Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Participation’ Category

PHOTO: OXFAM

“All affected people should be treated as dignified, capable human beings, rather than as helpless objects. The way aid is provided may be as important as the aid itself. Affected populations should participate in the making of decisions that affect their lives. Participation is both a universal right and good management practice.” (Annex: ‘Principles, Standards And Evaluation Criteria For Humanitarian Aid’ The European Consensus On Humanitarian Aid (2008/C 25/01)

In May of this year, ECHO published “Review of Existing Practices to Ensure Participation of Disaster-Affected Communities in Humanitarian Aid Operations,” a review of methodologies and best practices to engage host communities as active participants in humanitarian responses.

This report provides an overview of policies and best practices in participation drawn from relevant case studies and successes of various humanitarian and development organizations, while highlighting risks and challenges to increased participation of local and affected communities in humanitarian operations. The report includes an analysis of donor funding policies and provides insight into how policy is formulated and executed in various humanitarian emergencies and events. ECHO undertook this review in an effort to increase understanding in the field about current trends and best practices in participatory approaches to humanitarian interventions documented over the last five years by key actors in the sector.

Key Findings from the Report:

  • Increasing need to consider participation of affected communities in humanitarian operations and responses from a rights-based approach in all areas of operations.
  • Identified key factors that influence participation levels, most notably the context (scale and nature) of the crisis.
  • Benefits of community participation in humanitarian response are growing and include cost effectiveness, stronger monitoring and evaluation, stronger advocacy, keeping the interventions appropriate in evolving situations, and increased safety and security in regards to humanitarian access.
  • Each humanitarian event will require its own approach to community participation and crosscutting methodologies including Do No Harm, provision of information, community consultation, mobilising the community, maintaining dialogue with the community, and maintaining flexibility.  These are all fundamental components to participatory approaches in humanitarian responses.
  • Continued risks persist that hinder community participation, including context, traditions and customs of local leadership, and managing expectations of communities, donors, and humanitarian organizations.

The report also includes a set of recommendations for future humanitarian interventions, with the aim of integrating community participation in the design and implementation of humanitarian operations within the context of the local community.

We encourage you to review the report and let us know what you think in the comment section below!

Advertisement

Read Full Post »

This blog post was submitted by Mariane Mathia, Monitoring & Evaluation Officer with CRS Jerusalem.  After discovering that accountability was being implemented across programs, but not in a unified manner, Mariane collected the following information, used it to conduct an internal workshop, and is now helping to implement an accountability strategy across all departments. Thank you Mariane for sharing your experience!

There are four simple steps to ensure accountability (the 4 Cs!):

1. Count: This step focuses on basic tracking of inputs and outputs through routine project control systems. These may include distribution records, warehouse registers, cash-for-work records, etc. They assure that the beneficiaries received the intended goods or services of the project or intervention.

2. Check: This step focuses on verification of content and process with the beneficiaries. It is about checking whether the outputs are appropriate and relevant and whether they will be effectively utilized per the intended purpose.

3. Change: This step focuses on improving interventions based on counts and checks, the intervention may need to be changed or adapted. The information should be reviewed by staff with program decisions made accordingly.

4. Communicate: This step focuses on consistent exchange of information. Consider the range of information needed by multiple stakeholders for timely information for decision making, and the importance of the accuracy of information. Both good and bad news should be delivered with the source of information, and an explanation if it is incomplete. Communication should be extensive and consistent with beneficiaries (men and women, old and young, different social and ethnic groups), government, other agencies, and donors throughout the life of the project.

Banner displayed at a CRS event

Means of Communication

At every CRS activity a banner is placed with information about CRS, its vision, mission and objectives. The information is presented in clear language (Arabic and English), formats, and media (announcements, flyers, etc.) in order to provide beneficiaries with timely, relevant and clear information.

Opportunities for involvement: Dates and locations of distributions are announced in city councils, mosques, and municipalities. On every distribution site a flyer is posted with contact information for beneficiaries to call if they have any complaints, questions, or comments about the distribution process.

In line to provide feedback at a CRS office

Dealing with complaints: Beneficiaries complain either by phone or come to the office. The Head of office or CRS coordinator asks them to fill a complaint form. The forms are studied and investigated with head of office in order to resolve such problems as complaints about a distributor, unavailable goods in distribution points, increasing prices, or bias in the distribution cycle.

