DEVELOPMENT OF A CARE INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
List of Annexes
1. Terms of reference
2. List of key documents reviewed
3. List of people interviewed
4. Breakdown of survey respondents
5. Inception report (see separate file)
6. Definitions of accountability
7. Lessons from other agencies
8. Survey results on CARE’s stakeholders
9. Standards and codes that govern CARE’s work
10. What governs our accountability to our stakeholders?
11. CARE’s commitments: CI S&S - PIA - CI fundraising code - CI PSEA - GED
12. CARE commitments to gender equity and to climate change
13. Synergies with existing CARE processes
14. Elements of accountability from peers’ frameworks
15. Case Studies from CAREs Ethiopia, Peru, Myanmar and UK campaigns
16. How proposed benchmarks fit with HAF and programming principles
17. How proposed benchmarks map to existing standards and policies (see separate file)
18. Proposed draft Accountability Framework
19. Plain language explanation of Accountability Framework
List of Abbreviations
1
Annex 1- Terms of reference
MAPPING EXERCISE FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A CARE INTERNATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY FRAMEWORK
TERMS OF REFERENCE
(Final Draft ver. 17 Sept 2010)
Background
The CI Program and Operations Committee (POC), which reports to the CI Executive Committee met in June 2010 in
Geneva, and agreed to lead the development of a CARE-wide Accountability Framework (AF). It is envisaged that
this would build on the lessons, experience and model of the CI Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF). This
decision reflects both internal calls for such an accountability framework as well as external factors that make it
prudent and timely to move ahead with an accountability initiative.
Specifically, the POC proposed that this work be advanced by having a small group who would collaborate to modify
the current HAF, based on mapping of existing accountability initiatives within CARE, considering the appropriate
scope of an Accountability Framework, and developing a draft outline of a framework, noting gaps that need to be
addressed. Like the HAF, a process of consultations, piloting and capturing relevant learning is recommended.
In terms of a critical next step, POC agreed that a brief one page briefing note and a draft ToR for the development
of an Accountability Framework be prepared in time for the next Executive Committee meeting in November to seek
approval to move ahead with this critical process.
In order to ensure that this is a CI-wide process, an Accountability Framework Task Force (AFTF) has been
established whose membership includes key stakeholders in CARE including lead members, other CI members
(including prospective new members), and Country Office staff. The AFTF had their first discussion during a
teleconference on 16 July 2010 to commence planning for the development of a CO Accountability Framework.
The Accountability Framework Task Force (AFTF) agreed to proceed to develop a CI-wide AF on the following basis:

Develop the AF using the pilot version of the HAF as a starting point. The HAF is already familiar to many
CARE staff and is being internalized. If the AF looks significantly different, then there is a real risk that it will be
perceived as another new initiative and encounter resistance. In any case, the HAF already looks like an
accountability framework – only a small component is specifically humanitarian in nature. At the same time, the
opportunity should be used to “fix” any structural issues with the HAF.

Like the HAF, the people and communities with whom CARE and our partners work 1 must be placed at the
centre of the AF. The AF needs to be relevant to all CARE’s stakeholders (both internal and external, including
donors, peers, etc.) but the AF needs to be designed to “balance” accountability equitably across those with more
and less power. At the moment, CARE’s accountability systems usually tend to be skewed towards those
stakeholders with more power.

While maintaining a focus on communities with whom CARE and our partners work, the AF should be
organizational as well as program oriented. Though led by the POC, other CI units, such as CARE Finance
Directors, are natural stakeholders. (For example, the G&N sub-committee is leading on the development of the
CI Information Disclosure & Complaints policy.) It will thus be important to keep “connected” with key parts of
CARE as the AF is being developed and to be sure to keep key stakeholders well-informed.

It is important to develop the AF in a way that ensures coherence between different parts of CARE, otherwise it
will be very difficult to genuinely be accountable as an organisation. The importance of being coherent across the
membership was a theme constantly stressed during the POC meeting.

At the same time, a CI Accountability Framework needs to be general and flexible enough to accommodate
the various accountability requirements of different parts of CARE.
1
This is a provisional term. As discussed in the AFTF call on September 16 th it is expected that the AF mapping work should also
result in recommendations on how CARE could describe our primary stakeholders (which in the HAF are described as disasteraffected communities)
2
The CI Secretariat (DSG Marcy Vigoda, supported by Jock Baker of the CARE Emergency Group) would lead on the
development of a draft TOR for the overall AF. The CI Secretariat will lead on the coordination of the task, including
identifying an external reference group to help with the development of the AF.
Accountability Framework Task Force (AFTF) – Roles & Responsibilities
AFTF members represent various CARE constituencies, including three Lead Members, a European member, staff
from Country Offices (including CARE Peru) and the CI Secretariat. Marcy Vigoda, CI Deputy Secretary General, is
the Chairperson. Several of the AFTF members are also members of the Program & Operations Committee (POC).
The main role of the AFTF will be to oversee the process of developing an Accountability Framework for CARE
International, which will include raising awareness and promoting ownership of both relevant processes and the final
product. This mapping activity represents the first component activity.
Specific tasks and time commitments for the AFTF during the mapping exercise are likely to include:




Reviewing draft reports and TORs (probably 2 versions of a report and a couple of draft TORs between now and
the end of 2010);
Participating in periodic conference calls as required (a call once every 1-2 months as required);
Providing relevant advice and support to the consultant and AFTF Chairperson;
Promoting awareness ownership of the process and results, which will normally be integrated into ongoing
program of work within each member’s network/constituency.
Objectives & Approach for Development of an Accountability Framework
The objective of the mapping exercise is to inform the development of the Accountability Framework by compiling
and analyzing information around current approaches to accountability within CARE and peer organisations.
The mapping exercise will seek to answer the following questions:
i.
Which internal and external standards, principles, codes, etc. has CARE signed up to?
ii.
What is the level of awareness amongst CARE staff and partners (who are implementing CARE activities)
about these commitments?
iii. How is accountability understood in different parts of the organization?
iv. What does the AF need to consider to cover both programmatic and organizational accountability within
CARE?
v.
What are the opportunities to link or harmonise work on the AF with existing CARE agendas or processes?
vi. Who are the people in CARE and partners who would have a key role in implementing an AF? What are the
current capacities?
vii. Which CARE stakeholders who need to be on board to ensure smooth progress and ownership when it
comes time to put the AF into practice?
viii. What lessons can be drawn from outside of CARE amongst peer organizations which can help us move
forward with the AF?
ix. What is the AF likely to look like and how will it be used? What supporting guidance, capacities and
resources are likely to be required?
The mapping exercise will provide recommendations to help ensure the AF is
3

technically sound and appropriately targeted

“good enough”, maintaining as far as possible a simple and streamlined approach which can be readily
implemented at all levels of CARE while ensuring appropriate rigour to enable accountability to be assessed
or demonstrated

Integrated with other current CARE initiatives to help avoid duplication and maximize synergies.

