A joint Christian Aid,
Save the Children,
Humanitarian
Accountability
Partnership Report
Andy Featherstone,
Research consultant
24 June 2013
Background to the research
Despite greater agency uptake and interest in the use of
accountability mechanisms, practice is patchy
Recent evaluations and ALNAP’s 2012 State of the
Humanitarian System suggests that many of those
receiving assistance continue to feel detached from it
There is a growing understanding of the potential
benefits of using accountability mechanisms but little
evidence of the contribution they make to quality
The research process
In what ways do accountability mechanisms from aid
organisations to affected communities contribute to the
quality of the assistance provided.
Literature review with support from the HAP peer
learning group
Development of an approach and set of methods
Case studies – Christian Aid/UCCS resilience programme
in Kenya and Save the Children child protection & non-
formal education programme in Myanmar
Analysis and report publication
The approach
A note on the methodology
Measurement: A mix of methods was used with a focus on qualitative exercises (scorecards and opinion ranking exercises) from which quantitative analysis could be undertaken
Credibility: Used agencies as entry points and the research was conducted by an independent team with efforts taken to address potential bias
Causality: Sought to find evidence of contribution through ‘pattern matching’ (identifying patterns of responses). Findings triangulated in each village within groups and between groups
Relevance
Participation and feedback mechanisms
helped agencies understand needs and
strengthened the utility of projects.
participation helped agencies better
understand localised vulnerability and
strengthened targeting.
Effectiveness
Provision of information, participation and
recourse to complaints helped build trust
and strengthened community engagement
in projects.
Trust linked to acceptance which has
implications for operational security.
Participation in project design strengthened
community perceptions of project quality.
Complaints mechanisms have highlighted
issues of fraud and mismanagement.
Efficiency & VfM
Input efficiencies achieved through eliciting
community advice on procurement.
Process efficiencies achieved when
community participated in project
monitoring.
Sustainability
Participation in project identification and
design improved the contextual relevance
of projects and strengthened community
ownership of processes and results.
Impact
Communities had greater confidence to
demand accountability from other duty
bearers.
findings - methodology
The importance of using entry-points to the
communities and facilitation for the exercises
Engagement and interest from each of the
communities involved in the research
The challenge of balancing rigour with
replication
The relevance of the methodology to a range
of agencies, contexts and interventions
findings - accountability
Benchmarks were important in providing a
common language and for assessing the
functioning of an accountability mechanism.
Necessary to contextualise the benchmarks to
make them relevant to;
Long/short-term interventions
Different links in the project management chain
The need to take a holistic view of
accountability mechanisms - ‘informal’ vs.
‘formal’ mechanisms
Recommendations
Accountability mechanisms contribute to project quality BUT
it is of concern that development assistance and humanitarian
aid continues to feel distant to so many people.
The results are compelling but practice is patchy. The use
of accountability mechanisms must become routine.
There is an important need to more rigorously document
accountability practice and continue to build the evidence
base.
Given the commitments made in the Transformative
Agenda, the adoption of the methodology by an HCT could
strengthen the response in real-time