Beneficiary Satisfaction: Beneficiaries are involved by filling the Beneficiary Satisfaction Forms during or after distributions. The form utilized in the surveying process gathers feedback from beneficiaries on the aid distribution, selection of beneficiaries, compatibility of the distribution points, treatment of beneficiaries during distribution, and the level of satisfaction of the commodities received. The information is used to inform the M&E Satisfaction Report. This report allows CRS to analyze beneficiary feedback to make appropriate changes to the intervention to improve the delivery of goods and services.

Read Full Post »

Horn of Africa crisis: Food security situation (November-December 2011). Source: UNCS, FEWS NET, FSNAU, FAO, OCHA.

The drought in East Africa has affected an estimated 10 million people.  In July 2011, People in Aid, the Sphere Project, and HAP International called for greater quality and accountability in this response.  Under the umbrella of the Joint Standards Initiative (JSI), the three initiatives deployed to the Horn of Africa for nine weeks in order to support and advocate for quality and accountability in the humanitarian response, document strengths and gaps, and share good practices regionally, as well as globally.

The final report on this initiative raises important issues regarding not only the response in the Horn, but, when considered alongside similar findings from deployments to Haiti and Pakistan, issues pertaining to the state of global humanitarian response.  The most clear and critical overall finding?  There is a general need for better engagement with affected populations throughout the project cycle. 

Specific findings include:

  • The need to create special measures to access vulnerable groups
  • The need for a rights-based approach and ensuring that beneficiaries understand their rights and can hold organizations accountable for their actions. 
  • The importance of community-wide participation
  • Building resilience into program design
  • The need for coordination and collaboration in order to prevent duplication and uneven distribution of aid
  • Recruitment, staff management, and increased contextual knowledge of staff (and how the lack of contextual knowledge is a major barrier of accountability towards affected communities) continue to be issues
  • Establishment and awareness of complaint and response mechanisms

As evidenced in this report, there is still a lot of work to be done.  Interestingly enough, the report states that “most staff from HAP’s membership and People In Aid’s membership were unaware of the Standards and had not been made of aware of their organizations accountability commitments” (page 10 ).  Effectively engaging with communities throughout the project cycle is of paramount importance.  The Standing Team’s assistance in implementing accountability and impact measurement initiatives is critically important as we ensure higher quality humanitarian response globally. 

Please take a look at the Joint Standards Initiative report and let us know your thoughts!

Read Full Post »

Last year, Tearfund embarked on a 6 month research project, funded by the Humanitarian Innovation Fund, to explore accountability in remotely managed projects.  Stakeholders from INGOs, NGOs, UN agencies, donors and research organizations participated, producing the report Monitoring and accountability practices for remotely managed projects implemented in volatile operating environments.

Remote management approaches are becoming increasingly common in humanitarian operations.  Though many publications have covered this subject, research found that “there was limited evidence that creative processes had been applied to considering accountability through the lens of remote management.”  This report highlights several key areas in which more attention is needed; with many examples of good practices featured as well. 

 

Apparent, however, was that often this good practice was confined to individual organisations rather than its being shared more widely to promote learning and best practice. A significant portion of the information required is already out there; the challenge is to ensure that this good practice is shared and communicated in a way that it is practical and realistic.

Key Issues Identified

Decrease in program quality – Weak technical oversight – Poor communication between offices – Increased fraud and corruption – Inaccurate data – Limited capacity of personnel – Irregular access to beneficiaries – Increased security threats – Increased political/social pressure on local staff

Recommendations

Key recommendations fell into six different categories: establishing and delivering on commitments, staff competency, sharing information, participation, beneficiary feedback and complaints handling, and learning and continual improvement.  These recommendations included the following:

1.) Establish a beneficiary accountability focal person at the program head office and the local project office, and initiate a beneficiary accountability working group at a regional and/or country level, with local staff participation.  Ensure that there is sufficient time and preparation to develop contextually appropriate beneficiary accountability approaches for the remotely managed project.

2.) Increase resources for internal and external training, develop training programs to promote beneficiary accountability specific to the remote management context, and provide adequate follow-up after training.   Staff capacity is a significant issue for remotely managed projects.  The report states,

Staff capacity issues were often worse in remote management situations where senior programme staff were not based with local staff and could not provide day-to-day mentoring and capacity building opportunities. Staff training workshops represent an additional expense, requiring trainers to travel to the project location (which is not always possible in insecure environments), or requiring project staff to travel elsewhere for training.

