HAP International | News

"What happened next?" - Understanding the impact of HAP's deployment in Sri Lanka

Mon, 19 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Evidence of good practice in accountability that built on the support received from the HAP team during the deployment to Sri Lanka.

In July 2009 HAP’s Roving Team was deployed to Sri Lanka for three months. By working closely with interested agencies responding to the humanitarian crisis in the North of the country, the Team aimed to improve awareness and practice of humanitarian accountability and quality management. Six months later, a follow-up visit explored the impact of the deployment.

During the follow-up visit, agencies shared with each other and with Emily Rogers from the HAP Roving Team evidence of good practice that built on the support received from the HAP team during the deployment. Some examples focused on programme implementation, by strengthening practice in Menik Farm, while others related to development of new policies and guidelines which would continue to drive improvements in practice.

A few highlights from changes undertaken by agencies as a result of the HAP team deployment are included below:

• Using the findings from the self-assessment ACTED developed an Accountability Framework – including an a statement of commitments, including quality standards for emergency response, and an improvement plan to guide practice and monitor progress over the next year.

• Beneficiary feedback is better linked to decision-making processes: CARE improved methods of reporting beneficiary feedback in programme review meetings, and modified the standard reporting format from field staff so that it now includes beneficiary feedback as a component.

• Using creative means to communicate basic information to beneficiaries: Save the Children used coloured ‘tokens’ to communicate to communities the contents of a complementary food pack and how contents varied by family size. Each beneficiary family was met in advance of the distribution to be explained the process and to receive the token. The result was a smoother distribution process.

• Enabling staff to raise complaints and receive a response: OfERR, a partner of Christian Aid and DanChurchAid, developed a new approach for receiving, processing and responding to complaints from staff. It also drafted related procedures to handle complaints more effectively.

• Strengthening relationships with partners: Muslim Aid drafted a partnership manual and consulted with partners on its content. The manual captured learning to date on working with partners, and will help the agency in managing different models of partnership more systematically and clarifies processes for selecting and monitoring partners.

The majority of aid workers consulted during the follow up visit signalled that the HAP deployment was a catalyst for agencies to strengthen practice. The learning from this deployment and evidence of impact from agencies that received support from the HAP Roving Team reinforce the value of HAP’s deployment operations, including in complex emergency settings.

HAP will continue to capture and share both learning as well as impact from its field deployments. For more details on the Sri Lanka follow up visit, download a copy of the full report: “What happened next?” - Activities undertaken by agencies to strengthen accountability following the HAP deployment to Sri Lanka or contact Emily Rogers on erogers@hapinternational.org

Deadline for feedback on 1st draft of the HAP 2010 Standard on 16 July

Mon, 12 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Have you shared your views on the first draft of the HAP 2010 Standard? The end date for this phase of the public consultation is Friday, 16 July 2010.

To read the draft and download the feedback form, please click here.

VACANCY: HAP International Executive Director

Tue, 06 Jul 2010 00:00:00 GMT

HAP seeks an Executive Director to serve, lead and grow its diverse membership. With a team of impassioned high achievers, the momentum of strong mission progress and proven reputation, the Executive Director will manage the Secretariat, advocate the vision, strategically lead the work’s impact, and win the funding necessary to continue offering affordable and effective service to the growing membership.

Candidates from the global South are encouraged to apply.

Deadline for applications is midday on Thursday, 22 July 2010.

For more information about this post and to submit an application, please see: http://www.hapinternational.org/about/vacancies.aspx.

Concern Worldwide achieve HAP certification and the Danish Refugee Council successfully complete re-certification

Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT

HAP International has the great pleasure to announce today the certification of two internationally acclaimed agencies. Firstly, the Secretariat is happy to confirm that the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) is the first agency to apply for and successfully complete a re-certification quality assurance audit against the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management (HAP Standard).

DRC achieved certification in 2007 and underwent a mid-term progress review in late 2008, early 2009. As part of its continual work towards improving and strengthening accountability, especially towards beneficiary communities involved in their international programmes, DRC undertook re-certification against the HAP Standard. The audit provides a public means of verification to DRC and its stakeholders of their commitment to the Principles of Accountability and Humanitarian Action and furthermore, highlights their achievements in promoting good accountability practices across the organisation and with their partners.

