The governance of associations in 2026. Proposals for a new approach

📜🔗LINK to the source

A specific case: Employing associations

The report devotes several scattered developments to it, never grouped into a single part:

• The place of employees in governance (p. 11). The HCVA describes a real tension: in highly professionalised structures, a dichotomy is emerging between "expert" and "non-expert" members, the former (employees, administrators chosen for their managerial skills) tending to dominate the deliberation, while the latter are confined to a validation role. The report speaks of an erosion of "citizen goodwill" in favour of an expertise that is difficult to contest. It proposes countermeasures: employee/administrator pairs, volunteer charters, mission sheets. And it sets a cautious rule: nothing prevents inviting employees to the bodies without deliberative voice — integration with deliberative voice poses a fiscal risk.
• The de facto leader (p. 18, p. 46-47). This is the most operational point. When elected officials, lacking time, allow the salaried director to decide alone, they become a de facto leader in the sense of tax doctrine (BOFiP). Consequence: questioning the disinterested nature of management, and thus the taxation of the association. The report reminds us that the situation does not result from the employee's will but from excessive trust or a deficiency of the administrators — and that it exposes both the employee and the elected official.
• Delegations of powers (p. 18, p. 32). The parade. The report explicitly distinguishes between associations without employees and employer associations, and lists what needs to be framed in writing in the latter case: what amount the director can commit without authorization, their role in hiring, their external representations. Conditions of validity in the annex (p. 43-44): written, precise, prior, with a delegate actually possessing the competence and means.
• The remuneration of elected leaders (p. 48-49) and the responsibility of the employer leader (p. 45): addressed in practical sheets, with the thresholds (¾ of the minimum wage in administrative tolerance; resources of 200,000 / 500,000 / 1 million euros to remunerate 1, 2 or 3 leaders within the legal framework).

Daniel Oberlé: "These questions do not date back to 2026. In January 2005, the French Society of Public Health published a call for signatures on the funding of public health associations — stemming from a study I had conducted beforehand — which pointed out, among other things, the blurred distribution of functions between employees and administrators and bluntly noted that "the associative status as currently defined no longer really corresponds to economic realities". Twenty-one years later, the HCVA takes up these same points from the other end: no longer the economic model that stifles governance, but the governance that needs to be reopened. The diagnosis has changed sides; the problem, however, has not moved.."

1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY

A triple lock: diversity, forms of engagement, renewal

The HCVA bases its report on three converging observations (p. 3, p. 6-7). The governing bodies do not reflect either the territories or the public: two-thirds of the presidents are men, a third are 65 years or older, only one in twenty-five is under 30, and more than half belong to the categories of senior executives, liberal professions, or middle management. The forms of engagement have been reshaped: engagement is now more occasional, linked to a concrete project rather than an organisation, and the model of long-term loyalty to a single structure is no longer dominant. Finally, renewal is blocked: 31.8% of presidents have more than ten years of seniority, 17% more than fifteen years. The report emphasizes one point: this is not disengagement, but a mismatch between the aspirations of volunteers and the framework offered by associations.

A toolkit: forms of governance, levers of engagement, living statutes

The report articulates its 20 recommendations (p. 35-37) around three levers. First, rethink the distribution of power: four modalities are described with their advantages and their risks — management board/supervisory board model (p. 14), co-presidency (p. 14-15), collegial governance (p. 15-16), commissions and working groups (p. 16). Next, remove concrete barriers: availability, training (Certif'Asso, p. 23), underutilised citizen engagement account (p. 24), coverage of expenses and unknown volunteer leave (p. 24-26). Finally, provide tools: the statutes are presented as living documents to be adjusted to the project and size (p. 27-31), complemented by a five-level participation scale — information, consultation, deliberation, co-construction, co-decision — inspired by Arnstein (p. 33). The report addresses both associations and public authorities as well as funders.

2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT

1. The quantified diagnosis of the generational and social fracture of governing bodies (p. 3, p. 6-7).

Two thirds of presidents are men, one third are 65 years and older, one president out of twenty-five is under 30 years old, one third are business leaders, senior executives or liberal professions, and a quarter are middle managers (source: Tchernonog & Prouteau, The French associative landscape, 2024). The HCVA raises a frontal question: can such a homogeneous governance legitimately carry projects aimed at audiences it does not represent?

