Case Studies and Tools
Our Case studies and Tools outline the approaches to accountability which have been tried and tested by HAP members. Although they do not contain 'absolute answers' on the approach to strengthening quality and accountability, many of these tools have been developed and implemented by teams who have been willing to explore new ideas.
More tools and support in strengthening accountability and quality management can be found in The Guide to the HAP Standard, available from Oxfam publishing. If you have a case study or tools you would like to share, we would like to hear from you: secretariat@hapinternational.org.
Approaches to improving accountability in the field
Promoting and sharing good practice
Monthly Community Engagement Best Practice Awards were used by World Vision’s Sri Lanka Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) to recognise good practice and share learning between offices. Awards were given to Batticaloa and Jaffna offices for their constructive communities project, Hambantota office for their community information provision meeting, and Matara office for their economic recovery community transition programme.
Good practice guidelines on beneficiary accountability
Tearfund’s Disaster Management Team Good Practice Guidelines: Beneficiary Accountability puts the importance of accountability in the context of the organisational values, outlines practical steps for improving accountability in the field based on the HAP benchmarks, and contains examples.
Resources for quality and accountability
In North Kenya and Kashmir, Tearfund hired a dedicated Beneficiary Accountability Officer(s) to provide operational support to staff in improving accountability practices and integrating them into existing project plans. Both case studies give an overview of the activities undertaken to strengthen information sharing, participation, and complaints handling, and note observed advantages and lessons learnt. Tearfund North Kenya Programme's approach to improving accountability and Tearfund Accountability to Beneficiaries in Kashmir
World Vision’s Sri Lanka Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) recruited a separate Humanitarian Accountability Team (HAT) with an expenditure of 3% of the programme’s annual budget. Why Do Accountability? A Business Case From Sri Lanka outlines the advantages observed as a result of mainstreaming quality and accountability through the HAT, and the enabling factors that led to these, including the role of senior leadership, communication, financial and human resources and technical specialists.
Self-assessments for reviewing accountability
A series of self-assessment questions on the 6 benchmarks in the HAP 2007 Standard provides a starting point for reviewing your agency's level of humanitarian accountability. HAP has worked with agencies in Bangladesh and Lebanon in developing methods for self-assessing accountability at field level. More tools to follow soon.
In Sri Lanka World Vision developed structured discussion guides for beneficiaries and staff in order to evaluate the impact of their Humanitarian Accountability Team. Details about the methodology used, as well as findings, are outlined in the report: Humanitarian Accountability Team Lessons Learned: Perspectives from Communities and Staff.
Back to top
Transparency
Policies, procedures and guidelines on information sharing
Christian Aid’s information disclosure policy (Open Information Policy (OPI)) outlines the organisational commitment to transparency and the six main areas of information that will be shared with supporters, partners and the people who they work with.
Oxfam GB’s Public Information Board Notes form part of their staff toolkit, highlighting pros and cons and points to consider when using information boards, and lessons learnt on what makes a good bulletin board.
Case studies on information sharing
In Northern Kenya Tearfund set up community notice boards in ten villages in order to share information with communities. Despite low levels of literacy several positive impacts were observed and this case study outlines a number of lessons learnt.
Example leaflet used by the Danish Refugee Council in Uganda to communicate the basics about their complaints and response mechanism with community members, and leaflet used by Muslim Aid in Saraonkhola Bangladesh to communicate project plans with a range of stakeholders, including beneficiary communities.
Financial Transparency
Benchmark Two requires agencies to inform beneficiaries about their humanitarian plans and to give regular agreed progress reports against those plans. Reports should contain both operational activities as well as financial updates. MANGO has released a Top Tips on Beneficiary Reporting, which may help in taking into consideration the what, how and why's of financial transparency.
Back to top
Participation
Tools on participation
Community Activity Logs can encourage active participation, and enable communities to follow-up on actions promised by visitors. This example was developed by Oxfam GB (based on a tool created by Concern Worldwide).
Case studies on beneficiary participation
3D Animation for Community Mobilisation and Accountability outlines an approach used by World Vision’s Sri Lanka Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) to facilitate increased participation, through improved understanding and discussion leading to greater community cohesion.
Beneficiary Reference Groups (BRGs) were created and trained by Tearfund in North Kenya to increase community participation. This case study includes the ToR used to select members of the BRG and how they were established in each community, and results observed as a result of these groups.
Back to top
Complaints handling
Tools for developing and running complaints handling mechanisms
World Vision’s Sri Lanka Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) developed pictorial Community Complaints Cards to facilitate participation of community members in the design of a locally appropriate complaint and response mechanism. In addition a brief Community Complaints Fact Sheet was prepared to sensitise staff to the concepts of community complaint mechanisms, including dos and don’t of receiving complaints.
Tools for understanding existing complaints handling practice
Developed by HAP for World Vision’s Food Programme Management Group (FPMG) the Complaints and Response Mechanism Questionnaire was designed to gather information, relevant to complaint and response mechanisms, on the diverse contexts within which WV FPMG operates, map out existing complaint and response practice, and identify resources and support needed to implement complaint and response mechanisms in all WV food projects. This questionnaire can be adapted for use with agency country offices and partners who are at different stages in developing complaints mechanism (e.g. version adapted for Save the Children UK to use with their partners in Bangladesh).
A Community Complaints Agency Self-Audit developed by World Vision’s Sri Lanka Tsunami Response Team (LTRT) aims to help programmes and agencies evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of existing complaints management practices based on 14 different elements. This can then be used as a basis for identifying areas for improvement.
Policies, procedures and guidelines in complaints handling
Oxfam GB’s Public Complaints Policy outlines their organisational-wide commitment to establish a variety of mechanisms to encourage feedback and complaints about its work from all stakeholders from UK-based supporters to humanitarian beneficiaries. It’s implementation is supported by procedures and divisional-specific guidelines (Implementing Oxfam Public Complaints Policy in the International Division Guidelines).
Case studies on complaints handling mechanisms
CARE
In 2001 CARE established a complaint mechanism as part of their Cambodia programme. Complaints could be lodged through one of three channels: Committees for Addressing Complaints (CAC), complaints boxes or a complaint telephone line. The complaints mechanism policy for Care in Cambodia outlines details about the process that will be followed for community and staff complainants, as well as details about the committee composition, who can complain and what complaints can be raised.
Danish Refugee Council
In the North Caucasus the Danish Refugee Council established a complaint mechanism as part of its monthly distribution of food and non-food items to 250,000 beneficiaries. The mechanism was facilitated through the existing nine information centres receiving up to 10,000 visitors per month, and focused on complaints related to beneficiary status.
Medair
Medair have piloted a number of varied complaints handling mechanisms including: gauging levels of satisfaction via household surveys and patient voting in Darfur; inviting complaints over a 10 day period and establishing a complaints evaluation committee to review these in Sri Lanka to improve community trust; and establishing a daily ‘complaints hour’ for receiving complaints during their response to the Pakistan earthquake, leading to the identification and inclusion of 290 wrongly excluded families.
Mercy Malaysia
In 2007, as MERCY Malaysia worked towards HAP certification, they embraced the challenge of improving the way they work with disaster-affected communities. While Complaints and Response Mechanisms (CRMs) are a key element of improving overall accountability, they are also widely feared and misunderstood. This short summary report highlights some of the questions that staff dealt with in preparation for integrating CRMs into their emergency response programmes.
Tearfund
Tearfund, in response to the Kashmir earthquake, set up a mechanism which allowed community members to use one of three channels to raise complaints, these were then processed and a response given within seven days. In North Kenya Tearfund established complaints boxes to complement their Beneficiary Reference Groups by providing a channel by which more sensitive complaints could be raised anonymously.
Back to top
Updated June 2008