Those programs, however, that switched from direct management to remote management were found to be better implemented, because training was done before the program head office was moved. 

3.) Provide regular opportunities for local staff to present findings related to beneficiary accountability practice (e.g. methods that work particularly well) to senior program management.

4.) Develop additional structures within the community to promote beneficiary participation.  Also, ensure that agreement is reached between senior management and local staff on the content of information shared with beneficiaries about project activities and safe and practical means of sharing this information.  Additionally, as in any humanitarian intervention, it is critical to develop complaint and response mechanisms.  In remote management situations, it is particularly important to make certain that this feedback and reporting system is supported by third-party verification (e.g. visits by senior national personnel; peer monitoring by other agencies; meetings at a secure location between beneficiary representatives and senior expatriate personnel).

5.) Consider whether it is practical and appropriate to meet with beneficiaries outside of a project implementation area, as remote meetings could involve significant risk.  In addition, conducting such meetings could lead to contact only with beneficiaries who are not necessarily representative of the wider beneficiary group.

These are just a few highlights.  We encourage you to read the entire report here for more information!

Read Full Post »

Last week we featured the first half of a discussion around financial transparency that took place during the June 12th Accountability Club call.  Angela, CARE agency manager and standing team member, continues to share her experiences in the field below:

Angela: In 2010-2011 I ran various projects for CARE in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), providing multi-sectoral support for displaced families living with host families.  This work started with a pilot project in Goma using funding from the DEC.  The funding was quite flexible and allowed us room for decision-making and revisions of the planned expenditures per sector.

Q. Was this sharing of information seen as risky at the time? Did it take negotiation? Who decided information should be shared?

A.  I was the project manager, so I decided to do it because I did not feel – as an expat – that I was in a position to make the decisions about the community’s needs and priorities.  There are, of course, risks to sharing financial information, and you may not always find it appropriate to do so – for example on cash transfer programmes where there may be security considerations when transporting cash.

Q. How did the decision-making on the budget happen?

A. We spent a morning going through different shelter options and presenting the budget to the members of the community representatives’ committee.  We drew up the budget in a really simple format on flipcharts and spent a lot of time talking through the information instead of relying on writing.  We then split up into groups and discussed the different options that we had presented, as mentioned earlier.  Once the group discussion concluded, we came back, reviewed thoughts from the groups, and came to a consensus.

Q. How did you present that information to the community? 

A. Through community representatives, the nyumba kumis (a local authority system whereby each 10 houses has a representative), through our own staff and a message board.  We would be sure that whatever it was that we displayed on the message board, there was good explanations given accompanying it, such as why we were sharing that information.

Q. Did you share any salary information?

A. All salary information was lump-summed in with total operating costs.  Sharing that information would have made the staff very vulnerable.  There are really two sides to sharing financial information. We shared direct costs with the community, because we wanted to focus on participation and involve them in decision-making.  But then we also want to share lump-sums for total operating costs in order to build trust and be transparent.  It is also useful to share the total budget as it shows the balance between what is spend on operating and programming costs.  Sharing this information forces you to think about whether or not the costs have been allocated well.  I do think, though, that if we had not shared the operations costs, the community would have asked for it.

For more information on the Accountability Club contact sarnason@care.org or klove@care.org.

Read Full Post »

On the most recent Accountability Club call we were fortunate to have representatives from CARE, Christian Aid, the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC), the ECB Project Team, Merlin, Oxfam, Save the Children, and World Vision.  The topic of the conversation was financial transparency, and the discussion was rich.  Angela, CARE agency manager and standing team member, shared her experiences in the field.

Angela: In 2010-2011 I ran various projects for CARE in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), providing multi-sectoral support for displaced families living with host families.  This work started with a pilot project in Goma using funding from the DEC.  The funding was quite flexible and allowed us room for decision-making and revisions of the planned expenditures per sector.  We started by setting up a committee of community representatives in the two areas of the town where we were working.  We then worked closely with this committee to determine selection criteria for beneficiaries and reviewed the proposed project together, including presenting the project budget.  Direct project costs were shared in more detail, but other costs, including salaries and costs of being operational there, were lumped into one sum due to sensitivities around salary information.

