Chapter Four - HAP International

THE 2008 HUMANITARIAN ACCOUNTABILITY REPORT
19. Tearfund UK
sharing lessons learnt across emergency
responses.
Quality Standards, with consultation most effective in
new emergency situations.
• Learning reviews and evaluation recommendations
were collated into key learning documents.
and develop partner capacities, and for
monitoring and evaluation.
Case Study Example: Good practice in humanitarian accountability and quality management – Summary version
Between 2005-2008, Tearfund responded operationally to the post-conflict situation in Liberia, with watsan, public health, food security and community
development projects in 4 counties, reaching over 100,000 beneficiaries. The Liberia programme was selected for the HAP field audit as part of the
certification process.
What went well:
• Head Office support, and sufficient resources set aside for implementation
Tearfund’s HQMS was developed centrally and then adapted to the Liberia Programme context. Accountability Officers were recruited in each field site
(integrated with the M&E role), and designated staff time was set aside to oversee implementation of Accountability across the programme.
• Integration into existing PCM framework
Successfully ‘implementing’ Beneficiary Accountability was reliant on ensuring community participation at all stages of the project (community entry,
sensitisation and mobilisation, partnership agreements, day-to-day field staff work alongside community members etc), ensuring communities felt fully
involved and listened to throughout the project processes.
• Staff Induction
Informing staff about Tearfund’s values, including Accountability, was seen as just as important as informing the communities. All staff (and NGO partners)
were given training on Accountability and Tearfund’s HQMS. Accountability was made part of all staff inductions, and seen as the responsibility of all staff,
not only of management, and integral to all activities carried out by each staff member.
• Public Information & Feedback Mechanisms
Tearfund/project information was discussed with communities first and foremost, and then relevant printed information was posted on community noticeboards.
Feedback mechanisms were agreed together with the communities, and once Beneficiary Accountability was understood, these were well used and
suggestions/complaints dealt with in a timely way.
Challenges faced/Lessons learned:
• Communicating the concepts of Beneficiary Accountability
Given the context of long running conflict in Liberia, communities were unaccustomed to giving opinions freely, particularly negative comments, for fear of
retaliation or withdrawal of support. The idea of feedback was new not only to beneficiaries but also to local staff. Instead of trying to help communities and
staff to understand the term ‘Beneficiary Accountability’, the focus was more on what this meant in practice, in relationships. HAP auditors used a
patient/doctor sketch (firstly where the doctor decided what the patient needed without listening to their needs, secondly where two-way communication
meant that the patient received appropriate medication) which staff and communities found very helpful. This is recommended as a useful training tool for
future use in explaining the key concepts of accountability.
118
143