DRC was audited against the HAP Standard during the month of March 2010 in Copenhagen, Denmark (Head Office) and in Kosovo (programme site) and submitted self-assessment reports from a further 23 country-based programme sites.

HAP Certification is valid for a period of 3 years and DRC will need to apply for re-certification before the certificate expires in June 2013. A mandatory mid-term progress audit will take place in 18 months time to verify that commitments made, progress plans and corrective action requirements are current. This will include a Head Office audit and an audit of one programme site.

Secondly, Concern Worldwide has successfully completed the quality audit process against the HAP Standard, becoming the 8th international aid agency to be certified by HAP International. The certification audit covers all of Concern Worldwide's activities, including humanitarian, development and advocacy work. Concern was audited during the months of February and March 2010 in Dublin, Ireland (Head Office), in Dhaka and Pabna, Bangladesh (programme sites) and submitted self-assessment reports from a further 16 country-based programme sites.

HAP Certification is valid for a period of 3 years and Concern will need to apply for re-certification before the certificate expires in June 2013. A mandatory mid-term progress audit will take place in 18 months time to verify that commitments made, progress plans and corrective action requirements are current. This will include a Head Office audit and an audit of two programme sites.

Read the News release for the re-certification of the Danish Refugee Council

Read the News release for the certification of Concern Worldwide

You can find out more about the HAP certification process, other certified agencies and full details on HAP and its quality assurance services by following this link.

NEW HAP REPORT: The right to a say and the duty to respond

Thu, 24 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT

This report examines an integral component of the HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management, complaint and response mechanisms (CRM). Complaints and response mechanisms have received significant attention in recent years as part of aid agencies’ efforts to improve accountability and the quality of their service. Yet limited research has been undertaken so far to collect evidence of the effectiveness of these systems and their impact on service provision.

In 2009 HAP commissioned study to highlight the views and experiences of staff from four aid agencies and individual representatives of affected-communities in Uganda and Bangladesh; additional interviews with staff from 17 agencies complement the four case studies.

The final report based on this study concludes that:

· To be fit for purpose, as well as meeting the requirements in the HAP 2007 Standard, complaint and response mechanisms (CRMs) cannot work in isolation from the other areas of accountability that are addressed in the Standard.

· Unless power dynamics at community level are carefully considered by the agency, CRMs risk reinforcing existing imbalances by giving more voice to privileged members of the community at the expense of others.

· Cultural and linguistic factors and the local context need to be given due consideration in identifying most appropriate means through which communities will be comfortable to raise complaints.

· While staff knowledge and skills in addressing complaints are important, it is their attitudes and behaviours that will most directly affect communities’ confidence in raising issues of concern to them.

· Complaints need to be addressed as close as possible to the place where they are raised but staff need clear agency guidance on how to escalate more complex or sensitive allegations.

· Donor attitude and engagement was also seen to have a role in enabling improved accountability to beneficiaries.

· Leadership and senior management support is essential in creating an environment where staff recognize the value of the benefits of complaint handling firstly, as a means of making concrete the values of dignity and respect for disaster-affected communities through better accountability and, secondly, as a way of strengthening their organisation’s performance.

· Accountability starts at home: staff too need access to a safe and confidential system to raise complaints without fear of retaliation.

To read the full report, please click here.

Draft 2010 Standard available for consultation

Fri, 18 Jun 2010 00:00:00 GMT

The draft text for HAP 2010 Standard in Accountability and Quality Management is now available for public review. The deadline for feedback is 16 July 2010.

The current draft reflects the review phase, with particular attention to suggestions received during the consultations with aid workers and disaster-affected populations and to the criteria agreed by the Steering Committee in the context of preparing a Standard that is mission critical, affordable and measurable.

To review the draft and submit your feedback, please visit the HAP 2010 Standard page.

The HAP Strategic Plan for 2010-2012

Mon, 31 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT

Since HAP International’s foundation - and due in part to its efforts - there has been mounting recognition in the sector of the need for improved accountability to the beneficiaries of humanitarian action. This has been reflected in a range of initiatives to emerge from the UN system, bilateral donors, national governments and the non-governmental sector. Amongst these initiatives HAP’s model of programme quality assurance has a distinctive, complementary, and transformative contribution to make.