The planned interventions were in shelter, food and non-food items (NFIs), and we presented various shelter design and cost options, as well as different food and NFI options, and together decided what type of shelter beneficiaries would receive and how much money would go to each sector.  We also decided jointly what modality was preferred for delivery – shelter would be in-kind and food/NFIs would be through a cash voucher scheme.

Q. What were some of your key challenges?

A. At that time it was not usual to share financial information. The community representatives appreciated the chance to contribute to decisions and have an understanding of the budget.  Budgets can be extremely complicated, so a challenge is how to share the information without confusing people.  We drew up the budget on flipcharts as simply as possible, calculated costs per beneficiary family to make the amounts more tangible and went through everything verbally.

Q. What were some of the advantages of sharing this information?

A. We were able to offer different options with the shelter, and the community could make a decision on what they felt was appropriate.  Did they want us to spend more to build a more elaborate shelter and then spend less on food or NFIs? Or would their preference be a more basic shelter extension, that would allow us to spend more on food and NFIs, or somewhere between the two?  This ensured that the intervention was really relevant to them, and we received great feedback from the beneficiaries. Additionally, we surprisingly received good feedback from non-beneficiaries.  When the project ended, one of the community committees was still active for at least a year after, as the community continued to do their own fundraising from local businesses and implement their own little projects.

Q. What information was shared with partners?  What was included in the partner agreement?

A. We didn’t have partners on that first project, but it may be tricky working with local partners with full transparency.  I previously worked with Merlin in DRC where we worked with the local health authorities, and I definitely wouldn’t have shared the full project financial information with certain individuals as they may well have used it against us to leverage higher ‘primes’ (a subsidy from Merlin on top of their normal Ministry of Health salary).

On this point Lucy from Oxfam shared that during an Oxfam program in West Bank they were completely transparent with their partners and conducted the budgeting process with them. They also shared financial information with communities with whom they worked.  The level of comfort they felt in this relationship was, however, mainly due to the long-term relationship they had with these partners. They had built trust over time, but she also noted that the more information you share, the more trust you build. It is a long-term process, but it’s worth working through.

Read the second half of this interview here!

Read Full Post »

The quite creative ECB Bangladesh consortium has made a video of a traditional Bangla skit, which includes songs about accountability in emergencies! The folk skit with songs is called a gomvira. Due to its ability to teach the audience in an entertaining way, gomvira has become quite popular in the development field. There are 2 main characters in the skit, a grandfather and a grandson. Generally one of these characters depicts a positive side of the issue while the other plays a negative role. Through a logical conversation, the positive character convinces the negative character in favor of the issue. This 30 minute video is well done, very entertaining and fun to watch! (It may take some time to load before being ready to play, so please be patient. It is worth the wait!).

In this skit, set in rural Bangladesh, the grandson explains to his grandfather the people’s rights in relation to an aid organization’s emergency response and how the agency will conduct the next emergency response with accountability. The grandfather, having had negative experiences with aid organizations, is skeptical of what his grandson says. Through the course of the gomvira, the grandson answers his grandfather’s many questions and removes his doubts.

 

The Story

The gomvira opens by the grandson telling the grandfather that the aid organization has told the community, including men, women, the blind, disabled, and the most vulnerable, the details of the relief project and that the people are going to be involved in the process, including the making of the beneficiary list. The distrustful grandfather believes what he has observed in the past: that only those who have good relations with the agency staff can get on the beneficiary list, while the most vulnerable do not receive any aid. The grandfather then realizes that if people have the information about the project, including how much they are to receive in aid, and if they are involved in the process, that they can then hold staff accountable. To address corruption by powerful people, individuals can complain anonymously and will not be retaliated against for complaint against the powerful.

In the past, the different needs of the varying groups in the community were not considered. Now, the grandson explains, the agency staff will hold separate discussions with men, women, children, the disabled, and the isolated and various ethnic groups to find out the unique needs of each. The aid organization will ensure that needs are met and expectations are fulfilled.

But in the end, the grandfather asks, “Why will the aid organization do all these things? It’s all their money; they can spend it like they want. Why do they need to talk to so many poor, illiterate people like us?”

The son responds, “You raised the most important question. No, they cannot spend the money as they wish. Getting assistance and living with dignity in floods, cyclones, and storm surge situations is the right of the people.”

“You mean to say getting assistance in such situations is our right?” queries the grandfather.

“It is our right and the duty of the responders to provide it to us,” responds the grandson.