2. An expanded definition of governance, based on four pillars (p. 3, p. 8-9).

Governance is not reducible to the office or board of directors: it refers to any form of sharing power and responsibility. Four pillars are established: equality (one person = one vote, regardless of financial contribution), participation and transparency, accountability of elected officials, inclusion of stakeholders. The associative project is presented as the compass that should guide governance arrangements, not the other way around.

3. An operational typology of four forms of governance, with their risks (p. 13-17).

The executive board/supervisory council model is described as a corporate mimicry, secure but likely to distance volunteers from decision-making (p. 14). Co-presidency allows for parity and complementarity but requires a written clarification of roles under penalty of losing fluidity (p. 14-15). Collegial governance lightens the burden and breaks the concentration of power, but becomes confusing if not formalised (p. 15-16). Committees and working groups allow for co-construction in advance of instances (p. 16). The report highlights a concrete administrative obstacle: prefectural forms remain calibrated for the allocation of functions on a personal basis (p. 16).

4. Massively under-utilised support mechanisms for volunteering (p. 23-26).

The CFGA only gathered 1,000 registrants in 2023, with a 53% graduation rate (p. 23); it is reformed into Certif'Asso by decree no. 2025-616 of 3 July 2025. The citizen engagement account only opened rights to 4,594 volunteers in 2024, out of approximately 5 million regular volunteers — and nearly 20% of CEC declarations are not validated by the associations themselves (p. 24). Volunteer leave (6 days training, 6 days engagement, 9 days representation) remains unknown to volunteers and employers (p. 25-26).

5. A statutory and participatory toolbox directly transposable (p. 27-34).

The report reminds us that the 1901 law does not impose a single president, nor a bureau of three people, and that there is no "standard statute" (p. 27-28). It outlines the list of questions to be resolved before drafting: purpose, categories of members, voting rights, duration and renewal of mandates, role of the AGM, voting mandates, dissolution (p. 29-31). It proposes a simplified participation scale with five levels (information, consultation, deliberation, co-construction, co-decision) and a range of tools: welcome booklet, world café, icebreaker, Réunio'Kit, mutual teaching (p. 33-34) — accompanied by a warning against the illusion of collective intelligence tools and the risk of manipulation.

3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS

1. Diagnose the representativeness of your governing body.

Apply the three preliminary questions posed on p. 10: who is represented in the bodies? who is not? why? Compare the actual composition of the board with national figures (p. 3, p. 6) and the profiles of the people supported. This diagnosis can be conducted in a single office session and serves as a basis for any statutory evolution.

2. Position your structure on the participation scale before launching a participatory approach.

Use the five levels from p. 33 (information, consultation, deliberation, co-construction, co-decision) to honestly assess where you stand by category of members — volunteers, employees, beneficiaries, partners. The report emphasizes: one climbs the levels one by one, and exemplarity must apply "at the top" of the organization. This tool is also valid for evaluating a community approach or a user committee.

3. Test a power-sharing modality before formalising it.

Before registering a co-presidency or a collegiality in the statutes, experiment and document the identified risks p. 14-16: loss of decision-making fluidity, dilution of legal responsibility, obligation to designate a physical representative in the prefecture, confusion of roles in the absence of formalisation. Respond in writing to the questions raised p. 32: financial distribution, absence of a co-president, lasting divergences.

4. Formalise the delegations of powers — as a priority in the employing structures.

Revisit the validity criteria listed p. 18 and p. 43-44: written, precise object and scope, date of effect, duration, competence and means of the delegate. Critical point for the medico-social sector: explicitly frame what the salaried management can engage alone (budget thresholds, hiring, external representation) to prevent the risk of de facto leadership and the loss of the disinterested nature of management (p. 18, p. 46-47).

5. Activate existing support mechanisms, starting with those that cost nothing.

Systematically inform volunteers of mobilisable leave (p. 25-26) and integrate this information into the welcome booklet (p. 34). Check that the association properly validates the CEC declarations of its volunteers — nearly 20% are not (p. 24). Direct volunteers called to responsibilities towards Certif'Asso, now modular and fundable by the FDVA 1 (p. 23).