As the number and variety of actors in humanitarian emergencies increases so also does the need to improve accountability and quality norms in the sector. Based on extensive consultation and field trials, the HAP Standard in Accountability and Quality Management was designed as a tool to enable measurement of an agency’s efforts to put the Principles of Humanitarian Accountability into practice. While there are many valid approaches to improving programme quality, applying the HAP Standard offers a unique opportunity in the sector to enable agencies to demonstrate the accountability and quality of their programmes. HAP continues to develop and promote independent systems of quality assurance including the HAP certification system.

HAP’s tools and services are being designed and refined in consultation with aid workers, members of disaster and crisis affected communities and other key stakeholders, and offer practical ways to bring about the changes in systems, approaches and attitudes that are needed to eradicate poor quality aid programmes. Multi-mandate agencies, operational agencies and agencies who work with local partners agree that they too see improvements in the quality of programmes through applying the HAP Standard and tools. Over the last six years, HAP has appreciated engagement with and the support of a growing number of humanitarian and multi-mandated agencies who are committed to working with us to tackle what Amartya Sen has called “unfreedoms”, such as:

•lack of critical information that allows people to make informed decisions about the things that impact their lives

•exclusion that prevents marginalized groups from gaining access to services and decision making processes

•the absence of safe and accessible means of raising concerns or complaints

•the lack of transparent performance standards and the means to assess the competence of aid workers

•the repetition of mistakes and bad practices resulting from inadequate learning processes within the aid system

The application of the HAP Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management is a tried and tested means through which these “unfreedoms” can be confronted. HAP’s learning tools and verification processes, including certification, can provide assurance that an agency will implement good practices in its programmes.

It is clear that cooperative, coordinated and industry wide efforts can make change happen. HAP’s system of quality assurance is one process that aims to do just this. But is it happening fast enough? Is there an appropriate sense of urgency, given ongoing reporting of poor quality and unaccountable aid programmes? HAP’s 2010-12 strategic plan seeks to address this challenge through pursuing the following directions:

•Working with disaster and crisis - affected communities, member agencies and other key players to intensify demand for accountability

•Encouraging the research community to examine more thoroughly the proposition that improved accountability through systematic programme quality management gives more value for money for beneficiaries and donors alike

•Engaging more strategically with the United Nations humanitarian system and with the donor community

•Reaching out to the broader humanitarian community to learn from and engage with them on options for meaningful and practical improvements in accountability and quality assurance

•Extending its verification, certification, and organisational development services to meet growing demand

The HAP 2010-12 Strategy includes feedback from HAP members and is approved by the HAP Board. It sets out the ways and means by which HAP will seek to extend its services, and work with others to drive forward system wide accountability and quality reforms.

Camp Committees in Haiti: Un-Accountability Mechanisms?

Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 GMT

As a result of two months of working with implementing agencies in Haiti, the HAP team in Haiti, Elie Gasagara and Troels Egeskov Sorensen, has found that the structure and functioning of camp committees are a major accountability challenge for the humanitarian response. Rather than these governance structures serving as effective accountability mechanisms for camp management agencies in terms of participation, complaints handling and information dissemination, for example, in some cases they are means by which victims of Haiti’s recent earthquake are subject to unaccountable and corrupt practices.

While the humanitarian community allocates significant decision-making power to these committees, the HAP team found, for example, a lack of knowledge within camp populations regarding their local committees, the committee structures do not reflect community governance structures, and committees use their decision-making power for personal gain. Committee authority includes deciding who should receive Cash for Work, new tents, and the location of distribution. They are also responsible for notifying relief agencies of disabled camp inhabitants, however evidence was found of committees then keeping the increased support and supplies for themselves. Disabled community members were aware of being mistreated, but had no means of registering a complaint due to the corruption of the governing system itself. While a representation system had existed previous to the earthquake, relief efforts subsequent to the earthquake have lacked effective protection mechanisms for disabled people and other disadvantaged groups, a shortcoming which extends beyond corrupt practices of the camp committees.

The HAP team has been working closely with international and national NGOs over the past two months, conducting training workshops in accountability, providing consultation and support activities, and conducting the first of a series of planned camp assessments, working with a member agency who had recently taken over camp management. NGO workers have consistently reported the camp committee structures as one of the major challenges with respect to accountability.

