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