“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” accountability towards beneficiaries...

““making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries”

Accountability towards Accountability towards beneficiariesbeneficiaries

Nicholas StocktonNicholas Stockton

Executive DirectorExecutive Director

Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP)Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP)

INTERNATIONAL NOT-FOR-PROFIT EVENT

WORKSHOP 1


The Humanitarian Accountability The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership - InternationalPartnership - International

• Founded in 2003 – "to achieve and promote the highest principles of accountability through self-regulation by members linked by common respect for the rights and dignity of beneficiaries"

• Objectives:– Set standards of accountability– Support members – Promote greater accountability– Monitor and certify compliance– Complaints-handling


HAP full-membersHAP full-members

1. ACFID (Australia)

2. ACTED (France)

3. CAFOD (Caritas UK)

4. CARE International

5. Christian Aid (UK)

6. Church World Service – Pakistan/Afghanistan

7. COAST Trust (Bangladesh)

8. CONCERN Worldwide

9. DanChurchAid (Denmark)

10. Danish Refugee Council

11. Medair (Switzerland)

12. Medical Aid for Palestinians (UK)

13. MERCY Malaysia

14. Muslim Aid (UK)

15. Norwegian Refugee Council

16. OFADEC (Senegal)

17. Oxfam GB

18. Save the Children UK

19. Sungi Development Foundation (Pakistan)

20. Tearfund (UK)

21. Women's Commission on Refugee Women and Children (USA)

22. World Vision International


Current DonorsCurrent DonorsOfficial donors

• AusAID

• DFID (associate member)

• Danish MFA (associate member)

• Swedish MFA (associate member)

• Irish MFA

• Netherlands MFA

• Norwegian MFA

Foundations

• Oak Foundation

• Ford Foundation


Horn of Africa 2009

A simulation


ScenarioScenario• August 2009

• Horn of Africa Famine

• 12 million people affected

• Global crude mortality: 3/10,000/deaths/day

• 2,160 children under five dying per day

• UN Emergency Appeal 30% funded


Dodoth: A badly affected Dodoth: A badly affected district in Karamoja, Ugandadistrict in Karamoja, Uganda

• Population: 80,000 with 27,000 children under 5

• Crude Mortality Rate @ 6/10,000/day• 48 deaths per day of which 34 are

children under 5• District wide caseload of 4,160

moderate-severely malnourished children


FlashAid and Qualaid• Qualaid is HAP Certified, FlashAid is still

thinking about it.• Both agencies arrive 1st August on OCHA

charter• Both deploy 5 international staff • Each given 50% of OCHA emergency

funds available for supplementary feeding in Dodoth District


Comparative Response

• Day 1 – “hits the ground running”

• Day 3 – Supplementary feeding programme for 2,080 children up and running

• Day 4 – crowd control problems due to registration anomalies and lack of information

• Day 1 to Day 3 “community consultations”

• Day 4 – Verification of registered beneficiaries completed with help from community leaders

FlashAidFlashAid QualaidQualaid



• Day 5 – Beneficiary criteria and detailed distribution schedule displayed on public notice-boards

• Day 6 Supplementary feeding for 2,080 children up and running



Day 7 - Both agencies have underestimated demand as migrants from un-assisted neighbouring district start arriving generating an additional 1,000 caseload of malnourished children.

Queues form in both project areas, although these are much longer at FlashAid’s feeding centre because distribution schedule has not been published.


• Day 8 – Feeding programme expanded to meet new demand: total caseload 3,000

• Day 9 – Rates of dehydration and diarrhoea increase due to effect of long queues in un-shaded waiting area

• Day 10 – Programme disrupted by riots. International staff withdrawn.

• Day 8 - Consultations with community and patients

• Day 9 – Feeding programme expanded to meet 3,000 caseload. New distribution schedule communicated to community

• Day 10 - New shaded waiting area constructed for additional caseload

FlashAidFlashAid QualaidQualaidComparative Response



• Day 12 - Team given advice on reducing security risks by community leaders

• Day 20 to Day 80– 186 complaints

handled – targeting improved – 2 members of staff

sacked for sexual exploitation of beneficiaries

FlashAidFlashAid QualaidQualaid• Day 15 – Warehouse

looted• Day 20 – International

staff return• Day 21 – National staff

ambushed on road• Day 25 – Security

consultant brought in to advice on new security guidelines



• Day 70 – Evaluation Team arrive

• Day 72 – Evaluation Team depart

• Day 80 – Evaluation Report given to HQ with inter alia recommendations for improving queuing & registration practices and dealing with poor community relations due to staff "behavioural" issues.