When the camps were established shortly after the earthquake, the international NGOs managing the camps asked inhabitants to set up committees. The methods used in the formation of these committees have varied dramatically between camps. In some, the committees were based on already existing representative bodies such as associations, but in others the committees were new entities and in some cases bypassed pre-existing governance structures.

Amongst the humanitarian community there are mixed views on the role of the committees. A frequent attitude expressed is that meeting with the committees once a week is sufficient to cover a requirement to include participation of affected communities. Other aid workers admitted that while they believe themselves to be working with and through the committees, they don't know who they are or who they represent, and they are aware that "there are a lot of things going on that we are not on top of or aware of".

From an accountability perspective, humanitarian agencies must strive to ensure that camp committees are representative and that they work in an impartial and non-corrupt manner before handing them power and resources. In order to make an assessment of this, a range of questions need to be asked, such as: How are committee members selected or chosen? Do they meet with the camp population to share information and record needs? Do they represent only the majority or also diverse and vulnerable groups? How much power should they be given? What checks and balances are in place to prevent against corruption? Are there safe means for camp residents to make a complaint or to report abuse or corruption in the event that it is the committee itself that is the subject of the complaint? Is collaboration between the humanitarian community and the committee influencing or shifting the power balance in the community?

The HAP team explored these questions in collaboration with an agency newly taking over the role of camp management in a number of camps, with the aim to assist them to plan their management approach and in particular with respect to participation of communities affected by the disaster. Additional objectives included to gather data regarding committees that could be used more broadly in highlighting accountability in camp structures and to assist in developing pilot assessment tools that could be of benefit across the multitude of camps in Haiti.

The camp committee structure of the first camp assessed comprised one central committee and five sub committees, that were intended to cover five zones of the camp. The conclusions of the assessment clearly show the importance of further integrating the committee debate in the humanitarian agenda. The camp committee assessment produced the following findings:

* The Central Committee was merely a zone committee that depicted itself as representative of the entire camp but showed favoritism to their own zone

* The Central Committee was not a committee, but a one-man show

* The sub-committees were created by the Coordinator of the Central Committee and not the populations of each zone

* In three of the zones, the population referred to a "committee" or group that had operated as the representative body in the area before the earthquake. This group was still active, but was not recognized by the Central Committee and therefore was not part of the collaboration with NGOs. As such, the committee structure was not representative of the communities in the camp nor of the general population.

* People with disabilities did not feel they were represented in the camp and reported being bypassed in the distribution. Examples were given of committee members recording their disability and location, and then keeping the additional resources for themselves. Before the earthquake, people with disabilities had survived through the help and support of private networks, however as a result of the earthquake these networks have dissolved and the now increased number of disabled people are more likely to be surviving on their own in the camp.

* The committees were accused by the population of demanding money and services for distribution services that were intended to be free.

In this particular camp, the HAP team made a recommendation that the agency support the creation of four committees of equal stature instead of having a Central Committee with unchecked influence, so that there would be a balance of power between the four committees.

Committees are a crucial component in camp management and in the level of quality and accountability of humanitarian aid in Haiti. Some committees are undoubtedly well functioning and enable effective participation and representation. Other committees, however, are variously not representative, corrupt, or used for political or personal purposes. These cases need to be addressed as a matter of priority while the international community continues to provide these committees with power regarding, for example, who should receive cash for work, where latrines should be placed, and which families should get new tents. Without mechanisms in place to ensure the accountability of camp committees, it is the humanitarian community itself that is placing people affected by the disaster at risk of further hardship and abuse.

In the coming months the HAP team will advocate for a wider adoption of assessment regarding the representation of committees. This will include, but is not limited to, examining the makeup of the committees, election processes, relations between committees and pre-existing governance structures, and committees' impartiality with regard to ensuring the voice of disadvantaged groups are being both heard and responded to. As the humanitarian community is providing resources and therefore power to the committees in Haiti, questions must continue to be asked regarding their accountability. Four months into the humanitarian response, uncertainty about the accountability of the committees handling so many critical aspects of peoples' lives should not go unaddressed.