They then sing: “Getting assistance in emergencies is the people’s right. If you have a complaint, don’t keep it in your mind. Tell someone.”

Enjoy!

Read Full Post »

In March, ECB’s Shelter Accountability Adviser, Hugh, conducted an assessment of the accountability practices of the shelter cluster in Côte d’Ivoire.  A full report is forthcoming; however, as part of this assessment, Hugh visited the village of Fengolo where the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) had implemented a project to rebuild homes that were destroyed during the 2010-2011 post-election violence.  Below is a summary of the methodology used and some of his findings.

Methodology

Hugh facilitated a focus group discussion of male and female beneficiaries, as well as community members that did not receive a new home.  NRC staff were present during the majority of the focus group, but were asked to leave at the end.  Hugh then invited participants to change their earlier answers or add any extra information.  Given time constraints, only one focus group discussion was possible. 

The following questions were asked during the focus group and cover various aspects of accountability: two-way communication between the agency and the community, agency consultation with both men and women, and match between project activities and beneficiaries’ needs.

  • How familiar are you with the project of the agency in your area?
  • Does it match your personal priorities
  • Do you have regular contact with the organisation, and know when, where to meet? Is this always convenient for you?
  • Do you feel the organisation listens to you, and that you get satisfactory answers to your questions?
  • Do you, or have you had, any complaints about the work of the organisation? If you were to have a complaint, would you know what to do in order to get it solved?
  • Is there adequate consultation with both men and women in the group?
  • Are you aware of how much the organisation spends on activities in your village?
  • Are you aware of how the organisation selects beneficiaries, and do you agree with this method?
  • Do you feel that organisations in general come and ask you too many questions?
  • [Once agency staff have left] is there anything you want to add, or any change you want to make to your answers?

Findings

  • There is a high level of respect and communication between NRC and the community.
  • The activities of the project met the needs of the beneficiaries, who were satisfied with the quality of the houses built.
  • Communities emphasised that they had never had cause to complain about the work of NRC, nor could imagine such a possibility. However, should a problem arise, no one was aware how to make a complaint, or how it would be followed up.

The main recommendation was to set up a complaints and feedback mechanism and communicate to the community how it should be utilized.

For more information on ECB’s work to improve accountability in the cluster system, see this blog.  Look for a full mission report from Hugh coming soon!

Read Full Post »

The AIM Standing Team deployment to Bangladesh was met with success!

meeting with a community in the field

Despite a major strike during the deployment and restricted ability to freely move about, AIM Standing Team members Saji  from World Vision India and Shagufta from Mercy Corps Pakistan were still able to meet the deployment  objectives in time. The deployment lasted from April 22 to May 6. The purpose of the deployment was to review and document current practices of accountability and impact measurement of ECB and its member agencies in emergency response over the last year, in order to identify strengths and gaps and produce an action plan that paves the way forward.

They visited with several NGOs, field staff, partners, and communities to discuss standards, policies, practices and initiatives around accountability. On May 3 they conducted a workshop for focal points and steering committee members (senior management) from Oxfam, CARE, World Vision, Concern Worldwide, Save the Children and the ECB Bangladesh consortium. At the workshop Shagufta and Saji shared their findings. Then workshop participants identified their own agency-level and ECB recommendations.  After this exercise, Shagufta and Saji shared their own recommendations. The participants are to create an action plan with the rest of their agency staff and submit by next week.

The review of the practice of accountability among ECB agencies in Bangladesh is not a thorough study to identify their specific strengths and gaps. The findings are general.

Here are some of their findings:

Meeting with women beneficiaries

Leadership/Governance

  • Among almost all agencies, there is a commitment to accountability in their country strategies and policies and among senior management. However, there were not enough resources allocated to the practice.
  • Agencies knew about the Good Enough Guide and ECB’s Key Elements of Accountability, but no evidence was found of actually using these. 
  • Most of the agencies have incorporated accountability in program proposals but mostly in terms of sharing information and involving communities.
  • Some agencies use results from reviews and evaluations to improve their practices.

Transparency

  • Some organizations shared information with communities about projects, plans and activities, particularly beneficiary selection criteria and relevant financial information, using banners and information boards.  However, because a majority of the population is illiterate, they were not completely aware of project details.
  • Progress/performance reports of project are not shared with communities.
  • Involving communities and sharing information have given NGOs a positive image and increased trust by the communities.