• Day 82 – Field informed of evaluation findings

• Day 83 – Registration anomalies addressed Queuing conditions improved

• Day 90 – Nutrition targets reached - project closed




• Day 100 – Nutrition targets reached. Project closed



FlashAidFlashAid – mortality data – mortality data


Qualaid - mortality dataQualaid - mortality data


Rezo District <5 death rates

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

301 6

11

16

21

26

31

36

41

46

51

56

61

66

71

76

81

86

91

96

Day 1 to Day 100

De

ath

s p

er

da

y

FlashAid

Qualaid

Qualaid’s Complaints handling system leads to improved targeting as registration anomalies are resolved early

Qualaid’s improved targeting and better environmental conditions produces earlier closure of project

Bad queuing conditions leads to slower rate of decline in mortality rate in FlashAid centre

FlashAid’sevaluation recommendations implemented

Qualaid’s early consultation and public communications reduce queues, stress and registration mistakes

Quick start by FlashAid brings initial gains in reducing mortality, but -

The speed dividend

The accountability

dividend

FlashAid's early achievements undermined by staff insecurity and temporary evacuation

Death rates increase sharply with influx from neighbouring districts, although higher in FlashAid area.


Dodoth DistrictCumulative <5 death toll after 100

days

FlashAidFlashAidArea

1,207

QualaidQualaid Area

604


Comparative Costs

Agency ActivityPerson

daysCost

Elapsed time to

address problems

Excess lives lost before problems

fixed

FlashAid Evaluation 40 days $20,000 80 days 269

Qualaid Initial consultation

3 days $1,500 3 days 6

Community- liaison

12 days $6,000 3 days 6

Early closure -50 days -$25,000 -10 days -

Complaints- handling

10 days $5,000 4 days 8

Consultant 10 days $5,000 10 days 10

Total 50 days $25,000 90 days 279

Total -25 days -$12,500 0 days 20


Qualaid's management system produced:

1. Better humanitarian outcomes in terms of mortality, morbidity and the dignity of disaster survivors

2. Improved programme cost-effectiveness

3. Better staff security and risk management

4. Reduced losses through fraud and theft

through the application of…..through the application of…..


… five simple quality management practices:

1. transparency in mandate, objectives, beneficiary and entitlement criteria and implementation reporting

2. consultation with "principals" (disaster survivors) right from the beginning to gain their informed consent

3. feedback/complaints & redress-handling system

4. competence of staff5. learning for continuous improvement


The ChallengeThe Challenge• Imbalance of power between humanitarian principals

and humanitarian agents. For example:– Disaster survivors are only rarely represented in:

1. Donor resource allocation procedures

2. UN coordination mechanisms

3. NGO governance arrangements

– Disaster survivors are:1. Often not consulted in assessments by relief agencies

2. Given no choice in selection of relief agency

3. Often treated as a homogenous group

4. Often subjected to "veterinarian" style relief interventions

5. Rarely able to submit a complaint or seek redress


..compounded by..compounded by• Host country national regulatory mechanisms are

weak or compromised in most humanitarian crises• Donor country NGO regulation that usually seeks to

strengthen accountability to domestic stakeholders, not to disaster survivors

• Fragmentation and proliferation of standards setting initiatives

• The absence of an effective “industry-wide” voluntary quality assurance system


• The humanitarian system is thus particularly vulnerable to the risks of:– Moral hazard (e.g. sexual exploitation of children by

aid workers)– Inappropriate choice (i.e. agencies taking on jobs

that they are not qualified to do – e.g. post-tsunami boat building and house reconstruction)

• The relative power of donors (both official and private) means that market-share “success” is a function of supply-side contracting and marketing rather than demand-driven programming

……..the consequences..the consequences


the situationthe situation• The credibility of international humanitarian

action is threatened by perceptions of:– lack of impact – poor coordination– waste/inefficiency– corruption and fraud– political instrumentalisation/co-option– lack of professionalism

• Increasing calls for official regulation (e.g. International Disaster Response Treaty)


HAP's proposition:HAP's proposition:• The adoption of HAP's accountability and quality

management standard will improve the impact and cost effectiveness of humanitarian action

• HAP's certification assures optimal programme quality in any given context

• HAP certification improves risk management• HAP certification helps to curb abuse of corporate

power thereby reducing vulnerability to hostile legal action

• HAP certification benefits all stakeholders (staff, donors, partners and disaster survivors)

• HAP certification strengthens the comparative advantage of certified agencies


The Humanitarian Accountability and Quality

Management Standard


What is different about the What is different about the HAP Standard?HAP Standard?

• Addresses the quality of humanitarian action, as perceived by its intended beneficiaries and other key stakeholders

• Focussed only upon "mission critical" elements of an agency's humanitarian quality management system

• Prepared in accordance with the ISO guidelines for the development of international quality management standards


Standard Development Process Standard Development Process


The 6 benchmarks and 19 related The 6 benchmarks and 19 related requirements were selected for:requirements were selected for:

• Relevance (mission criticality)

• Feasibility

• Affordability

• Measurability


The HAP Standard comprises:The HAP Standard comprises:• Foreword• Introduction

– HAP Accountability Principles– Brief history– Qualifying norms for certification– Key definitions

• Humanitarian Covenant– Principles for humanitarian action– Outline of Benchmarks– Working with partners

• Benchmarks for the HAP Standard


Benchmark 1:Benchmark 1:The agency shall establish a humanitarian quality management system

Benchmark 2:Benchmark 2:The agency shall make the following information publicly available to intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff and other specified stakeholders: (a) organisational background; (b) humanitarian accountability framework; (c) humanitarian plan; (d) progress reports; and (e) complaints handling procedures

Benchmark 3:Benchmark 3:The agency shall enable beneficiaries and their representatives to participate in programme decisions and seek their informed consent

Benchmark 4:Benchmark 4:The agency shall determine the competencies, attitudes and development needs of staff required to implement its humanitarian quality management system

Benchmark 5:Benchmark 5:The agency shall establish and implement complaints-handling procedures that are effective, accessible and safe for intended beneficiaries, disaster-affected communities, agency staff, humanitarian partners and other specified bodies

Benchmark 6:Benchmark 6:The agency shall establish a process of continual improvement for its humanitarian accountability framework and humanitarian quality management system


"The Guide to the HAP Standard" "The Guide to the HAP Standard" now available from Oxfam publishingnow available from Oxfam publishing

Order from www.oxfam.org.uk/publications


HAP HAP certificationcertification offers the sector… offers the sector…• A more informed choice for staff, volunteers, partner

agencies, donors and disaster survivors• Enhanced credibility and standing of certified

agencies• Strengthening of accountability and professionalism

HAP certification is:HAP certification is:• Applicable regardless of agency size, place of origin,

operational or partner-based• Available to all agencies who meet the qualifying

norms


Steps to CertificationSteps to Certification• Baseline analysis• Submission of application• Preparation of documentation• Self-assessments of all field sites• Head office audit• Field site audit• Interviews with stakeholders• Auditor's report• Authorisation by HAP Certification and Accreditation

Review Board• Certification – 3 year validity with interim check


Typical certification time-lineTypical certification time-line

2 – 4 weeks

Ensure agency on board

6-8 weeks

Prepare HAF

Prepare HQMS Head Office: 3

days

Field Site: 3 days

Report, including drafts and feedback: up to 1 month

Within 6 months

Consultation, support and organization response to baseline recommendations

Head Office: 3 days

Field Site: 3 days

If audit findings reveal any major non-conformities, certification would be delayed until these are addressed

A certificate is issued for a period of 3 years, with a mandatory mid term (18 months) monitoring audit

Baseline Analysis

Audit

Improvement

Preparation

Decision

Certified


CertificationCertification

• 2007: First round of membership certification completed with OFADEC, Danish Refugee Council and MERCY Malaysia certified.

• 2008: Second round of membership certification underway with 6 more members (DanChurchAid, Tearfund, Concern, Christian Aid, World Vision (FPMG) & Cafod) involved


Is the accountability burden too great?Is the accountability burden too great?


Task: In Groups of 6Task: In Groups of 6

If HAP Certification benefits all stakeholders, as HAP claims is the case, what are the major blockages preventing your agency from enrolling in the HAP Certification scheme?

“making humanitarian action accountable to beneficiaries” accountability towards beneficiaries...

Documents

beneficiaries accountability

beneficiaries hap

beneficiaries dodoth

beneficiaries flashaid

beneficiaries scenario

children uk

funded slide

simulation slide