6. Build a commitment pathway rather than a call for applications.

Rely on the sequence described p. 21-22: personalised welcome, recognition from the first punctual contribution, tutoring, handover time between outgoing and incoming administrators. The report explicitly identifies the mistake not to be made: presenting commitment as a fixed and non-negotiable slot. Also plan for the reimbursement of expenses and, if applicable, childcare (p. 24-25) — a documented barrier to taking responsibility for the least advantaged.

Unmet needs identified by the report itself: the issue of the time savings account is explicitly set aside due to lack of data (p. 26, note 23); no study on the actual use of volunteer leave is available; the report does not address the associations managing ESSMS, where the tension between elected volunteers and paid management is, however, the most acute.

4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES

1. High Authority of Health — Partnership in health and partner patients. Guide and practical sheets, validated May 2026, published online on 30 June 2026. 🔗 https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_4085651/fr/partenariat-en-sante-et-patients-partenaires Direct methodological complementarity: where the HCVA remains at the level of principles on the representation of beneficiaries (p. 11-12), the HAS sets out three operational principles — co-decision, co-conduct, co-evaluation — and warns of the risks of "token participation". Contains a checklist for compliance of actions with the principles of partnership.

2. Research & Solidarity — France Volunteer 2025, 20th edition, May 2025 (Ifop survey, 4,646 people). 🔗 https://recherches-solidarites.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/La-France-benevole-23-05-2025.pdf Updated source of data that the HCVA mobilises in its 2024 version. Two decisive contributions: weekly volunteering has risen to 11% in 2025 (compared to 9% in 2023 and 2024), and the study documents the "associative fracture" according to the level of qualification — 32% membership among the least qualified compared to 57% among the most qualified. An issue of social inequalities that the HCVA report does not exploit.

3. Ministry responsible for associative life — Certif'Asso: the certificate of training in associative management, updated 2025-2026. 🔗 https://www.associations.gouv.fr/certifasso-le-certificat-de-formation-la-gestion-associative Complete reference framework of the reformed system (decree no. 2025-616 and order of 3 July 2025): common core of 20 hours, two modules to choose from among seven (including a module on "Governance and organisation"), practical training of 15 days made optional for experienced volunteers, expanded FDVA 1 funding.

5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

1. Does the 1901 law require us to have a president, a treasurer, and a secretary?

No. The law does not set any obligation regarding the composition of the bodies: neither a sole president nor a bureau of three people. It only requires the declaration of the persons in charge of administration. The HCVA notes that some administrations and prefectures still require this triptych, in contradiction with the freedom of organisation (p. 20, recommendation 6 p. 21).

2. Is co-presidency legally possible, and under what conditions?

Yes, in principle. It requires an explicit clarification of roles in the statutes or internal regulations: financial distribution, what happens in case of absence or lasting disagreement between co-presidents. Two noted limits: a faulty decision made collectively does not automatically engage the responsibility of each individual, and the declaration form at the prefecture remains calibrated for the assignment of functions on a personal basis (p. 14-15, p. 16, p. 32).

3. Can employees be included on the board of directors?

The question must be treated with caution: it carries a risk regarding the tax treatment of the association and fuels a dichotomy between "expert" and "non-expert" members. The report reminds us that nothing prevents inviting employees to the bodies without deliberative voice, and cites co-representation arrangements in a duo of employee/administrator (p. 11).

4. Can an employee director become a "de facto leader" without intending to?

Yes. This situation most often results from excessive trust from elected officials or the shortcomings of administrators, not from the employee's intention. The risk concerns the disinterested nature of management and the taxation of the association. The solution is the written and precise formalisation of delegations of powers, particularly budgetary and HR (p. 18, p. 32, p. 46-47).

5. What is the citizen engagement account, and why is it so little used?

The CEC allows volunteers who are engaged for at least 200 hours in the year (including 100 hours in the same association) to accumulate training rights (240 € per year, capped at 720 €). In 2024, only 4,594 volunteers acquired rights, out of approximately 5 million regular volunteers. Nearly 20% of declarations are not validated by the associations: the system is poorly known by both volunteers and structures (p. 24).

6. Can a volunteer be reimbursed for their expenses or obtain a tax advantage?

The principle established is that a volunteer should neither enrich themselves nor impoverish themselves. Taxable individuals can waive the reimbursement of their expenses and obtain a tax reduction of 66% of the unreimbursed amounts, up to 20% of their taxable income. The HCVA recommends studying the transformation of this reduction into tax credit, in order to extend the benefit to non-taxable individuals — an issue of tax justice (p. 24, recommendation 13).

7. Our statutes are old and rigid: where should we start?

Start with the associative project, not with the statutes. The report outlines the questions to be resolved: purpose, categories of members (do not multiply unnecessarily), who votes, who contributes, respective roles of the AGM, the board, and the office, duration and limit of mandate renewals, voting mandate modalities, dissolution. Detailed points fall under the internal regulations, which can never contradict the statutes (p. 29-31). The statutes must be accessible and distributed to all members.

6. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE

What the report says

The High Council for Associative Life wrote a report in January 2026.

It discusses the governance of associations.

Governance is the way to lead an association.

It is also the way to share power and decisions.

The problem

In associations, it is often the same people who lead.

There are many men. There are many elderly people.

Two presidents out of three are men.

One president out of three is over 65.

Only 1 president out of 25 is under 30.

Presidents stay in office for a long time.

A third of presidents have been in charge for more than 10 years.

Few volunteers want to take on responsibilities.

They find it too administrative.

They find it takes too much time.

But they do not want to leave. They just want to engage differently.

The ideas from the report

1. Share power differently.

We can have two or three presidents. This is called co-presidency.

We can also lead as a group, without a president. This is called collegiality.

We can create small working groups. They prepare the decisions.

Be careful: it is necessary to write down who does what. Otherwise, there are disputes.

2. Make volunteers want to engage.

Welcome new volunteers well.

Do not say: "It’s every Tuesday from 8am to 12pm."

Offer flexible hours.

Reimburse volunteers' expenses.

A volunteer should not lose money.

3. Train the volunteers.

There is a training course. It is called Certif'Asso.

It teaches how to manage an association.

Few volunteers know about it.

There are also leave options for salaried volunteers.

Few people know about them.

4. Write good statutes.

The statutes are the rules of life of the association.

The 1901 law allows a lot of freedom.

You are not required to have a president.

You are not required to have a board of three people.

Write simple statutes.

You can change them later.

5. Involve everyone.

There are 5 levels of participation:

• informing the members;
• asking for their opinion;
• discussing with them;
• building projects with them;
• deciding with them.
  The goal is to go as far as possible.

7. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES

Literacy: the report does not propose any tools suitable for different levels of understanding; it does highlight that the statutes and the associative project must be "clear and accessible to all" (p. 12) and recommends a welcome booklet (p. 34), without mentioning their readability.

Empowerment: empowerment is central but aimed at volunteers, not beneficiaries; the report promotes the transition from the status of "contributing member" to that of "active member in the functioning" (p. 33).

Participation: it is the heart of the document — a five-level scale up to co-decision, commissions and working groups upstream of the bodies, tools of collective intelligence (p. 16, p. 33-34), with an explicit warning: « participation cannot be decreed » (p. 16).

Community health : the collective dimension is well integrated on a democratic level — « nothing for us, without us » cited via APF France handicap and ATD Fourth World (p. 11) — but the field of health is never addressed as such.

Ethics : the report identifies and addresses managerial tensions — corporate mimicry, dependence on funders, domination of « experts » — and warns against the manipulative use of collective intelligence tools (p. 34).

Human rights : equality (one person = one vote, independent of any financial contribution) and inclusion are established as pillars, and associative freedom is presented as a democratic counter-power (p. 8-9, p. 12).

Intersectorality : underdeveloped; the partnerships mentioned are institutional (public authorities, funders, support networks like Guid'Asso, RNMA, The Associative Movement), without an intersectoral logic in the sense of health-social-education.

Partnership : models are formalised — employee/administrator duo, volunteer charters, mission sheets, colleges of concerned individuals, body dedicated to concerned individuals (p. 11) — and the report calls for a funder/association partnership based on co-construction and mutual respect for autonomies (p. 11).

Fight against discrimination : the report mentions the "glass ceiling" for administrator roles (p. 15) and the under-representation of women, young people, and low socio-economic categories; it does not address discrimination related to origin, disability, or health status, nor the non-judgmental approach in welcoming volunteers.

8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE

Type of document — to be noted from the outset. It is a consultative body report, not a scientific study. The HCVA is placed under the Prime Minister and makes recommendations for public authorities: the document therefore has a function of institutional advocacy assumed. It does not produce primary data: it aggregates secondary sources and only 8 hearings (p. 41), all from the associative sector or its support structures. No public funder, no decentralised administration, no beneficiary was heard — even though the report dedicates several pages to their role in governance.

Scientific relevance — correct but dated on its key figures.

The sources used are solid (Tchernonog & Prouteau 2024, Recherches & Solidarités 2024, IGESR 2024, Laville & Hoarau, Bucolo/Eynaud/Haeringer). But:

• ⚠️ Outdated volunteering data at the date of adoption. The report relies on France Volontaire 2024 and presents regular weekly volunteering in decline (9%, p. 6). The 2025 edition of the same study, published in May 2025 — eight months before the adoption of the report — shows a rise to 11 %, or a level higher than before the health crisis. Finding no. 2 of the report (“decline in regular volunteering”) is therefore partially contradicted by the most recent source from the same producer.
• ⚠️ Internal contradiction on a structuring figure. The summary states that “only 6% of volunteers express a desire to take on more responsibilities” (p. 3). The introduction states exactly the opposite: 16 % are willing to take on more responsibilities, and it is 6 % who wish to take on less (p. 7). The summary has inverted the data. This is the figure most frequently cited in the comments on the report — it is incorrect.
• ⚠️ Factual error on Certif'Asso. The report states that “the theoretical training is reduced to 15 days” (p. 23). Decree no. 2025-616 of 3 July 2025 maintains the theoretical training at 30 hours; it is the practical training that is reduced from 20 to 15 days, and becomes optional for experienced volunteers.
• ⚠️ Incoherent passage on the taxation of expenses (p. 24): “a tax reduction of around 66% of unreimbursed expenses up to 20% of taxable income. 60% of their value on tax.” The second sentence is an uncorrected drafting residue.
• ⚠️ Ambiguity on the remuneration ceiling for leaders (p. 49): the text states that the leader cannot receive more than “3 times the ceiling of social security (in 2024 this amount is 3,864 €)”. 3,864 € is the monthly of social security 2024; the remuneration ceiling is therefore 3 × 3,864 €, or 11,592 €. The wording is confusing.
• The document contains several typos (“law of 1 July 201” in the bibliography, unfinished sentences p. 22 and p. 24).

Operational relevance — high, with a caveat.

The practical sheets in the annex (responsibility of directors p. 42-45, concept of director p. 46-47, remuneration p. 48-49) are directly usable, sourced in case law and tax doctrine (BOFiP). The list of questions to consider before drafting the statutes (p. 29-31) and the participation scale (p. 33) are transposable as is.Caveat: the 20 recommendations are mostly addressed to the State (FDVA credits, tax credit, single text on leave, flexibility of prefectures). The recommendations addressed to associations remain, by the report's own admission, “supporting elements for any reflection” (p. 5) — that is to say, orientations, not procedures.

Blind spot to report. The report identifies the diversity deficit as a central problem but never links it to the social inequalities of access to associative life, which are documented by its own reference source (associative fracture according to education level: 32% membership among the least educated compared to 57% among the most educated, R&S 2025). The counter-argument that the document does not engage: opening governance will not be sufficient if membership itself remains socially filtered upstream.

In summary: useful resource and well-equipped from a legal and methodological standpoint, to be used with verification of the figures before any public reuse, and to systematically cross-reference with Voluntary France 2025.

10. STRATEGIC HASHTAGS

#healthpractices #AssociativeGovernance #Volunteering #AssociativeLife #InternalDemocracy #Empowerment #CitizenParticipation #Law1901

🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the theme of health and work ➡️🔗