1. Establish structure of the standard Establish structure of the standard
2.2. Translate requirements into objectively verifiable indicators + Translate requirements into objectively verifiable indicators + ratingrating
3.3. Design analytical and reporting frameworkDesign analytical and reporting framework
4.4. Test, validate, final versionTest, validate, final version
Standard is client’s ownershipStandard is client’s ownership
Audits performed by SGS, certificates issued by the clientAudits performed by SGS, certificates issued by the client
50
3. Training in Best Practices
OBJECTIVE :OBJECTIVE :
Is NOTIs NOT to tell NGOs what should be their normative model of Good to tell NGOs what should be their normative model of Good Governance and Accountability!Governance and Accountability!
To provide an overview of generic Best Practices requirements as To provide an overview of generic Best Practices requirements as underlined in today’s Accountability principles set by donor agencies, underlined in today’s Accountability principles set by donor agencies, public authorities or private foundations. public authorities or private foundations.
To enable participants to identify the risks attached to non-To enable participants to identify the risks attached to non-compliance as well as shortcomings that may jeopardize sustainable compliance as well as shortcomings that may jeopardize sustainable development of a NGO. development of a NGO.
Geared towards a reinforcement of their capacities towards better Geared towards a reinforcement of their capacities towards better Compliance with the exigencies of Best Practices. Compliance with the exigencies of Best Practices.
51
Training in Best Practices
OUTLINEOUTLINE
The 50 most important criteria are selected across the 9 Dimensions The 50 most important criteria are selected across the 9 Dimensions of the NGO BM Standard and explained along the following headers:of the NGO BM Standard and explained along the following headers:
DefinitionDefinition Risks of non-complianceRisks of non-compliance Benefits of complianceBenefits of compliance References of Best Practices from agencies, states, foundationsReferences of Best Practices from agencies, states, foundations Case studies.Case studies.
52
Training in Best Practices