Feedback

  • Feedback and complaint mechanisms were used in communities and people were aware of their right to complain. However, serious weaknesses were found in such mechanisms. Such systems were not formally agreed upon with communities. Communities did not know how to complain. No field staff and managers dedicated to the Complaints and Response Mechanisms (CRM) were found, and no documentary evidence was found of incorporating communities’ feedback.

Participation

  • Communities were consulted during needs assessments, and all agencies involved communities during project implementation. Communities were involved only a little in assessment of impact of the project. There was no evidence of involving communities in the development of proposals, activities and plans.
  • Agencies used various means of communicating with communities about project interventions, including focus group discussions, loud speakers, information boards, etcetera. Such diversity of communication ensured information reached all segments of the population. 
  • Communities need more information about their rights to assistance and in order to ask questions.

Design, Monitoring and Evaluation

  • Many good accountability practices were found but were not documented, i.e. in case studies, reports, complaints handling.
  • Agencies do evaluate projects but with little to no focus on accountability
  • There was no evidence of sharing progress and evaluation reports with relevant communities.

Discussing the findings and brainstorming recommendations for the action plan at the workshop

Shagufta wrote

We are so happy we received very positive responses from [workshop] participants. Everyone agreed with our findings and used many of them for their actions plans.

We will post a few videos of participants discussing the outcome of the deployment after the workshop. Stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

In our previous blog we discussed the findings of the 2009 HAP paper, The right to a say and the duty to respond: The impact of complaints and response mechanisms on humanitarian action by Helen Baños Smith. The four case studies in this paper explore evidence of the impact of Complaints and Response Mechanisms (CRMs) on beneficiaries, on staff and on service provision.  We found the research so fascinating, we wanted to share more!

Summary of additional findings:

Quality of investigations needs improvement

using complaints cards to set up a CRM, World Vision, Sri Lanka, hapinternational.org

Baños Smith found that there was disagreement and lack of clarity among staff and intended beneficiaries on what constituted a satisfactory investigation into complaints and how to go about it. The research suggests, “Creation of a pool of investigators/agencies with specialised skills to work alongside effective CRMs (a service offered by the HAP Secretariat) is one way forward.”

HAP training helps

Staff who had received HAP training on accountability and CRMs reported that such training was helpful. But actual changes in the field were not always implemented. “Corporate prioritising and integrated efforts at all levels are needed.”

Management support for CRMs is essential

Senior-level support for accountability and CRMs was “seen as essential to securing staff commitment to the implementation of a CRM.” Some international head office staff spoke of the difficulty of getting field staff to implement CRMs and practice accountability, due to long-established ways of working. Accountability measures need to be in the work plans of field staff, and rewards or incentives should be considered for those who practice accountability effectively.

Need clear designation of duties for CRMs

Head office staff reported that the roles and responsibilities for CRMs need to be clearly defined and communicated, and that senior-level staff should be in charge of the CRM. Such management needs to include support of junior-level staff who receive and deal with complaints. Staff in one case study “said they did not always feel qualified or supported to deal with complaints especially where the validity of the complaint was in question.” Management support of junior staff requires effective two-way communication.

Need to evaluate effectiveness of CRMs

The study found a range of responses from staff and intended beneficiaries on the effectiveness of CRMs, thus revealing the need for agencies to seek beneficiary feedback on the CRMs in order to improve them.

Setting up CRMs is time-consuming, but necessary

Staff complained of the large amount of time required to set up a CRM, including training of staff and the community on the CRM and the development of trust and rapport between the two parties.

The time required to implement an effective CRM and then pursue investigations of complaints thoroughly (especially when other agencies are involved or it has to be referred up the management chain) can seem disproportionate and unattainable given the short timeframes required for emergency work, yet delivering emergency relief without taking into account the negative unintended or intended effects that programmes and staff may have on communities is not an acceptable option.

As one national office staff member explained, “There is an African proverb that says, ‘If you like to go fast go alone, if you like to go far go collectively.’  This is how it is with accountability!”

CRMs for staff

The HAP Standard Benchmark 6 on complaints handling also specifies that agencies must implement a CRM for staff as well as for those affected by disasters. The requirements for an effective CRM for beneficiaries were the same as that for staff, including attitudes of management and staff toward the CRM.

Have you encountered successful examples of Complaints and Response Mechanisms in your work?  We would love to hear about them!

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »