Standard 3: Accountability
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
24

Standard 3: Accountability
In the past, accountability has often described as the way NGOs report back to their donors on how their funds have been used. In recent years there has been growing momentum to recognise the ways that NGOs need to be accountable to the people they serve in their working areas – the project participants.
This approach to accountability was developed originally in connection with emergency responses, although the principles are now applied more widely to recovery and development projects also. NGOs have often been criticised for not allowing sufficient participation of their target communities. For example, a cross-agency evaluation of the Asian Tsunami response called for a
“ fundamental reorientation from supplying aid to supporting and facilitating communities’ own relief and recovery priorities .” In order for this to be achieved, the evaluation report suggests that affected populations need to set priorities themselves, and draw up plans for recovery programmes. The affected population should “own” the relief response and aid agencies should hold themselves accountable to the affected people. This approach is commonly called “ beneficiary accountability ”.
In the absence of good beneficiary accountability, problems may arise:
 The project may suffer from poor design – for example, activities may be inappropriate, badly timed, low priority or they may fail to reach the neediest people.
 There may be poorer acceptance by the community of the project team and a weaker security environment.
 Beneficiaries may have less of a sense of dignity or value.
 Communities may be more vulnerable to exploitation and abuse.
This quality standard recognises that our project participants are the main stakeholders in our work and our primary focus should be on them. In the Bible,
Jesus teaches that the second greatest commandment is to “love your neighbour” (Mark 12:29). This means showing compassion for anyone in need, and treating people with equal respect. In our projects, loving your neighbour as yourself means asking, “If I was a beneficiary in this project, how would I like to be treated?”
“If I was a beneficiary in this project how would I like to be treated?”
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
25

Standard 3: Accountability
Beneficiary accountability is a measure of the quality of the relationship between the NGO or Church and the beneficiary . In practical terms, it involves the following:
 Ensuring transparency and providing detailed information to project participants and communities concerning the organisation, its programme plans and project details so that people are fully informed.
 It means encouraging community participation as much as possible, for example in assessments, in project design, in agreeing selection criteria for beneficiaries, for monitoring and evaluating project progress. This includes obtaining agreement from the community at the start (known as informed consent) , confirming that they are happy for the project to go ahead.
 Establishing a clear channel for project participants and community members to use to give feedback and complaints concerning the project.
Managers should have a mechanism to receive & record this feedback, and to provide a response to those who gave it. Community members should feel that they have a voice which is listened to and action is taken.
They should also be able to complain without fear about highly sensitive issues such as corruption or sexual exploitation by staff or volunteers.
 It means that staff members are fully briefed and understand the organisation’s values, the principles of good accountability, the processes in place and the importance of our relationships with project participants.
Our Accountability commitment has close links with:
 Values , as we need to make information on our values and standards of conduct publicly available;
 Impartiality , as we need to make information on our commitment to impartiality publicly available;
 Children, as we need to make information on our commitments to children publicly available - our feedback mechanisms should include ways of receiving complaints and responding to any child protection issues;
 Gender , as participation means the full participation of both men and women in needs assessment, project design, etc. – our feedback
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
26

Standard 3: Accountability mechanisms from communities need to include feedback on any exploitation or abuse issues;
 Conflict , in recognising and reducing the potential risks of making information publicly available in conflict situations.
 Tearfund Good Practice Guide on Beneficiary Accountability http://tilz.tearfund.org/~/media/Files/TILZ/Topics/DMT/GPG%20on%20B eneficiary%20Accountability%202nd%20Edition.pdf
 The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability 2014 www.corehumanitarianstandard.org/files/files/Core%20Humanitarian%20S tandard%20-%20English.pdf
has principles and commitments on accountability.
 Mango – Financial accountability: www.whocounts.org.uk
see paper “Who
Counts / Financial Reporting to Beneficiaries: Examples of Good Practice.”
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
27

Standard 3: Accountability
Identification, Design and Implementation
Step 1: Obtain the agreement of beneficiaries at the start and ensure their ongoing participation throughout the project.
Step 2: Set aside the resources needed – funds and staff - to support beneficiary accountability
Step 3: Make information on your organisation and your project publicly available
Step 4: Ensure thorough induction, appraisal and development of staff
Step 5: Establish a system to hear and respond to feedback
Step 6: Monitor the accountability system and act on the feedback received
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
28

Step 1: Obtain the agreement of beneficiaries at the start and ensure their ongoing participation throughout the project.
Standard 3: Accountability
Step 1: Obtain the agreement of beneficiaries at the start and ensure their ongoing participation throughout the project.
True participation should be there at all stages of the project cycle, from the assessment stage, through design and implementation, and on to evaluation and completion. Participation can always be further improved. The “ladder of participation” is a helpful way of understanding the different levels of participation. At the most basic level, the NGO simply provides information. As you move up the “ladder”, the community has increasing “influence” over decisions until the “control” stage, where the community are running the project, and the NGO can withdraw.
Information  Consultation  Influence  Partnership  Control
It is often better to work with representatives of the community, rather than the whole population. Both men and women should be consulted and the representatives should be a cross section of individuals, trusted by the wider community, and including vulnerable groups (such as elderly or disabled) who may traditionally be overlooked. The community should select their own representatives. Responsibilities must be clearly defined and explained, and the representatives should communicate decisions with the wider beneficiary group. Regular public meetings should be carried out at key decision-making points, and clear records should be kept. It is important to record all the discussions and decisions, and to be able to show what changes have occurred in the project as a result of beneficiary feedback.
In the past we have sometimes assumed that the community is happy with the proposed project without intentionally seeking a “decision point”. There should be a moment of “Informed consent”, a clear decision by the community to go ahead, when all participants are fully aware of the detailed plans and the contributions they are expected to make. This may be verbal or may be documented in a Memorandum of Understanding, which should be made public.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
29

Standard 3: Accountability
Step 2: Set aside the resources needed – funds and staff - to support beneficiary accountability
All project proposals should include staff positions and dedicated budget lines for Beneficiary Accountability.
Tearfund experience has shown that having a dedicated person on the project team (such as a Beneficiary Accountability Officer or Community Liaison
Officer) makes a huge difference to being able to carry out this commitment.
The right type of person must be recruited, who can quickly develop good relationships with the community. He or she should not be engaged in the day-to-day running of the project, and should be able to communicate directly with a senior manager.
However, it is equally important that accountability is seen as everyone’s responsibility; every team member is involved. The specific roles and responsibilities of each staff member or volunteer must be agreed and understood.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
30

Standard 3: Accountability
Step 3: Make information on your organisation and your project publicly available
You need to agree, in consultation with beneficiary representatives, the amount of information to be given to beneficiaries. The organisation’s head office should provide a summary of information which can be safely released to the wider public. It should always be easily accessible, in the language and format most appropriate for the target audience. It should be kept current and updated regularly and should include staff roles and responsibilities and contact details. In some situations, it may be appropriate to include staff names and photos, but in other places, it could expose staff to risk; do not include names or photos if this might create danger for staff.
The methods for sharing information should reflect the community’s own preferences and levels of literacy and understanding. Methods may include community meetings, information boards, leaflets, pictures, local radio or wall painting. Always take account of the communication needs of different groups (e.g. children, persons with disabilities), to ensure that they have access to the information. Financial information should be provided in local language and currency and in a style that is easy for users to understand.
An important part of transparency is to provide public information on beneficiary selection criteria. These criteria should be agreed first with the community. The names of proposed beneficiaries can also be displayed, when this is appropriate to the project and context. Also, the entitlements
(inputs or services) should be clearly listed, along with the time-frame of the project.
There are some situations where it may be necessary to withhold information in order to meet other commitments such as safety and security of beneficiaries. If such risks exist, then it is inappropriate for you to share person-specific information. It is okay to withhold information, as long as you can justify your decision and have documented your reasons.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
31

