Communicating with Disaster Affected Communities: Mobile and Humanitarian 101

Standing team members Hugh Earp (ECB Project) and Angela Rouse (CARE International) recently attended a talk on communication technology and accountability to crisis-affected populations. The event profiled two projects funded by the Humanitarian Innovation Fund which aim to improve NGO accountability to communities in crisis through the use of innovative communication technology.  Here, Angela gives a little background on the complaints mechanism that DRC is using in Somalia.

Piloting Accountability Systems for Humanitarian Aid in Somalia

In Somalia the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) is seeking to address accountability in the context of remote management so as to enable meaningful beneficiary participation and strengthen the demand-side of local level governance and community-based organisations.  The organisation is using mobile phones, internet, on-line communities and social media to collect feedback from communities, all of which are mapped using the Ushahidi platform, first used to map reports of election violence in Kenya in 2010.  Community members are able to send a text message using their mobile phone with any feedback or complaint on DRC’s activities.  This text is payable at the normal, local rate which seems not to be a barrier to submitting an issue.  The SMS is received and reviewed by a dashboard administrator, who removes any identifying information for confidentiality purposes and posts the message to the map.  Have a look at the map here.  You can zoom in and then review complaints by location.   For example, on 19 March 2012 the complaint illustrated below was submitted – you will see the location mapped, the original complaint and the translation and – importantly – the follow up that was made in response.  Thinking back on tool 12 of the Good Enough Guide you’ll see this system ticks many boxes:

• it is an accessible system provided you have access to a mobile, although there are also other ways in which complaints can be submitted, such as through agency staff
• complaints are handled in a clear, systematic way that ensure each complaint receives a response and appropriate action
• the complainant receives a text message confirming receipt of the complaint
• it allows tracking of whether the complaint has been investigated and acted upon, or whether it is still pending
• it helps to promote consistency: ensuring similar complaints receive a similar response
• confidentiality is ensured
• it allows learning: statistics and trends can be tracked and can inform future approaches and programming.

More information on this project can be found here.

The second project that was presented was around using the radio to communicate with communities in an interactive way in Haiti.  Read more about it here: Mobile technology – listening to the voice of Haitians.

Read Full Post »

Key Elements of Accountability: CRS Jerusalem/West Bank/Gaza

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 »

JSI report highlights weaknesses in engaging with affected populations

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 »

World Vision & infoasaid team up to improve access to information in Kenya

Standing Team member Emmanuel, World Vision’s Accountability, Monitoring and Evaluations Officer, brought to our attention this interesting accountability project featured in April on infoasaid.org. 

Through a sponsored 45 minute weekly show on local radio station Anguo FM and via messages sent to mobile telephones, communities are relayed information on issues ranging from how to spot signs of malnutrition in children to prices of livestock in the main local markets to a description of content on the latest food aid package along with date of delivery.

Emmanuel live on the radio!

When we spoke with Emmanuel, he stated that hosting this radio program forces him and his team to take accountability very seriously.  If he receives a complaint or feedback for change, and no action is taken, the community will continue to call back.  It is quite beneficial for the community, because they always know when, where and how to find him!

In regards to communication, Emmanuel states, “You go to a community and you give them the water tablets and they might or might not use them – or they might use them in the wrong way.  Sharing information is a critical to accountability.  If the beneficiaries have the right information they can make the right judgement for themselves.”

Read the full story here!

Read Full Post »

Communication as Accountability: Lessons Learned in Haiti Part II

In this recent blog, we discussed a study and report on the communication efforts during the response to the earthquake in Haiti in January 2010 and the cholera outbreak that began the following October. The report, written by Imogen Wall with Yves Gerald Chéry, is entitled Ann Kite Yo Pale: Let Them Speak: Best practice and lessons learned in communication with disaster affected communities: Haiti 2010 . Here we continue with some examples of communication with local media and local people during the response.

Agency Communication with Local Media

After the earthquake, there was a desperate need among the disaster-affected to receive and to provide information. International aid agencies worked mainly with international media, not the local media that was quite active after the quake. In general, local media found it difficult and frustrating to engage with humanitarian actors, as well as access international agencies due to the barriers of language.  Few staff of international agencies even long-established in Haiti spoke Kreyol. Local journalists could not access the UN base outside of the city to attend press conferences for the first few months following the natural disaster, and press releases and situation reports were not translated into French. Even a year after the quake, journalists were still finding it hard to work with humanitarian agencies.  The report states:

Given the lack of dedicated local communication staff, few organisations were prepared to spend any time going to local radio studios and giving interviews or explaining their work. Those that did, however, found that communicating did not just help fill the information vacuum among the affected population, it delivered considerable operational benefits.

Below are examples of aid agencies that benefited from engaging with local media:

World Food Program (WFP)

The WFP had to manage food distribution to more than a million people. After a chaotic first run, they introduced a voucher system and hired a local spokesperson, Fedrique Pierre, to explain the system to the local media and thus to the affected population. CDAC Haiti, a consortium of humanitarian agencies and media organizations that coordinate communication in emergency response, put WFP in touch with local radio stations. Mr. Pierre gave more than 150 interviews in his first month and became so popular that he was nicknamed ‘Mr. Rice.’

Because there was no systematized feedback mechanism, ‘Mr. Rice’ decided to give out his mobile number.  Hundreds of people called and texted him to relay their gratitude for the information or tell him which area lacked food. (SMS-based feedback mechanisms were quite common in the earthquake response). He created a spreadsheet on his computer to track all the information received on his phone, and WFP used such information in the operational and decision-making processes, “enabling WFP to respond quickly to any problems.”

United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)

The UNFPA hired a Haitian American spokesperson who spoke fluent Kreyol to work with local and international media. “He worked with the gender-based violence team to record and broadcast a series of public service announcements (PSAs) with advice for victims. Based on anecdotal feedback, UNFPA say the response to the PSAs helped convince the Police Nationale d’Haiti to step up their patrols in the camps.”

Jamil Simon

Agency communication with people

Due to high mobile phone usage, the people of Haiti were able to communicate with agencies unlike ever before. The ENDK radio show shared the phone numbers of agencies, and feedback was collected through phone calls and SMS. Few agencies established feedback systems in the early phase of the response. Those that did, however, did not find the flood of feedback unmanageable, as some agencies expected, and confirm that this feedback was invaluable, allowing them to gather real-time information on survivors needs.

Recommendations

The study recommended the following for humanitarian aid agencies:

“The humanitarian system and agencies need to recognise the importance of communication as a sector and as an essential aspect of successful operational delivery of humanitarian assistance.”

There is a need to:

• Reform humanitarian funding criteria to include communication as a legitimate form of humanitarian assistance
• Incorporate communication work into the project design and budget
• Prioritize communication with affected communities at the cluster level, employ local communication staff
• Develop a feedback system for the disaster-affected, explore SMS or web-based feedback systems
• Coordinate communication to avoid duplication of efforts and provide consistent and accurate information

For more about communication in emergency response, see this blog, and to read more about the work of CDAC Haiti, click here.

Read Full Post »

Accountability Club Discusses Complaints & Response Mechanisms

Last week, the third Accountability “Book Club” (now known as the “Accountability Club”) took place, hosted by Hana with Save the Children.  The topic was Complaints and Response Mechanisms (CRMs).  There were no prior reading materials, but instead the group simply shared their learning and experiences from their own work.  Though the group was small, the conversation was quite rich! Participants included Accountability and Impact Measurement (AIM) Advisers and Standing Team members.  Below is a summary of some of the key topics covered:

Aligning CRMs with agency HR procedures

Hana shared how Save The Children categorizes its complaints and how it reacts accordingly. Upon receipt, complaints are categorized into one of 4 types:

1. Minor dissatisfaction
E.g. a household kit is missing; Save staff said they would come back to talk to someone but didn’t

2. Major dissatisfaction
E.g. a hand pump was fitted but doesn’t work; half of a distribution list is family members of the chief

3. Inappropriate behaviour of staff
E.g. staff members asking for payment to be put on a distribution list; rude or verbally abusive behaviour; misappropriation of project goods

4. Serious staff misconduct
E.g. physical or sexual abuse; fraud; corruption.

The first two categories may derail a program and need to be addressed, but are of a different nature to the latter two, which relate closely to Save’s staff code of conduct. If any complaints are received that fall into categories 3 or 4 the relevant HR disciplinary procedures would be followed, including—if appropriate—the necessary judiciary processes. Serious staff misconduct would be reported immediately to the HR Director and a crisis action meeting called within 2 hours as a first step in the follow-up.

This highlights the importance of setting up your CRM in conjunction with your HR department to ensure that your mechanism and how you act on complaints aligns with HR procedures.

How do you give feedback when a complaint is submitted anonymously?

Complainants may not always want to be identified, for example for fear of retribution. How can you provide feedback on actions taken in response to a complaint if you do not know who submitted it? In a CARE program in the Democratic Republic of Congo a monthly overview was provided of all the complaints received and what action had been taken. To protect confidentiality, no names or other information that could lead to the individual being identified were included. This overview was published on a public notice board and was also shared verbally in community meetings and with community leaders.

 This type of sharing enables feedback on anonymous complaints and provides a transparent overview to the community of the complaints received and actions taken. World Vision in Kenya currently follows a similar approach, but also shares this information via the local radio.

Using a variety of approaches to target a variety of beneficiaries

High-tech CRMs could mean high exclusion: In 2011, Save the Children used an SMS-based complaints system in its Pakistan response. Staff would place phone calls to each SMS complaint received to discuss the issue. The system worked very well, but upon analysis Save realized that mostly men used it. Consultations were then held with women on how to include them, and the system was subsequently revised.

When setting up a CRM it is important to think about the diversity of stakeholders and consult different groups in the design phase of your CRM. As this example also shows, it is also worth monitoring who uses the system so you can improve your approach.

 

In Dadaab camp in Kenya Save set up hot desks in their child-friendly spaces for children to speak about their complaints. In other programs these hot desks may be in schools or other places you find children. Don’t expect them to come to you—your CRM may have to have proactive elements. For more about Save’s CRM in Dadaab, see this blog. 

How formal should a CRM be? A look at a community CRM

In CARE Niger’s program in Konni a community level complaints system was set up so that complaints could be handled without necessarily involving the agency, CARE. This helped to successfully and quickly resolve some major and many minor dissatisfactions, such as the omission of a Cash for Work beneficiary on a payment list. The system is well set up, with elected members sitting on a complaints committee. The community knows who the members are and has confidence in them and their ability to resolve problems. Anything that cannot be resolved by the committee is raised either with the local chief or with CARE staff, as appropriate, and resolved at that level. On the whole, it is a system that works well, and the beneficiaries have even reported a decrease in community conflict as a result of this committee—yet this is not a culture where documenting information through writing is common. Nothing is written down. Having to write complaints and documenting the process may actually discourage people from reporting complaints in a community with an oral tradition.  

So how can you ensure each complaint receives a reaction? How do you know your community CRM is working? How do you make sure you are improving the quality of your programming? How do you capture the learning and share it so that others do not repeat mistakes? Agency staff could carry out a regular debrief with the community committee to capture data and lessons learned.

World Vision in Kenya has made a formal system work: each complaint is documented and a receipt is given to the complainant. They did this by wide community sensitization which emphasised the importance of this system, particularly to ensure mistakes are not repeated. Including a name in the complaint remained optional, as that was the greatest barrier in documenting process.

As was shown in the example of Save in Pakistan and CARE in Niger, the method of registering a complaint should accommodate the culture and diversity of target beneficiaries to ensure a robust, far-reaching mechanism that can be accessed by boys, girls, men and women alike. Doing a stakeholder analysis and asking different stakeholder groups can help you design your mechanism.

Want to know more?

Whether you want to review your current CRM or are thinking about setting one up, have a look at sections 4 and 5 of the Good Enough Guide and tool 12 to guide you! Also, check out some previous blogs: Part I and Part II on case studies on complaints handling. 

 

The next Accountability Club will be held on June 14th and will cover the topic of financial transparency in response.  More information to come!

Read Full Post »

Four cases on complaints handling: Part II

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 »

Four cases on complaints handling: is it effective?

You probably already know a lot about Complaints and Response Mechanisms (CRMs):

Complaints handling is one of the six benchmarks of the HAP 2010 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management .  Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International (HAP) member agencies must practice a complaints procedure for staff and beneficiaries according to specific HAP guidelines. We have discussed case studies of CRMs in Sri Lanka and Dadaab Refugee Camp, Kenya. 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, explores evidence of the impact of CRMs on beneficiaries, on staff and on service provision. The study presents four cases of four anonymous agencies, two in Bangladesh and two in Uganda.  The agencies include a partner of a Certified HAP Member Agency, a partner of a HAP member, a HAP member, and a HAP Certified Member.

The paper presents the views and experiences of 237 staff and intended beneficiaries, including views of staff from 17 agencies not studied in the case studies (including CARE, Save the Children UK and World Vision in Bangladesh, and World Vision in Uganda). Each case study presents a description of the existing CRMs as related by staff; communities’ understanding of the purpose and function of CRMs; the views of both beneficiaries and staff on the effectiveness and impact of CRMs and, finally, presents communities’ expectations and suggestions on how CRMs could be improved.

The overall finding was that staff and beneficiaries of the HAP certified agency felt that the CRM was effective, but with need for some improvement. However, for the other three agencies, program staff and intended beneficiaries did not find the CRM effective, and the two groups had different descriptions and perceptions of the CRM.

Here are some other findings:

Explanation of the CRM to the community:    

Without the relevant information about the CRM in the local languages, community members, especially those with less power, are not likely to use the CRM. Information on the CRM should be in a form accessible to those who are illiterate as well. Communication about the CRM should include what can and cannot be complained about, and staff need to know what can and cannot be addressed within what time frame.

Local power imbalances:     

 Those with less power felt unqualified, unjustified or uncomfortable utilizing the CRM due to the difference in power and social status between the intended beneficiary and the staff, or they reported having to get past the “gatekeeper.” Those with power, those well respected in the community, and men were “less likely to be viewed negatively by their communities if they complained.” One intended beneficiary commented:

In our country we don’t all enjoy equal rights. All of us don’t have equal value. If there were any discussions we would not be invited, only rich people are invited. Who will listen to us? No one listens to the poor.

Thus the intended beneficiaries should feel comfortable using the CRM.

Unless agencies ensure that all potential users are aware of and confident in using the CRM, they risk reinforcing existing power imbalances and consequently put at risk their ability to be accountable to the marginalised groups.

CRMs: culturally acceptable?    

Even if CRMs are appropriately communicated and designed so that the most marginalized can easily utilize the mechanism, staff and beneficiaries interviewed reported that the idea of formally lodging a complaint about an organization may be culturally alien and therefore undesirable by the community. Others interviewed, however, relayed that adjusting the channels of making complaints to the context could make the CRM acceptable and therefore effective. The program staff need to understand the value of local input so they can design with the community an appropriate CRM.

Access to the CRM      

People must be able to easily access the CRM without incurring a significant loss, such as loss of income or time to work. Submitting a complaint or comment should not require substantial time. Additionally, women beneficiaries reported that they prefer to talk to female staff about their complaint. Thus more female staff should be made available to women beneficiaries. The author wrote:

In the light of feedback from the communities interviewed […] more female staff at all levels would be likely to improve accessibility to the CRM for both community members and staff and bring a different perspective in the process of setting up the CRM.

Staff attitude  

Staff interviews revealed that staff attitude toward the community was a major factor in the success of the CRM. One staff said

It is all about relationships between staff and communities, demonstrating dignity and respect, having compassion, working with humility and a sense of equality; with that commitment and mind set amongst staff then the CRM is so much more likely to be meaningful and used, because there is no mismatch between the mechanism and what the community sees in terms of the attitudes and behaviours of staff. That is what makes the difference.

Staff training     

Lack of training of staff was also cited as a barrier to effective CRMs. Staff on all levels—not just those in the field talking with the community—need sufficient knowledge and skills.

More findings from this paper to come soon. Stay tuned!

Read Full Post »

An independent accountability team in disaster response: a case study from post-tsunami Sri Lanka, World Vision

So, you asked for more case studies…and we have found you some!

Why do accountability? A business case from Sri Lanka is a case study that examines the contributions of an independent Humanitarian Accountability Team (HAT) within World Vision’s Sri Lanka’s Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) program.  In order to demonstrate what accountability to beneficiaries looks like on the ground, this study makes the case for having empowered humanitarian accountability teams in the field and describes what is needed to make them work.

After the 2004 tsunami in Sri Lanka, the Sri Lanka Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) was formed with a Humanitarian Accountability Team (HAT) set up within it, separate from the technical programming and program support teams. By the way, the HAT Team Leader was one of ECB’s Staff Capacity Advisers (and former AIM Adviser), Alexandra Levaditis! The HAT complimented the program implementation by focusing on community engagement and liaising with NGOs and the government. The field-based HAT included Stakeholder Representatives that worked closely with communities and District Liaison Officers to coordinate activities and communicate with other NGOs and the government.  The operational responsibilities of the HAT included facilitating assessments, refining beneficiary lists, managing community complaints and dealing with many government liaison and coordination issues.

Advantages of the Humanitarian Accountability Team

crwrc.org

• National staff have learned that the consideration of local perspectives and needs is valuable, because it helps the staff to better meet those needs.
• The HAT served as the primary point of contact in the field, which built trust and therefore improved communication and the quality of the program services. For example, when a project budget was cut, World Vision was able to convey this to the community and prioritize programming according to  needs. Such communication helped deter/reduce corruption because complaints could be made.

Splitting responsibility for accountability and programming

• Having a HAT focus on beneficiaries allowed it to find problems and solve them more quickly. Since there was a HAT representative on the senior management team, this kept the latter in tune with beneficiaries’ issues/needs.
• It was easier to hire staff when the job descriptions did not require both technical expertise and accountability expertise, a rare combination of skills. Technical staff were able to perform their job well without having to consult with communities and handle complaints at the same time. HAP staff could focus on beneficiaries and, for example, conduct greater quality community consultations.

Saved scarce resources

• “Through good community engagement and liaison with stakeholders, HAT was able to save LTRT over USD 5 million in construction costs by preventing either unsuitable or unneeded construction in the south.”
• Working with communities to refine beneficiary lists reduced them by 40% on average.

Enabling Factors that made the HAT successful in the LTRT program

• Senior leadership needs to support HAT staff to be able to follow through with complaints internally to resolve problems.
• The HAT should be separate from other units and have its own budget so it can focus on accountability only, maintain independence and protect its budget from cuts.
• All staff, from guards, receptionists and drivers to engineers, need to be sensitized to the value of accountability and trained how to address beneficiary complaints and questions. This is to avoid non-HAP staff incorrectly handling complaints or questions.
• The HAT only focused on one area of programming (shelter) so as to not be spread too thin. This was the area with the greatest risk of accountability issues.
• The cost of running the HAT was 3% of the annual project budget ($1.3 million out of $40 million per year).

So, have a look at the World Vision Humanitarian Accountability Team case study!

Read Full Post »

Save the Children’s short video on Complaints and Response Mechanisms

Save the Children wanted to share an 11 minute video with the Standing Team called “Ten Steps to Setting Up Complaints and Response Mechanisms” and  in Spanish called “10 pasos para la creación de Mecanismos de Queja y  Respuesta.”

This video features on a Complaints and Response Mechanisms (CRM) Pilot in Dadaab, Kenya in 2011. The video was produced by Save the Children UK’s Accountability to Children Breakthrough as a capacity building tool. Complaints handling, as you probably know already, is one of the six benchmarks of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) Standard for accountability and quality management.

Enjoy the video as it’s a fun way to learn! The second video is in Spanish.

Here’s a summary for you of the 10 steps as suggested by Save :

1. Secure organizational commitment to seek feedback and complaints from communities

2. Consult with children and the communities through group discussions to find out the preferred method of complaining.

Save the Children

•  In Dadaab, children preferred to complain face-to-face, one-on-one with an adult

3. Design guidelines and procedures,  decide who will receive, register and investigate complaints, and deliver the responses

• Information and complaints desks should be present in child-friendly spaces
• Provide complaints desks just for children
• Decide on what can be complained about

4. Set up mechanisms/infrastructure and train staff

5. Raise awareness of children and adults of how to complain and what about

• Use meetings, posters, newspapers, notice boards, community representatives

6. Receive and record complaints

Save the Children

• Don’t just wait to receive it; actively seek feedback and complaints on a regular basis.
• In Dadaab, trained community representatives selected by the community would confidentially receive complaints from community beneficiary groups and communicate the complaints to Save the Children.

7. Acknowledge the complaint either verbally or in writing

8. Resolve complaints by making changes or by conducting an investigation (according to procedure)

9. Respond to the person who complained, and inform them about the action, including a right to appeal.

10. Record response and share learnings

Do these steps match what you have done in the past?

Read Full Post »