Chapter Four - HAP International

More documents

Recommendations

Info

The 2008 Humanitarian Accountability Report 10. Lutheran World Federation, Department for World Service (LWF/DWS) Plans with regard to: undertaking a baseline analysis, a certification audit, or mid term certification review A baseline analysis was requested from HAP in 2008, scheduled for 2009. Case Study Example: Good practice in humanitarian accountability and quality management – Summary version LWF World Service Programme in Nepal has contextualised LWF Code of Conduct into the national “Code of Ethics”. Also, Disaster Risk Reduction is structured under the rights-based, empowerment approach, with long-term commitment. The LWF Kenya programme has developed a simple, one-page flow chart to illustrate the complaint processing / referral and response procedures. 11. Mango (Associate Member) As an associate member of HAP, we do not have an accountability workplan. However we have promoted HAP’s missions in many varied ways throughout 2008. The Listen First project was completed in collaboration with Concern and tools to improve downward accountability to beneficiaries were developed according to the HAP 2007 Standard. Mango continues to hold itself accountable to stakeholders by constantly allowing evaluations and making suitable improvements to our services. Listen First: The research project culminated in 2008 after involving more than 530 people, fieldwork in six countries, and a wealth of academic research. Working with Concern, we have researched and developed tools to manage downward accountability to beneficiaries. The one-page Listen First framework sets out performance standards for downward accountability, reflecting four operational benchmarks of the HAP Standard. It guides staff on how to put the principles into practice, and includes a method for gathering feedback from beneficiaries. The principles behind the Listen First framework are: • Providing information publically • Involving people in making decisions • Listening (feedback & complaints) • Staff attitudes & behaviours In 2008, the team went to Cambodia and Angola. The research procedures developed into three structured processes: • Workshops for local staff to assess current levels of accountability, as well as to identify necessary improvements in each situation. • Research in relation to local communities’ perceptions of Concern’s work, and the perception of accountability. (The local people were engaged and enthusiastic about taking part in these trials.) • Reports for managers about levels of downward accountability actually achieved. The research showed that staff and communities found the framework relevant in different countries and cultures. Other findings indicated that staff found it challenging to listen to local people, especially as field staff had so much more power than them, or did not speak the same language; and staff were being pulled in different directions due to commitments to donors and Head Office. 89 114
THE 2008 HUMANITARIAN ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT 11. Mango (Associate Member) The most important factors for improving accountability were the attitudes of field staff and managers. Field staff were more accountable when they really believed that local people had the ability and the right to make decisions about improving their lives. Their managers' attitudes played a big role in making space for this, as everyone was already very busy with many different priorities and it was felt that managers did not always prioritise downward accountability. Concern staff found the approach to be useful and relevant, working across many different languages and cultures. The research output will inform Concern’s strategic planning process. In addition there is significant scope for continuing the development of the Listen First approach especially in areas of representation, participatory approaches, and understanding relationships with beneficiaries and the links to feedback mechanisms. Listen First was presented to external audiences in 2008 including BOND’s Quality Group (March 2008) and INTRAC’s NGO Research Forum (May 2008). For more information see www.listenfirst.org/about New Management Agenda: The Director continued work on the New Management Agenda, which included a presentation at Christchurch College, Oxford, in November 2008. The aim of this initiative is to alter the current methods of NGO management to be confident that funds are being used to help people effectively. The agenda advocates a transformation from results-based management (which has been shown to be consistently flawed) to a focus on performance. The whole sector needs new approaches to become more effective. Key ideas include: helping people to help themselves; NGOs constantly checking how much value they have added to the efforts of people and organisations in strengthening their own ability to tackle their own issues; beneficiaries becoming NGOs’ primary stakeholders; and maintaining consistently high-quality relationships. BOND: We have continued our active role within BOND (the UK networking umbrella for NGOs) on building standards within the sector. BOND’s board recently approved a major new programme of work on enhancing quality, which provides an exciting opportunity to build a sector-wide programme to move the debate forward and make a decisive contribution to practice. Accountability Training: Two days on our flagship-training course were dedicated to NGO accountability. Staff from international and local NGOs were trained in current research, and how they could improve accountability in their own organisations. We have also started to integrate key learning on downward accountability into other core courses. Mango continued to teach on the Masters in Humanitarian Programme Management, run through the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine. The module focuses on accountability and effectiveness, looking at case studies, standards and the new management agenda. Mango’s Guide: Our free Guide focuses on helping NGOs develop their internal finance systems. Over 5,000 people were registered to use the Guide and over 8,000 of our Health Checks were downloaded in 2008. We continued to promote the Who Counts? Campaign on our website and in our Guide. Comic Relief Consultancy: We provided consultancy services to review the financial systems of grant recipients, including accountability of procedures. 90 115
Page 1 and 2: THE 2008 HUMANITARIAN ACCOUNTABILIT
Page 25: THE 2008 HUMANITARIAN ACCOUNTABILIT

Chapter Four - HAP International

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?