Standard 3: Accountability
Step 4: Ensure thorough induction, appraisal and development of staff
We have learnt that successfully carrying out the commitment to Accountability depends on good quality induction of staff. If the staff understand and support accountability, then the impact on the project will be greater.
There may be traditional barriers or organisational cultures to overcome in becoming more transparent, promoting greater community participation, letting go of some control, and being open to receive critical comments from beneficiaries. Such organisational or cultural constraints do need to be tackled and changed. Induction of all staff should be comprehensive and should include the organisation’s values and standards. Induction should explain the individual’s responsibility to uphold those values and adhere to set standards.
Ensure that all staff members understand the project so that they can explain it clearly to others.
Local staff have the very important task of sharing information in a community.
Drivers and guards interact constantly with beneficiaries and the wider community – are they clear on the project plans and organisational values in the same way that project delivery staff are familiar?
Carry out regular performance management appraisals with all staff. When reviewing performance it is important to consider both technical abilities in performing the work and the attitude with which it is carried out.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
32

Standard 3: Accountability
Step 5: Establish a system to hear and respond to feedback
The opportunity for beneficiaries to provide feedback is an essential part of being accountable. It is not easy to establish a formalised system for giving feedback in relief and development work. The NGO is seen as having much more power than a community member, and there may be complex power dynamics within the community. What we aim to achieve are simple procedures and mechanisms that give beneficiaries access to a safe means of voicing complaints on relevant areas within the organisation’s control.
Every project should agree with the community which feedback procedures are their preferred choices. Different groups in a community may prefer to give feedback in different ways so it is important to allow for different methods of communication. There are many ways of welcoming feedback: directly to a Beneficiary Accountability Officer, by phone or mail, referring to a beneficiary complaints committee, a suggestions box, etc. There needs to be a contact person identified, so that the community knows to whom they should direct their feedback. The system should be as simple as possible, especially if literacy levels are low, and should be clearly explained. This information should include the type of issues which are open for comment, as these are within the organisation’s control. It should also emphasise that the system is free to use and safe – there need be no fear of retaliation if complaints are made.
The feedback should be recorded in a log-book, so that managers can track what feedback is coming in, which groups are giving feedback, what responses were given, and most importantly what changes to the project were made based on the feedback received. A response should be given to the person giving feedback, according to an agreed method and time-frame.
You will need to agree specific procedures to respond to sensitive feedback such as sexual abuse and exploitation; involve senior management immediately and commence appropriate investigation procedures.
When recruiting Beneficiary Accountability Officers it is important to have both male and female officers, to help facilitate feedback, especially in situations where it is difficult or inappropriate for women to share their comments with men.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
33

Standard 3: Accountability
Step 6: Monitor the accountability system and act on the feedback received
Once the accountability steps are in place, you need to monitor the system and make changes and improvements where needed.
 Is the method for ensuring ongoing participation by the community effective? Are the community representatives truly representative of all beneficiary groups?
 Is the public information being understood? Do all community groups have access to the information?
 Is refresher training and induction needed for staff, especially if there has been a turnover with new staff recruited
 What feedback is being received, positive and negative? Is it being recorded? And most importantly, what changes to the project are being made based on the feedback, and what response is given to community?
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
34

Standard 3: Accountability
In Zimbabwe, a partner running a food aid project for families with orphans shared information on selection criteria, ration sizes and entitlements and set up ways for children to give feedback. This led to better targeting and ownership of the project by the families themselves.
In Kashmir, Pakistan, feedback from beneficiaries included the fact that influential community leaders were misleading the NGO. As a result, changes were made in the way project committees were set up.
In a North Kenya livestock-restocking project, “Beneficiary Reference
Groups” were set up, with community members elected onto the groups by the community. Their responsibility was to oversee the selection of beneficiaries and deal with any problems or complaints that arose. This enabled the whole process to be owned by the community.
With the construction of a school in Spin Boldak, Afghanistan, sharing budget information with the community and school authorities strengthened local relationships and led to the identification of a fraud taking place with inflated costs of construction materials.
In Darfur, Sudan, a programme team printed a short leaflet that explained in
English and Arabic details about the organisation, its programme in Darfur, its commitments and staff contact information. An insert of project-specific information was also added for use in each project location.
Quality Standards Field Guide – Second Edition, July 2015
35