Consistent with CARE International’s 2007-12 Strategic Plan, while informing the next Strategic Plan (thereby
ensuring that the AF, or a revised version, is fully integrated into the next Strategic Plan).
Finally, the mapping exercise will produce a draft AF, highlighting any significant gaps which were not possible to fill
within the scope of this consultancy and recommending how these might be filled.
4
Annex 2 - List of key documents reviewed
Key documents associated with the development and piloting of the CARE HAF, including:
 CARE Humanitarian Accountability Framework pilot version (February 2010)
 Consultant report to ECB Project on developing a “Common Humanitarian Accountability Framework
for IWG Agencies” (A. Bhattacharjee, 2007)
 Consultant report to CARE on “Assessing, monitoring and reporting on the CARE Humanitarian
Accountability Framework: what would a compliance system look like?” (One World Trust, September
2009)
Key documents associated with the development and piloting of other quality and accountability initiatives
within CARE International, including:
 Consultant report to CI POC on “Advocating Harmonisation within CARE – Making the Case for
Internationalizing CARE’s Performance Standards” (P. McCarthy and J. Rand, July 2010)
 P-Shift and UBORA (wiki)
 CARE USA State of Compliance Report to the Compliance Committee, September 2010
 CARE Nederland research on “Bridging the gap between rhetoric and reality - Improving accountability
standards to beneficiaries” (Adinda Krombeen, March 2010)
 CARE USA concept note “Accountability for Development Effectiveness: Operationalizing an INGO
Response to the Debates” (draft, December 2009)
 CARE Peru Accountability Guide “Guia sobre como rendir cuentas” (2010)
 CARE UK Transformational Initiative on Accountability workshop report and draft proposal (2010)
Key documents associated with the development and piloting of accountability frameworks by similar INGO
organisations, including:
 Action Aid internal discussion paper “From Reimaging to Repositioning Accountability” (W. Ho, 2010)
 Christian Aid’s Accountability Report “Listening and responding to our stakeholders: Christian Aid's
accountability”
 Concern and Mango’s Listen First project - “Listen First: a pilot system for managing downward
accountability in NGOs” (A. Jacobs and R. Wilford, Development in Practice, Volume 20, Number 7,
September 2010)
 ECB paper on “Accountability – Key Elements/Core Understanding For Emergency Capacity Building
Agencies” (April, 2010)
5
 Islamic Relief: (2008) Enabling Poor People to Shape Their Future - Islamic Relief’s Accountability
Framework - http://www.islamicrelief.com/indepth/downloads/IR%20Accountability%20Framework.pdf
 Oxfam’s Accountability Report 2010 (link)
 World Vision’s Accountability Report 2009 (link)
Key documents associated with interagency quality and accountability initiatives, including:
 One World Trust and World Vision Briefing Paper on “Responding to NGO Development Effectiveness
Initiatives” (J. Lingán, A. Cavender, R. Lloyd and B. Gwynne, November 2009)
 One World Trust Briefing Paper on “Addressing accountability in NGO advocacy: Practice, principles
and prospects of self-regulation” (M. Hammer, C. Rooney, and S. Warren, March 2010)
 BOND CSO Effectiveness Programme documents (link)
 Consultant report to BOND on an “Approach to Quality in Non-Governmental Organisations: Putting
Beneficiaries First” (Keystone, 2006)
 Consultant report to BOND on “quality and accountability frameworks” (2010)
 Consultant report to BOND on “partnership” (2010)
 CSO Development Effectiveness Open Forum
 HAP Standard (draft 2010)
 Notes on HAP certification discussion with Inter-Agency Working Group - Mary Anderson and Jonathan
Mitchell, April 29, 2009
 Agreeing and Delivering on Strategic Themes & External Quality through Accountability Standards and
Certification Processes: Opportunities and Challenges for World Vision - A note for information at the
HEA Forum in Cork, Ireland / May 07
 Promoting Voice and Choice “Exploring Innovations in Australian NGO Accountability for Development
Effectiveness”
 ACFID – Chris Roche is Director of Development Effectiveness at Oxfam Australia.
6
Annex 3 - List of people interviewed
Gustavo d´Angelo
Abby Maxman
Alix Carter
Kevin Fitzcharles
Eliana Cano
Paul Barker
Balaram Thapa
Jumanne Saidi
Komba Wenceslaus
Said Khalid Said
Leticia Pima
Edson Nyingi
Raymond Elias Nzali
Mehjabeen Alarakhia
Mwanza staff meeting
Peter Newsum
Uwe Korus
John Hoare
Megan Chisholm
Charles Ehrhart
Leslye Rost van Tonningen
Peter Leahy
Maliha Khan
Sarah Ralston
Michael Drinkwater
Kevin Stever
External
Partner meeting
Raymond Mnenwa
Janita Magongo
Mamadou Ndiaye
Yoma Winder
Laurie Adams
Juliet Parker
Pippa Bates
Jude Rand
Alex Jacobs
FGD
7
CD
CD
Humanitarian Accountability Advisor
CD
Accountability Advisor
CD
ACD – P
Finance Manager
HR Manager
Internal Audit Manager
Micro Finance and Women’s Empowerment
Sector Coordinator
Program Quality & Learning Coordinator
Project Officer GAP
Policy Analyst for Health and Social Protection
Staff from WAGE, GAP and ONGEZA projects
CD
DRD PQ
DRD PS
Staff Training Coordinator
Climate Change Coordinator
Senior Emergency Program Manager
Principal Executive International Programs
Head of Program Impact
Ubora
P-Shift
Compliance Director
CARE Central America
CO Ethiopia
CO Ethiopia
CARE Egypt
CARE Peru
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
Mwanza Policy Initiative, Chawata, ADISLISHA,
Mwanza Women’s Development Association
Director of Strategic Research
Director of Training
Director General
Global Advisor Accountability
Head, Impact Assessment and Shared Learning
Accountability Advisor
Performance Projects Officer
Consultant of POC Commissioned
“Harmonisation Study”
Director of Research
Accountability Advisors
Partner Organisations of CARE
Tanzania
RAPOA, Tanzania
RAPOA, Tanzania
OFADEC, Senegal
Oxfam GB
ActionAid International
Christian Aid
VSO
Independent consultant
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CARE Tanzania
CO Vietnam
WARMU
SARMU
CI CEG
CI PECCN
CARE Canada
CARE Australia
CARE USA
CARE USA
CARE USA
CARE USA
Keystone Accountability
ECB agencies
Role of respondents in relation to:
PART OF CARE
Field Office of a Country Office
Country Office
Lead Member
Member Partner
Developing Country Member
Regional Management Unit
Secretariat
LEVEL OF RESPONSIBLITY
Governance
Senior leadership
Senior manager
Middle manager
Team member
FUNCTIONS
Program management & operations
Program quality
Monitoring & evaluation
Contract & grant management
Learning & knowledge management
Finance
Other2
Administration
Institutional fundraising
Advocacy & campaigns
HR
Media & communications
Private fundraising
Safety & security
Logistics & procurement
IT
Legal & regulatory
2
Annex 4 - Breakdown of
survey respondents
15.6%
47.6%
16.5%
9.4%
4.2%
2.4%
4.2%
2.4%
32.2%
25.6%
15.2%
25.1%
45%
30%
19%
17%
14%
14%
12%
11%
11%
10%
9%
7%
8%
7%
5%
4%
3%
Functions respondents did not feel were adequately covered by the list: internal audit, compliance, coordination
(emergency/programme/sector/region/country), capacity development, emergency response, EPP, accountability
(institutional/programme) institutional GED, organisational evolution, risk management, governance. Positions respondents
noted crossed multiple functions: CO management and leadership / program support / head of operations.
8
Annex 6 - Definitions of Accountability
CARE’s 3rd Programming Principle “Ensure Accountability and Promote Responsibility: We seek ways to be
held accountable to poor and marginalized people whose rights are denied. We identify individuals and
institutions with an obligation toward poor and marginalized people, and support and encourage their
efforts to fulfill their responsibilities.”
CARE USA Core Value Integrity “We accept responsibility for our collective and individual actions”
CARE Tanzania Core Value “We take responsibility for our decisions, actions and the resources entrusted to
us, and account for the uses and results of these to the stakeholders for, and with whom, we work”.
CARE’s Programming Principle gives further emphasis to accountability to the poor and marginalised with
whom we work.
In CARE’s HAF “CARE defines accountability as the means by which we fulfil our responsibilities to our
stakeholders and the ways in which they may hold us to account for our decisions, actions and impacts.
We commit to hold ourselves accountable to all of our stakeholders, but first and foremost we hold
ourselves accountable to disaster affected women, men, boys and girls.”
According to CARE’s HAF “Accountability is both a means for CARE to improve the relevance, quality and
impact of our work, and an end in itself, as our stakeholders – especially the people and communities with
whom we work – have a right to hold CARE to account”.
For CARE Peru “accountability is a right of the population and a duty of the organisation. It is one of the
means through which we fulfil our commitments to the communities with whom we work and with other
actors” (CARE Peru Guide)
CARE USA Compliance Program “Accountability is: the acknowledgment and assumption of responsibility
for actions, products, decisions, and policies including the administration, governance, and implementation
within the scope of the role or employment position and encompassing the obligation to report, explain
and be answerable for resulting consequences. Or simply: The buck stops here. It happened on my watch,
it is my fault.”
CARE UK Governance Strategy “Accountability refers to the processes through which an organisation
strives to balance the needs and rights of its different stakeholders in its decision making and activities. It
recognises that some stakeholders are more powerful than others, and strives to rectify this imbalance by
ensuring the conditions that enable the least powerful to hold them to account. It is the means by which
power is used responsibly.”
Our peers
For ActionAid “Accountability requires that poor and excluded people take part directly in all local
processes and that ActionAid facilitates their analyses, respecting and critically engaging with what comes
out of it. Priorities and perspectives of poor people must inform the decision made at all levels by
ActionAid and its partners.”
9
For Christian Aid “Accountability means holding ourselves openly responsible, in ways that involve our key
stakeholders, for what we believe, what we do and say we will do - and for showing what we have done
compared to what we said we would do.”
According to Listen First, useful definitions “recognise accountability as an attribute of a relationship
between two or more actors, which involves three elements: negotiating commitments, reporting
performance, and restitution."
For Oxfam “Accountability is the process through which an organisation balances the needs of
stakeholders in its decision-making and activities, and delivers against this commitment. Accountability is
based on four dimensions: transparency, participation, learning and evaluation, and feedback mechanisms
that allow the organisation to give account to, take account of, and be held to account by stakeholders.”
(adapted from One World Trust3)
For World Vision, “accountability is about individual and organisational integrity. It is about fulfilling
promises and accepting responsibility for the intended and unintended consequences of our actions. It is
about relationships built on trust.”
For Keystone4 “Accountability is the means through which individuals and organisations are held externally
to account for their actions, and the means by which they take internal responsibility for continuously
shaping and scrutinising their organisational mission, goals and performance”.
For AccountAbility5 “Accountability is acknowledging, assuming responsibility for and being transparent
about the impacts of your policies, decisions, actions, products and associated performance. It obliges an
organisation to involve stakeholders in identifying, understanding and responding to sustainability issues
and concerns, and to report, explain and be answerable to stakeholders for decisions, actions and
performance. It includes the way in which an organisation governs, sets strategy and manages
performance”
For HAP6 “Accountability is the means by which power is used responsibly…it goes beyond an exclusive
focus on the process of reporting upon - or accounting for - decisions and actions. Accountability also
involves taking account of the needs, concerns, capacities and dispositions of affected parties, and
One World Trust www.oneworldtrust.org is a UK-based think tank that conducts research and advocates for reform of global
organisations (multinational corporations, INGOs and inter-governmental organisations) so they are more accountable to the
people they affect.
4
Keystone Accountability www.keystoneaccountability.org is non for profit organisation that provides services to organisations
with social change agendas around new ways of planning, measuring and communicating social change. The offer services in
developing organisational impact planning, assessment and learning systems, designing feedback systems from key stakeholders
and conducting evaluations with a focus on feedback from key stakeholders.
5
AccountAbility http://www.accountability.org/ is a global, non-for-profit organisation who offer thought-leadership and advisory
services on “accountability innovations for sustainable development” working with businesses, public and civil institutions. They
strive for “a world of civil power where people have a say in the decisions that impact on them and where decision makers act,
and are transparent about their actions, on the issues that matter” and provide services on stakeholder engagement,
collaborative governance strategies for partnerships. They also set sustainability standards.
6
Members of HAP http://www.hapinternational.org/ are committed to meeting the highest standards of accountability and
quality management. In addition, HAP certifies those members that comply with the HAP Standard in Humanitarian
Accountability and Quality Management. They place emphasis on developing an organisational accountability framework and
integrating this into management systems; strengthening information provision, participation, and complaints mechanisms;
ensuring human resource capacity and that staff are supported in delivering on accountability commitments.
3
10
explaining the meaning and implications of, and the reasons for, actions and decisions. Accountability is
thus a measure of the quality of the relationship”.
11
Annex 7 - Accountability Frameworks of Peers
ACFID http://www.acfid.asn.au
Single-loop accountability describes those areas of feedback from partners or communities that are
essentially about the projects or activities that an NGO might be engaged in. This is largely about whether
planned activities are being achieved and ‘course correction’ to get back on track.
Double-loop accountability would describe feedback from, and engagement with, partners and
communities on broader policies, practices or strategies. This might include community assessments of the
degree to which an NGO is achieving the standards and norms it has developed, or is a signatory to, or it
might include engaging in the determination and assessment of their advocacy or public policies, or longterm organisational planning and strategy.
Finally, triple-loop accountability refers to the assessment of the degree to which NGOs adhere to their
core values and mission. This is the most fundamental level of accountability and goes to key ideas and
beliefs about the world and the NGOs’ place within it, as well as assumptions about how positive change
occurs. This is the most challenging area of accountability as it is linked to the identity of an organisation.
(Source: Promoting Voice and Choice: Exploring Innovations in Australian NGO Accountability for
Development Effectiveness, by Chris Roche (ACFID research paper, 2010)
Action Aid
ALPS (http://www.actionaid.org.uk/_content/documents/alps.pdf)
ActionAid launched its values based Accountability Learning and Planning System – known as ALPS – in
2000. Based on a set of principles, it emphasises accountability to poor and excluded people, a
commitment to women’s rights, learning and critical reflection, and transparency. It also requires a
constant analysis of power. ALPS also explicitly promotes appropriate personal attitudes and behaviours
(for everyone in ActionAid) - about sharing power and learning. Finally, ALPS lays out organisational
processes which include regular cycles of appraisals, strategy formulation, planning and reviews. These
were designed to reduce bureaucracy, thus creating the space for the principles to be practiced and the
concordant behaviours to be expressed. ALPS also includes an Open Information Policy.
Whilst ALPS has led to major innovations and examples of good practice, reviews in 2004 and 2007 found
that its implementation was variable. In some programmes, the principles were embedded. Elsewhere,
staff knew little of ALPs and processes were carried out in bureaucratic fashion. Much was found to
depend on the discretion of individual managers who were not held accountable for their performance in
this area. The reviews also found that short trainings were not sufficient and that leadership did not
adequately support staff to consider what the principles meant for them. In addition, there was little
ownership or understanding of ALPs beyond programmes and different parts of the organisation pulled in
different directions.
Reimagining Accountability
12
In recognition of some of these shortcomings, Action Aid has embarked on a new initiative to reinvigorate
accountability within the organisation and to unite their organisational and program work. First steps have
included informal discussions across the organisation, and an in depth reflection based on 5 country case
studies. Initial thinking on a new direction for ActionAid include:
 Having a model of accountability that builds the capacity and confidence of rights holders to claim
their rights, and that is transformative and can influence the practice of others.
 Making accountability a strategic and uniting goal of the organisation, with objectives to reach the
goal that relate to program and the wider organisation.
 Development of an overarching accountability framework to which all organisational systems would
be aligned.
 The framework would recognise ActionAid’s primary commitment to poor and excluded people, but
would also framework encompass multiple accountabilities coherently.
 It requires clarity on ActionAid’s non-negotiable politics and priorities so that staff are able to navigate
the triangle of accountability to rights holders, to ourselves and to partners, supporters and donors.
What is ALPs?
ALPS is designed to deliver accountability, learning and participation for Action Aid. It is made up of a triumvirate of: *
Principles * Attitudes and Behaviours and *Organisational Policies and Processes. The 5 principles are accountability, women’s
rights, power, learning and transparency.
1. Accountability requires that poor and excluded people take part directly in all local processes and that ActionAid
facilitates their analyses, respecting and critically engaging with what comes out of it. Priorities and perspectives of poor
people must inform the decision made at all levels by ActionAid and its partners.
2. Women’s rights require that all programmes use gender analysis and have components to advance women’s rights.
ActionAid units and funded partners are required to address women’s rights and leadership within their own
organisations and to strengthen these where organisational gender equity is weak.
3. Power requires realising power imbalances lie at the heart of poverty and injustice and how personal power can be used
to advance equity and justice. All processes, plans and reports are to have an analysis of power and clear actions to
address power imbalances, including examining the role of ActionAid’s own power.
4. Learning requires that staff learn with and from poor and excluded peoples, partners, etc so better decisions about
actions can be made and good practices and solutions shared. It encourages the use of creative media to help
communicate learning, and includes incorporating learning from failures as well as successes.
5. Transparency requires that all ActionAid information is open to stakeholders, especially poor and excluded people,
requiring the translation of key documents to local languages, visible public sharing of information, and that written
information is relevant and useful to those that receive it and who need to make decisions and for learning. It also means
assessing constantly how money is spent and value for money in relation to the quality of ActionAid’s work.
Organisational processes are publicly defined under ALPS and are specified with criteria by which key processes are
undertaken, for what reason they are undertaken, who undertakes them, and the resultant outputs of each process.
Participatory Review and Reflection Processes, for example, are regular stakeholder meetings at project level to assess progress
and learning, and to plan for what will be done differently in the future. They include strong components of 'reporting back' to
local people, government and others, as well as joint planning.
ALPS aims to reinforces a bottom-up approach to programming, ensuring that primary stakeholders are part of the process
from proposal development to evaluation, feeding ideas to the international secretariat and making developmental themes
and programmes respond to the analyses formed at the grass roots.
Christian Aid
13
Christian Aid has developed a “Statement of Accountability7” which outlines how the organisation strives
to exercise accountability to all its stakeholders. It is a public document that can be found on their website.
They aim to be an open, transparent and learning organisation, accountable for its actions and able to
meet high standards of public and stakeholder reporting.
The statement document was developed by a cross departmental Corporate Accountability Group (CAG)
led by the Corporate Affairs department. Whilst there were a number of internal and external drivers, a
prominent external driver was inclusion in the One World Trust Global Accountability Index8 in 2004. The
statement identifies four primary stakeholders for Christian Aid (see box below), which were identified
through a process led by the Board of Directors, whilst recognising that there are other important
stakeholders. Primary stakeholders are those that Christian Aid felt wielded less power over them, and
towards whom their accountability relationship was less clear.
Key accountability initiatives were also being led by other departments, for example, the humanitarian
department was leading on HAP certification of their humanitarian work, which emphasises accountability
to disaster affected populations.
More recently Christian Aid has brought these various initiatives together into a unified Accountability
Framework for the organisation, building on but more specific than the statement of accountability, and
tackling the ‘how’ question. The resultant framework is a matrix that lists top level accountability
commitments per key stakeholder, mechanisms for implementing them, a baseline status and time bound
actions for improvement.
The framework is a central document that then needs to be tailored in order to be relevant to each of their
Country Offices. Country teams can discuss and clarify their own four key stakeholders, what their
commitments are to these stakeholders, and how they are going to fill them. In this way they add to the
corporate AF the specificities of their own context, including particular commitments that they may have
made (such as a country specific set of partnership guidelines).
The outcome of this country level contextualisation process is an Annex to the main CA Accountability
Framework. This process is being piloted in 6 countries. Focal points are provided with guidance
documents and training to further help them further their discussions.
At present, partners are not involved in completing the matrix. However, they are involved in the
contextualization of CA’s open information policy, and complaints policy, which are both part of this
broader discussion.
Challenges include:
 Place the framework at the centre of the organisation, so it is essential and not peripheral.
 Stimulate discussions across all countries.
http://www.christianaid.org.uk/images/Christian-Aid_accountability.pdf
One World Trust Global Accountability Index http://www.oneworldtrust.org/
One World Trust is a UK-based think tank that conducts research and advocates for reform of global organisations so they are
more accountable to the people they affect. Every year they publish their Global Accountability Index which ranks 30
organisations (10 multinational corporations, 10 INGOs, and 10 inter-governmental organisations) against each other according
to criteria on stakeholder participation, transparency, complaints and response mechanisms, and evaluation policy and practice.
Organisations do not have a choice about their inclusion, only the extent to which they offer their cooperation.
7
8
14
 Monitor implementation of the framework at country level. One possibility is to use an existing tool of
the ACT network (Organisational Capacity Assessment) which helps agencies place their current
practices on a scale from 1 (nascent) to 4 (mature) and which includes a section on accountability.
 Implement the framework with partners (being clear on commitments to communities, versus telling
partners what to do).
 Collect evidence on the impact of what we do (accountability for performance, not currently part of
the framework)
Christian Aid’s “Statement of Accountability” outlines how Christian Aid strives to exercise accountability to all its stakeholders,
to:
 those people who we exist to serve
 those who support us
 those who direct us and work for us
 those that work with us
 those who check we do it properly and shape our legal operating environment
Their four key stakeholder groups are:
 poor and marginalised people and their communities (primarily mediated through our partners)
 supporters including campaigners and volunteers
 partner organisations
 our sponsoring churches and our board of trustees
Their other important stakeholders are:
 Our managers and staff
 Our allies
 Our institutional donors
 Our regulators
 The wider public and those we challenge
 Our suppliers and people who work in our supply chain
 The natural environment
Rational for prioritisation: “Being fully accountable to all stakeholders is not realistically practical, so we have identified four key
stakeholders to whom we believe have a primary stake in achieving our Essential Purpose and whose means of ‘holding us to
account’ are most in need of strengthening. This does not mean other stakeholders are not important, however, and we will
continue to maintain appropriate levels of accountability to them to ensure their needs and claims on Christian Aid are
addressed. This prioritisation reflects the reality that different stakeholders wield different powers over us, leaving the risk that
the strength and clarity of our different accountability relationships is unequal. Our responsibilities to institutional donors and
government regulators are clear, and the mechanisms for accountability strong. Statutory donors and regulators have legal
means to ‘hold us to account’ and can impose financial or legal sanctions where accountability is felt to be inadequate. ”
Christian Aid’s Accountability Framework lists top level accountability commitments for each of the four key stakeholder groups,
according to the categories below.
Poor and marginalised
people and their
communities
Our partners
Our supporters, campaigners
and volunteers
Sponsoring Churches and
Board of Trustees
Participation
Participation
Participation
Participation and Feedback
Transparency and
Transparency and
Transparency and Information
Transparency
15
Information sharing
Information sharing
sharing
Complaints
Complaints
Complaints
International Standards
Shared goals, values and
ways of working
Data Protection
Fundraising
Child protection
OFADEC http://www.ofadec.org/
OFADEC – a Senegalese NGO - has made a strong commitment to beneficiary accountability, resulting
from their HAP membership. Their HAP Baseline and Workplan (to address gaps) make up their current
framework.
Essential practices for the organisation include information sharing and transparency – participation in
decision making – and setting up complaints mechanisms. Respect is also central value: not honouring an
appointment is considered inadmissible behaviour.
Whilst these practices aren’t new to the organisation, HAP certification has provided a structured process
towards making beneficiary accountability more systematic. For example, they have formalised their
complaints mechanisms which are now supported by a guidance document.
The process has also brought together all parts of the organisation in support of beneficiary accountability
including looking the role of their organisational systems in achieving beneficiary accountability e.g. how
HR has a role in supporting respectful attitudes by staff. Finance has a role in responding to complaints
and in testing new ways to share financial information. Senior managers are innovating with how to
include refugees in high level decision making.
Lack of resources is a key challenge. OFADEC does not have the funds to employ a dedicated
Accountability post to help them drive through changes. A focal point has been nominated but this person
already has a full time job.
Donors (e.g. UNHCR) are supportive of their efforts. In part, this is because they are also operational
agencies in the Sierra Leonean context and have been able to witness some of the benefits.
Oxfam
A key organisation wide initiative for Oxfam is their public “Accountability Reports”. The first report in
2007 set targets for becoming more accountable to stakeholders over a three year period. In their 2010
follow up report, they have reported back, both on achievements and failures, whilst setting new
objectives for the three years ahead. For the 2010 report, Oxfam established an external reference group
to help challenge them in setting their new objectives.
The decision to report against the Accountability Report as part of their Annual Report and Accounts has
helped create energy behind accountability on a yearly basis that brings together the organisation to take a
more complete look at strengths and gaps.
16
Whilst the first report took a more thematic approach (accountability in humanitarian work, development
work, campaigning etc.) the second report has set objectives for improving accountability towards key
stakeholder groups in relation to 4 core components9: participation, transparency, feedback, and
monitoring effectiveness. The change in structure has helped provide a more common approach to
accountability across the organisation, and a more focused set of targets (that Oxfam hope will tell them
more about how they are improving). A key aim was to identify how work already planned could be
improved by specifically looking through an accountability lens. For example, if conducting a staff feedback
exercise, how could this be conducted in a way that is more inclusive and transparent?
Oxfam’s stakeholder groups are:








People and communities (people affected by our programmes)
Women in the communities we work with and women’s rights organisations
Partners
Supporters
Staff and volunteers
Governments and regulators (and, through them, the public)
The targets of our advocacy
The environment
Lessons/Challenges:
 The Report has increased Oxfam’s credibility with external stakeholders in terms of perceptions of
Oxfam’s transparency and accountability (though evidence of effectiveness is still a challenge).
 Internally, they have found the Report to be a driver for quality “we do stretch ourselves a little harder
because we are concentrating on issues such as using less energy or promoting the voice of
communities in judgements about our effectiveness”.
 Oxfam’s communications team will support internal communications on their accountability. This is a
departure from their external focus and a welcomed decision.
 Oxfam is moving away from “doing things” and towards “facilitating change”. This has raised
additional challenges in terms of understanding the accountability implications of their advocacy work.
 Oxfam has four accountability standards to be applied in all programmes. Because much of Oxfam’s
work is with partners they have realised that it is important that these standards are applied by
partners too. Accountability to communities becomes a joint responsibility that requires Oxfam to be
accountable with partners, share expectations and play a strong support role. Oxfam has developed a
partner peer review process to help have conversations on accountability with partners. Steps include
conducting a self assessment, an assessment of Oxfam by the partner, and going to the communities
together to ask them what they think. This is followed by joint analysis and planning (based on the
Listen First methodology).
For the 2010 report, they looked at setting objectives for each core elements (i.e. using participation, transparency as the main
sections of the report) but found focusing on each stakeholder more useful .
9
17
18
Annex 8 - Survey results on CARE’s stakeholders
19
Annex 9 – Standards and Codes that govern CARE’s work
SURVEY RESULTS - What governs our work?
INTERNAL
Internal commitments (examples)
External commitments
CARE Vision
and Mission
- CI Vision and Mission
CARE Values
and Codes
- CARE Values
- CI Code of Conduct
- CI Code of Ethics (1986)
CM/CO codes of conduct
- for PSEA
- in the workplace
- for a function e.g. IT
Fundraising
- CI Fundraising Code of Ethics and Standards of
Practice (Feb 1999)
- MDGs
- International legal framework
- Regional human rights instruments
- Women’s rights (CEDAW)
- Children’s rights
CSO Codes
- ACFID Code of Conduct (CARE Australia)
- Code for Good Governance for NGOs in the
Netherlands
- Local Development Framework in Brazil
Humanitarian response
- Red Cross and NGO Code of Conduct
Fundraising
- Voluntary codes for good practices in fundraising
(e.g. CARE Netherlands, Australia)
CARE
Principles
and
Approach
-
CARE
Standards
20
CI Safety & Security Principles
CI Programming Principles (RBA)
Do no harm principles
Program Characteristics
Procurement, financial accounting principles
CO Operating Standards (CARE wide)
CARE HAF
HR Global Standards (CARE USA)
Program Quality Standards (being developed by
CARE USA)
- Gender benchmarks (for CMs in gender policy)
- Minimum Operating Security Standards (for CMs)
- Aid Effectiveness Principles under Paris Declaration
- Global CSO Effectiveness Principles (of CSO Open
Forum)
External Q&A standards
- HAP, ECB Accountability Key Elements (“standards”),
Sphere
Sector standards
SEEP Minimum Standards for Economic Recovery
after Crisis, LEGS, Inter Agency Network for Education
- Accounting standards
in Emergency (INEE) Standards, Sphere
Financial
- International Accounting Standard
Donor standards
- Donor-specific standards and indicators (e.g. Danida
civil society monitoring framework)
CARE Policies
CARE
Procedures
CARE
Guidelines
CARE
Strategies
and Plans
CARE
monitoring
and
performance
measurment
Legal and
regulatory
requirements
21
Child Protection (e.g. CARE Australia)
CO Zero Tolerance (fraud, SEA etc)
Conflict of Interest
Information Disclosure Policy (e.g. CARE Austria)
Internal policies for HR, GED, internal
communications
- Procurement, financial policies
- PIFA (PI Framework Agreement)
- IPIA (Individual Project Implementation Agreement)
- CARE procurement procedures
- Financial accounting procedures
- CARE finance procedures both for CARE USA and
whatever CARE is the contract holder on a project.
- Donor procedures
- Policies and procedures internal to CARE US e.g.
internal communication policy, HR policy, Talent
Management procedures; legal requirements...etc
- Compliance related reporting requirements at CO
level
- Audit and donor compliance requirements
- Compliance with CARE USA policies
- PARs
- Various surveys
- Gender equality, HIV/AIDS
- Peer review
- RBA, Programme Approach, Partnership Approach
- Proposal submission
- Communications
Organisation
- Strategic Directions, Strategic Plan, associated KPIs
- CO LRSP
- Reporting on CO AOP
- Member specific AOPs which include indicators
connected to CI initiatives and policies, assessed
annually and performance rated.
Individual
- Reporting on IOPs, aligned to Member specific AOP
- Program Indicators related to the MDGs
- UBORA (Indicators, Program Support Assessment
Tools, PQAT)
- CI emergency performance metrics
- DAO
- Program Directory
- Project monitoring frameworks
- PSMI
- Job descriptions
- Project reporting
-
- Donor requirements that CARE is contractually
obligated to report and evaluate.
- Good Enough Guide (inter-agency, adopted by CARE)
- Guidelines set by the donors for the project.
- National Development Plans (PRSP)
- Donor accountability frameworks and monitoring
systems
-
30 policies of the “National Agreement” of Peru
Right to information / transparency laws
Laws relating to decentralisation processes
Regional and municipality laws
Participatory budgeting laws
National and local work codes
Host government reporting standards
- National standards
- USG A-122 and 133 regulations
22
23
Annex 10 - What governs our accountability to our stakeholders?
What are we
accountable FOR?
Achieving our vision of
sustained impact on
poverty and social
injustice
Delivering on our
agreed goals and
commitments
Upholding our values,
principles and codes of
behaviour
Performing to the
highest standards of
quality in our work
24
What governs our accountability TO the following stakeholders?
Communities
Partners
Staff
- IHR law
- UBORA
- 2nd PC (management of
disaster, conflict and
climate change risk)
- 5th PC (IM&L systems)
- HAF Benchmark
(feedback & complaint,
evaluation & learning)
- HAF Benchmark
- CARE USA Partnership
(feedback & complaint,
Principles (shared
evaluation & learning)
goals, mutual
accountability)
CARE
- Organisational
performance &
learning systems
- ACFID Code of Conduct
(NGO effectiveness)
- Annual planning and
budgeting (AOPs)
- Performance
monitoring (of AOPs,
IOPs)
- Annual Reports
- Strategic planning &
monitoring (KPIs)
- CI Policy on PSEA
- CARE USA Partnership
- CI Policy on PSEA
- CI PP (used as
- CO Zero Tolerance
Principles
- Staff codes of behaviour benchmarks)
policies / staff codes of - ERWG led partnership
- Donor due diligence
behaviour
in emergencies
- CI Policy on the
- CI Code on Private
initiative
Extractives Industry
Donor Fundraising
- Staff codes of behaviour
- CI Code
(dignified portrayal of
beneficiaries)
- Child protection policies
- CARE USA ethical
guidelines in collecting
media and human
interest stories
- Programming principles
- HAF Benchmarks (all,
feedback & complaint)
- HAF Benchmark
- PIA
- CARE standards in
(communication of
- Customer Service
various sectors and
standards, M&E,
Agreements
functions
Donors
Government
- Providing an honest
- Poverty Reduction
picture of the
Strategies
difference we are
- MDGs (where adopted
making (ACFID ‘being
by CARE and govt)
truthful in fundraising’)
- DECAF (We learn from
our experiences)
- Donor reporting
- DECAF (we achieve
intended programme
objectives and
outcomes)
- Charity law in some
countries (e.g. UK
Annual Report)
- ACFID Code of Conduct
required by AusAid
- DECAF (We are
committed to agreed
humanitarian
principles, standards
and behaviours)
- NGO legislation in
certain countries
- CI Code on Private
Donor Fundraising
- External fundraising
-
feedback & complaint)
- 3rd PP on
Accountability
Complying with our
policy and procedure
-
-
-
Meeting the regulations of our donors
-
-
- Policy management
systems and
governance
- Assigning R&R
- Internal audit
- Donor compliance
Acting in accordance
with the statutory
requirements in the
countries where we
work
-
-
-
Demonstrating good
- HAF Benchmark
stewardship of financial
(feedback & complaint)
resources entrusted to
us
-
- Financial management
policies and
procedures
-
Minimising our impact
on the environment
-
- CARE’s Climate Change
Strategy
25
- Criminal law
- Programming Principle
on Sustainability
-
codes in different
countries
- Sphere, HAP, PIA for
donors that require
them
- DECAF (We are
committed to agreed
humanitarian
principles, standards
and behaviours)
- Sanctions by donors for
non compliance
-
- Donor contracts
- CARE USA sub-granting
management policy
-
-
- Financial management
policies and
procedures
- DECAF (we use our
funds as stated)
- CARE USA Sub-granting
management policy
- CI Code on Private
Donor Fundraising
(Accurate donor
information on
donation programme,
and use of funds
raised)
-
- Charity law
- Accountancy law
- Tax law
- Company law (e.g.
statutory accounts)
- Labour law
- Company law
- Anti-terrorism law
- Charity law
- NGO law
-
- HAF Benchmark
(feedback & complaint)
Ensuring the welfare
and support of our staff
26
- CI Policy on PSEA
- CARE Member
environmental policies
(e.g. CARE Canada)
- Carbon footprint
monitoring (e.g. CARE
Peru)
- International human
- CI Security and Safety
rights law
Principles &
- Domestic law (e.g.
- CI Policy on PSEA
labour, equal
- CI Gender Policy
opportunity, health & - Risk management
safety, data protection) (protection risk)
- HR professional codes
or certificates
- People in Aid
- CI Security and Safety
Principles & MOSS
- CI Policy on PSEA /
Gender
- Staff codes of behaviour
- Other Internal HR
policies on (e.g. GED,
staff development,
consultation &
communication,
HIV/AIDs in the
workplace etc)
- UBORA
- PIA for donors that
require it
- Domestic law (e.g. tax,
social security etc)
Annex 11 - CARE’s commitments: CI S&S - PIA - CI fundraising code - CI PSEA - GED
What are we accountable for?
CI Safety & Security
People In Aid
Achieving our vision of
sustained impact on poverty
and social injustice
Delivering on our agreed goals
and commitments
-
-
- P3 (security informs
program and program
support decisions)
Upholding our values,
principles and codes of
behaviour
Performing to the highest
standards of quality in our
work
Complying with our policy and
procedure
-
CI Policy on PSEA
GE&D
-
-
- P1(HR Strategy integral part of organisational strategy)
- C (Develop PSEA strategies)
- Comply with 6 principles
- S5 (work collaboratively
beyond CARE)
- 7 principles
- S1 (Dignified portrayal of
beneficiaries)
- Core principles guiding staff
behaviour
- C (Incorporate into
partnerships)
- C (Establish a complaints
mechanism)
- P5 (comply with Minimal
Operating Security
Standards)
- Measurable indicators
- 6 standards of practice
- C (Employee standards
guiding staff behaviour)
- Accountability for our
progress in advancing
representation, trust and
learning.
- Diverse representation for
effective decision making
and innovation
- Relationships build upon
trust
- Learning from diversity
perspectives
-
-
- C (Review policy)
-
-
-
-
- S2 (Confidential treatment
of donor information)
-
-
- P1 (policy must respect
- P2 (HR policies aim to be
security considerations)
effective, fair and
- P2 (everyone has
transparent) not
responsibility)
responding solely to
- S1 (security policy and plans
minimum legal,
in place)
professional or donor
- P4 (clear authorities and
requirements.
decision making)
- P4 (Dialogue with staff)
- S4 (clear responsibilities and
systems for compliance)
Meeting the regulations of our donors
Acting in accordance with the statutory requirements in the
27
CI Code for private donor
fundraising
countries where we work
Demonstrating good
stewardship of the financial
resources entrusted to us
-
-
Minimising our impact on the
environment
Ensuring the welfare and
support of our staff
-
-
- P6 (all staff equipped,
trained and supported)
- S3 (security in HR mgt)
- S2 (resources in place to
address security)
Compliance
-
- P7 (Health, safety & security - S5 (Payment by salary not
of staff is a prime
commission / fundraising
responsibility)
agreements for
- P6 (Learning, training &
outsourcing)
development)
- P3 (Good support,
management & leadership)
- P5 (Recruitment of a diverse
workforce with the skills
and capabilities to fulfil our
requirements)
- Self monitoring by CI
marketing committee
28
- S3 (Accurate donor
information on donation
programme, and use of
funds raised)
- S6 (Accurate public
information on funds
raised and use of those
funds)
-
- C (Take swift action
including legal action)
-
-
-
- PSEA in staff induction,
training
- PSEA in JDs
- Maintain staff awareness
-
-
-
29
Annex 12 (a) - CARE’s commitments to gender equality and empowering women and girls
GLOBAL COMMITMENTS
CARE’s global gender policy commits CARE to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment, and to make
this commitment explicit in its organisational policies, programs and internal structures.
CARE Gender Policy Commitments
 Promote gender equality as an explicit internationally recognized human right
Through:
 Addressing systemic and structural barriers to the realization of women’s rights and gender equality (including
prevention and response to GBV and SEA)
 Supporting the empowerment of women and girls as a key strategy toward ending poverty, conflict, human
suffering and gender inequality.
 Involving men and boys in promoting gender equality.
 Managing potential harm to women, girls, boys and men.
 Engaging and coordinating with others (partners, governments, funders and CSOs).
 Monitoring, evaluating and institutionalising organisational learning regarding gender equality results.
 Holding ourselves and others accountable to gender equality standards (below).
 Ensuring supportive organisational policies, systems and practices.
 Ensuring adequate funding.
CARE Gender Policy Standards
1.Key organisational policy, planning and programmes: incorporate gender and power analysis
 are based on data disaggregated by sex, age and other relevant diversity factors such as ethnicity, religion, caste
 explicitly state gender equality results
 include relevant and feasible gender sensitive indicators
 ensure sufficient funding for gender equality and formulate staff work plans and budgets accordingly.
2.HR policies and practices address gender equality, and CARE Members
 track and report annually on gender balance in staffing and governance structures
 implement specific strategies to balance male/female representation.
3.CARE executive and SMT report regularly to beneficiaries, donors and the public on progress on gender equality
through appropriate reporting channels.
4.CARE Members assess and enhance organisational capacity for implementation of the policy.
CARE USA commitments
Promoting women’s empowerment - Implications for Global community and CARE
1. Base policies on a comprehensive interpretation of women’s empowerment.
2. Make long-term commitments to empowering women and girls.
3. Reinforce commitments to women’s empowerment with strong and well articulated organizational policies.
4. Create supportive laws and policies, and ensure their implementation.
5. Incorporate gender analyses and explicit women’s empowerment objectives into initiatives and programs.
6. Invest in developing staff capabilities.
7. Engage men, boys and influential women to challenge attitudes and norms.
8. Support vibrant social networks among women.
9. Formulate, test and use measurement methods to capture effects on women’s lives.
(Source: Strong Women, Strong Communities - CARE’s holistic approach to empowering women and girls in the fight
against poverty. May 2010)
Gender Equity and Diversity
CARE’s Commitment: A Framework for Action
Realizing our vision and upholding our mission and core values will require staff to apply GED standards to our
organizational behavior that support and reaffirm the equal dignity and rights of all.
CARE supports the process of advancing gender equity and diversity through a multi-faceted framework, which is
30
composed of four fundamental leverage areas for change. This framework is the foundation for the organization’s
goals and actions related to gender equity and diversity.
CARE USA Signature Programmes – Overall Goals by 2015:
 Power Within will enable 10 million girls in 20 countries to complete their primary education and develop
leadership skills
 Mothers Matter will scale up four essential components to reduce maternal mortality, providing assistance to 30
million women
 Access Africa will ensure that 30 million people - 70 percent of them women – in 39 sub-Saharan countries have
access to a suite of basic financial services
CARE Australia / CARE Canada
LAC region Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Strategy
Example of CARE Non Lead Member commitments
 CARE’s Österreich Approach to Gender & Women’s Empowerment (July 2009)
 CARE Österreich Gender Strategy 2007-2012
 CARE Österreich Internal Minimum Programming Standards
 CARE Denmark
 CARE Norway
Annex 12 (b) CARE’s commitments to the environment and climate change
What we are accountable for?
CARE’s global Climate Change Strategic Plan (2010-14) contains a number of agreed global level goals –
along with key measures of success Goals:
1. Social justice, gender equality and empowerment: to model (a.) how climate change policies, strategies
and programmes can integrate social justice, gender equality and empowerment, and (b.) how women’s
empowerment programmes can integrate the additional challenges posed by climate change.
2. Global advocacy: to effectively advocate for a fair, ambitious and binding international agreement that
places poor women and other highly vulnerable people at the very centre of a worldwide response to
climate change.
3. Adaptation: to effectively help the world’s most vulnerable people adapt to the impacts of climate
change, and contribute to global learning processes about adaptation – especially with regards to
empowering poor women.
4. Carbon finance: to effectively advance a pro-poor approach to carbon finance programming that
reduces poverty, secures rights, enhances gender equality and supports adaptation to climate change
while ensuring real mitigation.
5. Organisational change: to become a change agent by modelling “climate smart” policies, plans and
practices at the highest levels of our confederation. This deals with CARE’s own environmental
responsibility and includes
- managing and reducing CARE’s environmental footprint.
- integrating climate change into organisation policies, strategies and systems.
- building leadership on climate change (centre of expertise).
Who we are accountable to?
Strategic Plan’s primary impact group is poor and marginalised people whose lives and livelihoods are
31
highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and/or unjust policy responses. Poor and marginalised
women are central to the Strategy’s overarching theory of change, and they constitute its main sub-impact
group.
How we are accountable in practice? Some examples…
- Engaging stakeholders in defining policies and strategies
- Measuring and reporting on progress (against our strategy goals and measures of success)
- Conducting an annual survey to measure progress on efforts to reduce our environmental footprint
- Communicating results of this survey to internal and external stakeholders
- Developing and implementing a knowledge management and communications strategy
- Communicating our lessons learned from both failure and success
- Climate Change Centre of Excellence / PECCN reports on its contribution to social justice, gender
equality and empowerment in annual reports to its Steering Committee.
- Reporting back to CI on international advocacy activities carried out in the name of CI
- Promoting the accountability of southern governments to southern voices in the international
advocacy arena
32
Annex 13 (a): Coherence opportunities identified by respondents
Inter-agency
ACFID (Austrian NGO network)
BOND Campaigns Initiative
BOND Effectiveness Program
CSO Open Forum
DEC Accountability Framework
(DECAF)
 ACFID has ongoing initiative to promote collaboration and peer learning on accountability,
as an outcome of their work on NGO effectiveness.

 BOND (UK NGO Platform) is leading a CSO effectiveness programme for UK NGOs (see
below).
 CARE involved in global process to develop a CSO Effectiveness Framework in the lead up
to the next High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Seoul and has signed up to global
CSO effectiveness principles (see below).
 DEC10 has an Accountability Framework that addresses similar issues. The first focused on
DEC members providing assurance to the UK public against the following:
-
ECB Accountability Initiative
CARE
CARE HAF
Emergency Preparedness
Planning
CI Safety & Security Principles
CARE USA Compliance Program
Gender
UBORA (USA)
DAO (LAC)
Staff Development
IT
10
We use funds as stated
We achieve intended programme objectives and outcomes
We are committed to agreed humanitarian principles, standards and behaviours
We are accountable to beneficiaries
We learn from our experience
They are currently updating a second generation framework. The process of applying the
framework is moving from self assessment with external verification, towards peer review
for purposes of exchange and learning, though maintaining external verification.
 Links to the collaborative work of the Emergency Capacity Building Project. ECB have
developed some 5 common elements accountability which are being used in collaborative
work at country level. These are participation; information sharing and transparency;
feedback and compliant; DME; leadership and governance.
 Link with roll out of the HAF rather than have them operating as parallel frameworks.
 Draw lessons from HAF implementation that could be applied more widely.
 Map experiences aligned with HAF benchmarks to help develop CO and CM guidance.
 HAF introduction training in EPP events and to develop basic tools and systems for how to
become more accountable before a response starts.
 As EPP update should be participatory for all CO staff, it also opens space to discuss how
to use the HAF for development (or in other words adapting the HAF to an AF).
 Promoting a safety and security culture within CARE will be aided by an Accountability
Framework to the extent that Safety and Security is included.
 CI is very focused on compliance to donor regulations at present and the accountability
framework absolutely must be coherent with that or else COs are going to be
overwhelmed (again) by initiatives.
 Align compliance (on which the agency spends a lot of time, money and effort) with a
broader and more comprehensive definition of accountability.
 Policy Development Standards (USA)
 Link the AF with CARE’s gender initiatives, including the CARE Gender Policy, Gender in
Emergencies, and CARE’s work on Gender Equity & Diversity
 Measuring and reporting on the AF should eventually be incorporated into UBORA.
 Explore use of the PQAT tool to demonstrate accountability in programmes.
 Use AF to promote improved balance in UBORA between data collection and reporting,
and space for learning reflection.
 Roll it out with the organisational action plans that are taking place from the Employee
Engagement Survey in CARE USA.
 Link to organisational performance & learning system of the Latin American region (DAO)
 It will require a greater focus on Staff Capacity Building with exposure to good practices,
exchange visits, knowledge sharing.
 Link with talent management (USA).
 Link with efforts to close the digital divide (faster and wider access to communication
UK NGO Consortium for launching a joint national appeal in times of major humanitarian crisis)
33
Pamodzi (Global Financial Mgt
Programme)
Finance
Program Approach (USA)
Impact Measurement
Program Quality Standards
SII on Governance
Partnership
Ongoing regional and country
initiatives on accountability
Strategy development
CARE governance led initiatives
and CI’s Strategic Plan
34
channels for all).
 A new Global Financial Management Program that supports CARE’s vision and program
effectiveness.
 P2P shift is an opportunity to rethink programming together, across program and program
support, and at all levels of the organisation, including Lead and other CI Members
 Link to CARE USA initiative to document learning on Program Approach and updating
Program Approach guidance.
 Learning from our program shift work is that institutional policies are too rigid and need
to be more flexible in order to be relevant for the contexts in which we work.
 P2P is an opportunity to start the process of developing a shared understanding
accountability in that context with others.
 Link AF to program quality initiatives.
 Our accountability is linked to the selection of projects we bid for.
Program design
 Accountability needs to be better integrated into our Program Shift work, including the
design of programs (how we clarify our impact groups and goals, develop our theories of
change)
 Integrate accountability into all strategic objectives of the program.
 Accountability activities and initiatives like community review and reflection process,
preparations of action plan and other moves.
 AF should reinforce learning so that we avoid reinventing the wheel or repeating our
mistakes.
 Development Commitments in terms of objectives and end results and Accountability
Framework go side by side.
 Link AF to our impact measurement work. Knowing our impact is an accountability issue;
at the same time reflecting on and adhering to accountability principles is crucial for
developing new and better ways to measure our impact.
 Link to development of Program Quality Standards by CARE USA
 CARE should have a common Program Quality framework used by all of CARE.
 Explore link between our governance work (the accountability of others) and our own
accountability.
 Link to CARE Australia’s review of their partnership approach.
 CARE Ethiopia has a number of forward accountability mechanisms that is currently
piloting – this links with the work that has been initiated in this respect. Also, the
establishment of a local Advisory Board.
 We are already working on greater accountability towards the national government. The
AF should provide consistence and direction here.
 Programme Governance and Accountability Framework (West African region)
 Integrate into the LRSP development process
 AF to link to CI Information Disclosure & Complaints Policy currently being developed.
 CARE is moving ahead with developing common CO operational standards to be applied
by all CARE (see below).
 Link to work of the CARE Information & Knowledge Management WG - what kind of
information management systems do we need for the AF? Link this group to the
development of the CI Information Disclosure Policy.
 Link to Centres of Expertise work
 AF should be linked to the new strategy and governance structure for CI.
 Use the opportunity of developing a strategy for organisational evolution to reflect on
the importance of accountability for CARE’s relevance, legitimacy and credibility, and
build high level commitment for an organisational culture that reflects accountability.
 Link to work on the CI Code, and development of CARE Member Standards
Annex 13 (b): Synergies with existing CARE processes
CARE-wide process to develop Country Office Operating Standards
CARE’s POC is leading a process to establish a common set of CO Operating Standards applicable across
CARE. An initial study reviewed existing standards and sought input from across CARE on their
harmonisation. The report observed:





Hundreds of different standards and measurement tools currently in existence across CARE.
Widespread support for the development and use of a common set of CO performance standards.
Insistence that the common standards need to be applicable to Members, and not just COs.
A strong call to consolidate on what already exists, to identify only what is critical, and to give equal
weight to quality aspects across the different functional areas of CARE’s work.
Recognition of the need to modernise CARE’s operating model in order to make harmonised
standards a viable option.
Following on from this study, POC is mapping the status of existing work to develop CARE-wide standards
(across key operational functions) and proposing ways forward. Examples of recommendations include:





Establish standards that reflect visions of CARE’s future role as a relevant and effective global CSO.
Evolve CARE’s business model to reflect changing internal and external contexts.
Shift individual member standards and measurement initiatives to CI-wide processes (e.g. Ubora).
Establish critical (rather than exhaustive) standards that include responsibilities of Lead Members
and CARE Member Partners in achieving those standards.
Review how the standards will be monitored and ensure systems remain ‘light’.
Synergy with CI AF process
1.
2.
3.
4.
Will help develop the operational detail (and guidance) needed to bring the framework to life for
different functional areas: what we are accountable for, to whom, and how to do it.
Standards define responsibilities for all parts CARE, promoting mutual accountability.
Process recognises the need to redress the balance between traditional measures of performance
often driven by donor demands, and those required for accountability to other stakeholders.
It is also aware of the need to be user friendly and conversely of the dangers of becoming too
demanding and therefore counterproductive.
CARE USA Compliance Program11
CARE USA has developed an overall Compliance Framework to guide CARE USA’s future compliance efforts.
11
CARE USA’s Compliance Program brings together several earlier initiatives within a Compliance Framework, including
development of a Code of Conduct, the OCiCi (Operations Compliance and Internal Control Improvement Initiative) and the
development and deployment of a Global Operations Manual.
35
The Compliance Framework describes the necessary capabilities that the organisation needs to have in
place in order to:




Understand what compliance is
Operationalise compliance
Monitor and report on compliance
Use compliance data to inform decision making
Supporting the Compliance Framework is an Accountability Framework which looks at the interactions
between these different sets of capabilities and which identifies the practical strategies for
operationalising them. Examples of strategies include:









Code of Conduct to set the tone for compliance
Standards to guide policy development
Greater guidance on roles and responsibilities
Stronger systems for policy changes and filling policy gaps
System of policy waivers and exceptions
Improved corrective action planning
Stronger compliance reporting within existing reporting systems
Operational support through talent management and training programmes
More robust high level decision making structures
Synergy with CI AF process:
1. Addresses an aspect of what we are accountable for, namely accountability to our organisational
policies and principles.
2. After an initial strong emphasis on program support issues for donor compliance, the program
recognises the need to balance quality across the board including program.
3. AF draws attention to the influence of power dynamics, both within CARE and between CARE and
others, in the setting of organisational policies.
4. Donor compliance needs to sit within a broader approach to accountability and not dominate it.
Shifting to a Programme Approach (http://p-shift.care2share.wikispaces.net/)
CARE USA has committed to shift away from short term isolated projects to an approach focusing on
achieving measurable impact via long term programmes that contribute to broader development and
social change efforts. “8 programme characteristics” help CARE judge whether the shift to a programme
has been successfully made.
1. A clearly defined goal for impact on the lives of a specific group, realized at broad scale.
2. A thorough analysis of underlying causes of poverty and social injustice at multiple levels with multiple
stakeholders.
3. An explicit theory of change that is rigorously tested and adapted to reflect ongoing learning.
4. A coherent set of initiatives that enable CARE and our partners to contribute significantly to the
transformation articulated in the theory of change.
5. Ability to promote organizational and social learning, to generate knowledge and evidence of impact.
36
6. Contribution to broad movements for social change through our work with and strengthening of
partners, networks and alliances.
7. A strategy to leverage and influence the use and allocation of financial and other resources within
society for maximizing change at a broader scale.
8. Accountability systems to internal and external stakeholders.
Implementing the programme approach requires CARE to reform its business model alongside its program
model with implications for all parts of the organisation. CARE is currently reviewing its efforts over the
last two years in order to draw lessons and update guidance for the Program Approach.
Synergy with CI AF process:
1. Program shift is an organisational change process that is potentially transformative for the organisation,
and those transformations can help CARE develop very new types of accountability relationships with its
stakeholders (as opposed to tinkering with the old).
2. Has implications for what we are accountable for by shifting the focus on accountability from project
level to demonstrating CARE’s contribution to wider development and social change efforts.
3. Advocates for longer term, constructive engagement with stakeholders and deeper partnerships.
4. Establishes criteria (the 8 characteristics determined as necessary for greater impact) which allow
programme quality to be assessed.
5. Has a specific criterion on setting up accountability systems as an integral part of programme design and
implementation.
Developing and rolling out Ubora
Ubora, the Swahili word for ‘excellence,’ is CARE USA’s organisational performance and learning system. It
serves as an umbrella system, pulling together key data and analysis about the following areas:




Impact on poverty and social injustice (under development, in line with the MDG categories)
Programme
Programme support functions
Resources (human, finance and technology)
The system aims to inform decision-making and planning, generate learning and drive improvements in
CARE’s organisational policies and practices. It is based on a 4 step process cycle of data collection,
analysis and reporting, review and reflection, action planning and knowledge sharing.
Synergy with CI AF process:
1. Explicitly recognises performance as an accountability issue. “If we are not monitoring, learning from,
leveraging strengths in and making improvements to our work, we are not being accountable to those
we work for, those we work with and those who support and finance our efforts” (Ubora guide).
2. Is working towards a common framework for measuring performance that balances more traditional
indicators (financial resources mobilised) with indicators that capture more holistic aspects of quality.
3. Has compliance mechanisms built in, as well as knowledge sharing processes.
4. Aims to measure and communicate CARE’s impact to its stakeholders.
37
5. Some tools (when used as intended, and they are not always) promote critical reflection and learning
(e.g. PQAT).
LAC Region’s Organisational Performance and Learning System
The LAC OPL, developed in 2004, collects and analyses data using 40 indicators across three area:



Impact and effect – CARE’s contribution to MDGs and other impact goals.
Organisational strategy – alignment of projects and programs CARE’s Program Principles and other
strategic priorities.
Organisational support – mastering the support functions necessary for enacting the Program
Principles and achieving impact (financial management, HR and governance).
The system aims to systematically manage organisational performance at country office and regional
levels, drive organisational learning and recognise staff achievements, and is linked to annual planning and
review processes. There are several data gathering tools which collect quantitative and qualitative data,
including checklists, surveys and self assessment tools based on reflection in teams. It includes a survey of
external perspectives.
Synergy with CI AF process:
1. Many indicators measure aspects of accountability relating to all 3 areas: impact, strategy and
governance and HR.
2. Mechanism for identifying good practices and learning on accountability issues for sharing more broadly
and feeding into guidance documents and other knowledge products.
3. Otherwise similar to UBORA above.
Impact indicators: # and % program initiatives that
- make a contribution to the Millennium Development Goals.
- achieve results in terms of the more equitable distribution of power.
- achieve results in terms of the promotion of equality and the reduction of discrimination.
- partners, participants, donors and other actors believe have an impact on poverty, discrimination and social injustice.
- demonstrate sustainable effects and impacts after an appropriate period after activities end.
- demonstrate results in terms of fulfillment of obligations of those who have responsibility for poor and marginalized
populations.
Indicator of organisational strategy: # and % of initiatives that
- have a specific objective and strategy to promote social learning.
- generate, disseminate and use knowledge.
- are based on lessons learned and experiences of other actors and CARE.
- promote the obligations of those responsible for poor and marginalized individuals.
- in which partners and CARE share equal power and responsibility.
- are incorporated into a local-national-global strategy to eliminate poverty, discrimination and social injustice.
- in which participants (and other actors) are fully involved in decision making throughout the program cycle (analysis, design,
implementation and evaluation).
- have a system or process for being held accountable to participants and other members of civil society.
- are based on the analysis of context-specific underlying causes of poverty.
- have a specific strategy to fight discrimination and promote equality.
- have a specific strategy to prevent and resolve conflicts.
- have a specific strategy to manage risks.
38
- have a specific strategy to promote the sustainability of impacts and effects.
- are consistent with the six program principles of CARE International.
- have a specific strategy to contribute to at least one MDG.
- that are managed in a satisfactory manner following program and project management standards
- # of groups/organizations (constituents) mobilized to support initiatives to address the underlying causes of poverty.
- # and % of existing, potential or former donors and partners that view CARE as a cost-effective organization.
- # and % of strategic alliances in which CARE plays an active role in addressing poverty, discrimination and social justice.
Indicator of organizational support – governance and human resources
 Established and functioning mechanism that guarantees the participation of several outside actors in CARE management and
strategic decision-making processes.
 Established and functioning mechanism that guarantees the participation of personnel in CARE management and decisionmaking processes.
 # of outside actors who believe that CARE management and strategic decision-making processes are inclusive.
 # and % of personnel who believe that CARE management and strategic decision-making processes are inclusive.
 # and % of positions that reflect diversity in terms of representation and influence.
 # and % of personnel who demonstrate the use of basic and new skills.
 Staff turnover.
An external movement towards CSO effectiveness and accountability
The CSO Open Forum for CSO Development Effectiveness is a two year global project to develop an CSO
effectiveness framework, in the lead up to the next High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Seoul (see
www.cso-effectiveness.org).
A set of 8 principles has already been developed that CARE has signed up to, one specifically on
transparency and accountability, and others that are linked to crucial aspects of our accountability.
Guidance for implementing these principles is being developed and minimum standards for an enabling
environment (directed at governments and donors). There is also a process to develop accountability
mechanisms for each principle, including plans to conduct country level consultations to develop context
specific indicators. The principles are:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Respect and promote human rights and social justice
Embody gender equality and equity while promoting women and girl’s rights
Focus on people’s empowerment, democratic ownership and participation
Promote environmental sustainability
Practice transparency and accountability
Pursue equitable partnerships and solidarity
Create and share knowledge and commit to mutual learning
Commit to realizing positive sustainable change
Linked to this process was some initial thinking conducted by CARE USA on developing an inter-agency
Development Effectiveness Accountability Framework (accountability to commonly agreed Development
Effectiveness Principles) that would be developed in collaboration with peer INGOs. This would build on
the global process but would be more rigorous in line with the capabilities of the large INGOs.
At the UK level, the NGO platform BOND is facilitating engagement of the UK sector in the global process,
through a resourced and relatively ambitious Effectiveness Programme. The programme aims to develop
39
an effectiveness framework for the UK sector that is challenging and transformative, and to which UK
NGOs would be held to account. The common framework will identify levers of programme effectiveness.
The accountability mechanism for the framework will include self assessment and reporting (using a set of
common indicators) with the main aim to encourage peer learning and collaboration, and ultimately
change in the sector. The program includes work with senior managers to develop a management agenda
and organisational culture which rewards effective development practice and outcomes based on
organisational values and development principles, though not at the expense of sound business practice.
Synergy with CI AF process:
1. AF potentially relates to several principles. It is integral to achieving some (e.g. respect for human
rights, positive sustainable change, more equal partnership, gender equality). Others are principles also
core to exercising accountability in practice. (e.g. participation, transparency, mutual learning).
2. CARE’s responsibility to contribute to civil society efforts to improve themselves and the imperative to
promote coherence of initiatives within the sector both repeatedly surfaced during consultations as an
issue of our accountability.
3. Links NGO accountability (and CARE’s voice within that) with the wider aid and development
effectiveness debates.
4. Implementing AF will enable CARE to speak with more credibility (we are doing it ourselves) on the
approaches necessary, and the barriers and challenges to be addressed.
Pamodzi – a new financial system for CI
Pamodzi seeks to provide a global financial systems for CI that supports CARE’s core business – effective
programmes – and which will meet the needs of all CI members. This is a challenging endevour. The
Pamodzi team, in collaboration with CARE stakeholders, is defining programme related requirements for
financial data that the system will provide. There are many aspects of programming, as well as various
initiatives within CI, that need to be considered in the design of the system. The Pamodzi team is also
coordinating with a related initiative to develop a new Program Information Management system to avoid
duplication in what information is being collected for which system. A particular challenge for the Pamodzi
system is to keep things systems whilst ensuring that financial data can be extracted in a way that meets
CARE’s programme and organisational needs – in terms of contract management, quality management,
and delivering on its accountability to stakeholders, including CARE’s impact groups, women and girls,
partners and other local stakeholders.
Synergy with CI AF process:
1. It would be important that Pamodzi and Programme teams consider the information management
requirements that can support accountability objectives.
40
41
Annex 14 – Elements of accountability from peers’ frameworks
Action Aid
(org. wide)
Participation
X
CARE HAF
(hum.
programs)
X
Transp. & info.
Sharing
Feedback &
Complaints
Assessment
Analysis of power
DME
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(under p.)
X
X
X
Complaints
X
X
X
Complaints
Learning
X (social & org
learning)
ECB (hum.
programs)
Islamic Relief
(org. wide)
X
DEC (hum.
programs / DAP
& supporters)
X
X
X
X/X
D&M / E&L
(follow up on
evaluation)
Compliance quality
standards
(quality
standards in
D&M)
Leadership &
Governance
X
42
Christian Aid
(org. wide)
Oxfam GB (org.
wide)
World Vision
(programs)
X
One World
Trust
(org. wide)
X
X
X
X
X Consult. and
particip.n
X
X
X
X
X
(org. processes
to reflect
principles)
Performance
management (and
learning)
Staff competencies
Personal attitudes
and behaviours
Others
CARE Peru
(org. wide)
X DME
(mutual
learning focus)
X Org.
performance &
learning
X
DME and
OP&L
X
Interagency
-Shared goals,
values, ways of
working
-Data
Protection
-Fundraising
-Child
protection
X
Monitoring
effectiveness
X
Quality mgt.
standards
X
X
(focus on
attitudes)
Women’s rights
X
X
Evaluation &
feedback for
learning
(3 year
objectives set
by leadership)
Annex 15 : CASE STUDIES
Accountability in CARE Myanmar's Cyclone Nargis Response
Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar in the beginning of May 2008 with devastating force,
affecting 2.3 million people and killing 130,000. The cyclone destroyed livelihoods and
agriculture, heavily damaged infrastructure, and caused high levels of internal displacement
across the South Eastern region. CARE Myanmar's response was complicated by both its lack
of a presence in the region and the complexity of operating in Myanmar's political
environment. CARE Myanmar’s response has included a mix of relief and recovery activities
across multiple sectors in 6 townships in the Ayerawaddy and Yangon division.
During the first month of its response to Cyclone Nargis in 2008, CARE Myanmar decided to
appoint a Quality and Accountability Coordinator to support project teams in setting up
accountability systems and to act as an ambassador for affected communities. In addition,
Accountability Officers were appointed to each project team. This decision by leaders sent a
clear signal that accountability was a priority in CARE’s emergency response. Nevertheless,
accountability was not seen as a job for specialists alone. It was important that all
implementation staff working with members of affected communities understood the role
they had to play.
Efforts to implement accountability in CARE's Cyclone Nargis emergency response included
information materials, a complaints mechanism, village committees, monitoring using
CARE’s HAF benchmarks, the hiring of additional staff, and the inclusion of accountability
responsibilities into job profiles and contracts. CARE Myanmar was supported by the
broader CARE confederation and included two capacity building field visits from CARE UK.
We learned that:
Space needs to be created for accountability
In Myanmar, a culture that frowns upon complaints constituted a key challenge to be
overcome and, initially, negatively affected accountability practice amongst the junior staff
and accountability to beneficiaries. Practicing accountability faces different challenges in
different circumstances. Clear and decisive leadership is needed in establishing space for
accountability efforts.
Community input improves our understanding of vulnerability and quality of programming
Community input, including complaints collected by complaint mechanisms, helps ensure
that vulnerable people are provided with appropriate and adequate assistance and that aid
is distributed equitably. Moreover, community input deepens our understanding of what
vulnerability is in specific communities and contexts.
43
Complaint mechanism design is important
How a complaint mechanism is designed is critical to its success. Research should be
conducted to better understand beneficiaries’ preferences and make allowances for them.
The little details matter: for example, if complaints boxes are placed too high for children to
use not only are children excluded but adults are unable to submit complaints via their
children, as was commonplace in Myanmar.
Demand for accountability must be carefully cultivated
In a political or cultural environment that discourages complaint, the demand for
accountability must often be generated. Merely providing mechanisms is not enough - use
of accountability mechanisms must be actively promoted and encouraged. This requires the
clear communication of accountability principles, the purpose the complaints mechanism,
process – e.g.: the complaints are confidential and internally monitored – and establishing
time frames for response.
By Simon Smith, Accountability Intern, CARE UK
A case study from CARE Peru
Putting accountability into practice in the 2007 earthquake response
CI’s involvement in Sphere, the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership and the Good
Enough Guide has resulted in our own Humanitarian Mandate Statement. This holds us
accountable to the international standards and principles we have adopted and demands
that we turn rhetoric into practice.
In August 2007 a magnitude 8.0 earthquake struck the coast of Peru, killing over 500 people
and leaving more than 75,000 families homeless. Before the earthquake, CARE Peru had
identified that accountability was an organisational priority. The Peru emergency response
was an important moment for ensuring that project plans made accountability to disaster
affected communities a reality, and that staff were supported to implement them.
CARE Peru recruited four dedicated accountability staff who together with a mixed team
from across programme, resources and communications departments developed a simple
project accountability framework. This summarised the purpose of CARE Peru’s commitment
to accountability. The framework was used as an internal communications tool as well as a
basis for building up a set of accountability mechanisms, covering four key linked areas:
1. Public information to the affected populations;
2. Mechanisms for participation of affected people in CARE’s decision making
3. Feedback and complaints from affected communities, and adapting our response
accordingly
4. Application of Sphere standards in our response
First activities included a workshop for CARE staff on humanitarian principles and standards,
and the distribution of a checklist of Sphere standards to all staff members. Sphere was
successfully used with donors and funding partners to advocate for a temporary shelter
design that complies with Sphere standards.
Project managers adapted a generic information sheet for their project teams to help them
communicate key information in a clear and consistent manner. Qualitative monitoring and
44
listening to communities was also a key task of project teams. Not only did this provide an
opportunity for feedback for communities, but helped CARE in learning about our impact
during the emergency response, not just at the end of it.
A complaints and response mechanism was launched in the third month of the response,
using various communication media to explain to communities and government institutions
what the complaints mechanism is for and how it works. Channels of complaint included a
newly established free telephone line (with recorded message outside office hours), CARE’s
web page, visits to the CARE office in Lima, and face to face in the communities themselves.
CARE received and responded to 300 complaints over four months. More women than men
used the free telephone line. There were very few calls from the highland areas, and in this
region the complaints mechanism was supported by focus group sessions and individual
interviews by field-based monitoring staff. The results of feedback included both
compliments and complaints..
We learned that
Accountability made a difference - In Peru, strengthening our accountability enabled us to
reach vulnerable populations we may not have reached, resolve problems we may not
otherwise have been aware of, and contribute to greater impact and dignity of the
affected population.
Organisational commitment to accountability is essential - Even with CARE Peru‘s
organisational commitment, a great many practical obstacles were encountered; without
top-level commitment from leaders the challenge would have been even greater, perhaps
insurmountable.
Early efforts must be made to embed accountability into project processes - Accountability
however must also be seen as part of the core work of project teams, and not as
something that is parallel to be carried out by dedicated accountability staff only.
A complaints mechanism risks always being seen as a threat to staff - Fear amongst staff
that the complaints mechanism would threaten their jobs was an obstacle that needed to
be overcome. This was eventually overcome through learning by doing, reassurance that a
complaint received did not mean that staff would lose their jobs, and a gradual
acceptance that the complaints mechanism actually improved the quality of our work.
Trust in the complaints mechanism helps build relationships - Despite CARE’s information
campaign, many people in the community only learnt about the system by testing it out.
Of fundamental importance is how those making complaints are treated, showing real
levels of respect, calm (in the face of often initially very strong feelings of anger and
frustration) and kindness.
Although important, accountability is not just about having a complaints mechanism - A
complaints mechanism is the newest and most visible part of an accountability system. As
a result, it can grab the attention of those keen to strengthen their accountability to
disaster affected populations. However, having a complaints mechanism should not mean
that we put less emphasis on our ongoing efforts to involve women, men, girls and boys
from day one of our response.
See (link) for long version.
Beyond the 2007 emergency response
Following the emergency response, CARE Peru committed to a long term process to
strengthen its own accountability to poor people and local stakeholders, as well as
45
promoting accountability amongst other actors, particularly local government and the
mining sector. Key strategies in this organisational change process include piloting
accountability in practice within projects, regional offices and programmes, and using the
learning from this to strengthen policy and practice.
Strengthening accountability systems in projects, regional offices and programmes
1. Publicly disclosing information: building better relationships, respect and trust with
other stakeholders, offering information on what we are doing and achieving and
ensuring a continuous dialogue
2. Participation and decision making: involving stakeholders in decision making related
to our interventions, defining mutual responsibilities from the beginning to the end
of each intervention
3. Managing feedback, complaints and suggestions: opening opportunities to receive
feedback offered by our stakeholders whether positive or negative, responding in
timely fashion to improve the impact of our interventions
4. Managing quality: establishing internal management that is open to learning and
continuous improvement with staff, improving the quality and impact of our
relationships with other stakeholders
Examples of key activities include:

Organising information events with local government and community
representatives to explain CARE’s work and to explain CARE’s commitment to
accountability and the mechanisms available. This included identifying opportunities
for participation, information sharing and feedback and complaints, including CARE’s
toll free telephone number.

Piloting citizen oversight committees made up of community and local civil society
members that provide citizen led external monitoring of CARE’s work.

Establishing feedback and complaints systems that provide various channels for
stakeholders to feed back to CARE, including face-to-face, focus group discussions,
log books in offices, and a toll free telephone number.

Developing a monitoring and evaluation system to help project teams and regional
offices track their progress in implementing accountability.
Box 2 - Citizen Oversight Committees: taking action based on listening to positive and
critical feedback
CARE Peru was able to improve the quality of our programmes by responding to three
issues that were reported by the comités de vigilancia (citizen oversight committees). The
committees found that:
Timely access to credit should be improved
One of the primary critical feedback to emerge from the comités de vigilancia regarded a
lack of timely access to credit. CARE responded by analysing the loan process and making
subsequent arrangements to improve its operational capacity in that area – including the
hiring of a professional focused on increasing CARE’s capacity to provide beneficiaries
with credit in a timely and accessible manner. As a result, the next monitoring report
found that access and quality of credit programs had been improved and 538
beneficiaries had been extended credit in a timely manner.
46
Free phone lines phone are important and their coverage needs to be extended
A complaints and feedback hotline was established as a toll free phone line for some
provinces in the Ancash region. After a successful first year, CARE expanded the free
phone lines coverage across all areas of the Ancash region that projects are implemented
in by CARE. The comités de vigilancia noted the value of this accountability mechanism in
particular. CARE is now working to ensure that all beneficiaries have access to, and are
aware of, a similar free phone lines that operates out of Lima by incorporating
information about the toll-free line in its communications materials.
The promotion of gender mainstreaming in programming should be improved
Following the comités de vigilancia feedback that gender empowerment was lacking in
programming a new goal was set to increase the share of female producers in the Andes
region from 13.6% to 20% by ensuring that 50% of beneficiaries, management
committees, leaders, and internships were allotted to women. As a result of these
increased efforts, the next monitoring report found that the percentage of female
producers had exceeded 20% and that a positive and growing trend towards gender
balance in production is now emerging.
Towards an institutional understanding and framework
CARE Peru is developing an organisational framework for accountability and transparency,
structured around the four components described above, and addressing each of these in
relation to key stakeholders, such as communities, staff and partners. A guidance manual
has been developed, and the challenge now is to develop simple and realistic
implementation plans with all teams and departments.
CARE Peru has prepared a first annual accountability report using the standard reporting
framework of the Global Reporting Initiative. This involves public reporting that goes
beyond audited financial statements, to include internal and decision making processes that
relate to governance, gender equity & diversity, staff welfare, social and environmental
impact, conflicts of interest etc. CARE Peru’s first report has required new types of data to
be collected and analysed (such as gender equality data). This is however a work in progress
and requires further work to understand the implications of reporting against an even wider
set of GRI indicators.
In addition, CARE Peru is working with the national NGO coordination body on an initiative
to define civil society’s role within the Peruvian development context, and to determine how
NGOs can self-regulate and hold themselves accountable for the processes they promote.
Finally, CARE Peru is conducting a baseline and monitoring exercise based on the desired
outputs and outcomes of these initiatives to strengthen accountability, involving document
review, stakeholder interviews and a staff Knowledge Attitudes Practices survey.
Some conclusions so far
1. Whilst the pilot systems need improvement there is evidence that they are helping
to strengthen CARE’s relationships with communities and local stakeholders. There
are examples of corrective actions being made as a result of receiving complaints
and suggestions. Recommendations made by the citizen oversight committees have
also been taken on board to address the issues raised by communities (see Box 2).
2. CARE teams, and external bodies such as the citizen oversight committees, require
significant technical, logistical, financial and leadership support. Teams need help in
47
demystifying and applying accountability. Leadership support and regular dialogue is
needed to reduce staff fear that accountability represents a threat to their job.
Accountability will continue to be seen as an additional burden as opposed to part of
core project tasks unless adequate time, resources and support are built into project
plans.
3. Ultimately we need to fully embed accountability into the culture of the organisation
and its management systems. In this regard, we need to develop methodologies that
help formalise our practice in the field. Components such as a) public information, b)
participation and decision making, c) management of complaints and suggestions d)
quality management would all therefore be elements that enter through routine
management at all levels.
4. Maintaining emergency response capacities between emergencies is challenging and
this equally applies to the application of accountability. To be ready for the next
emergency we need to ensure that accountability is part of our culture (whether in
emergency or development) so that staff are equipped with the attitudes required.
We need to ensure accountability is embedded in our management systems,
including systems that are adapted for emergency response. Finally we need “good
enough” tools and approaches that simple and non-elaborate and that can be built
upon as the response progresses.
5. In setting up citizen oversight monitoring, it is essential to optimise the spaces that
already exist in the exercise of citizenship in wider society, and to work with these
actors in such a way that their capacity is strengthened, and not undermined.
6. Embedding accountability in an organisation is a process that takes time.
7. The role of a dedicated Accountability Advisor has been found essential to
accompany the process, providing much needed support at all levels, though
particularly to support and encourage the pilots. She also helps encourage a
Learning group that shares on email). As other regional offices and projects have
become interested, she has been able to support them, and encourage their interest
and motivations. She has also been critical in organising key moments when staff
have come together to share learning (e.g. a workshop this year that shared learning
in promoting CARE's own accountability, and promoting the accountability of
external stakeholders within their governance, and mining sector work. Much of the
CO current learning has been integrated into their 'CARE Peru accountability Guide'
which guidance on key steps for setting up accountability systems (e.g. to explore
values, to identify stakeholders) as well as guidance on certain essential elements of
accountability practice e.g. participation in decision making etc.
48
Case Study12 – Promoting accountability in CARE Ethiopia
In 2007, CARE Ethiopia identified accountability as an organisational priority as part of their
Long Range Strategy Plan (2007-12). They committed to “move slowly but steadily into the
realm of working with partners to hold all stakeholders, itself included, accountable...” and
to “transform CARE Ethiopia into an organisation that applies its learning and impact.” This
commitment has led to several initiatives to strengthen CARE Ethiopia’s own accountability,
always keeping the spot light on forward accountability to poor and marginalised
communities, whist remaining vigilant about ‘getting the basics right’ in terms of procedures
and control that ensure sound fiscal and administrative compliance.
Accountability in humanitarian response:
CARE Ethiopia’s Emergency Unit (CEEU) and Program Development and Quality Support
Teams are partnering to systematically review and monitor their work against the
benchmarks in CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework. In March 2010, an initial
step towards this process was taken by conducting a HAF Rapid Assessment and After
Action Review (internal lessons learned exercise) of CARE’s response to the recent
emergency13. The results of the assessment and AAR were reviewed and an action plan
developed to strengthen performance, including critical analysis of where the current
response failed to apply learnings from earlier responses.
Strengths
 Emergency projects have well-established log frames, project implementation plans,
M&E matrixes with standard indicators to regularly track the project performance and
achievements in line with the stated project objectives.

Since July 2009, the CEEU has a dedicated staff for DM&E related activities.

At the very beginning of the project all emergency projects conduct launch workshops
with stakeholder involvement.

Regular joint workshops and meetings are held to enhance coordination and
harmonisation among all partners at Woreda and regional level during project
implementation.

To enhance participation, panel monitoring, joint supervision and review meetings with
12 Adapted from L’Andafta (The Newsletter of CARE Ethiopia) October 2010 – Issue No. 33 - Articles by Abby
Maxman, CD and Biresaw Sime, Accountability Adviser. Interview with Alix, Humanitarian Accountability
Advisor.
13
2009 Food Security and Acute Watery Diarrhoea Emergency
49
the participation of government partners, communities and project staff are in place.

Events and workshops are organised with stakeholders mainly with the government line
sectors, community and other agencies operating in the area to identify the strengths
and limitations for timely correction and adjustments during the project period.

Both quantitative and qualitative information is collected through household and
standard nutrition surveys, focus group discussions, and key informant interviews.

To measure the project achievements, efficiency, and effectiveness against the baseline
and to draw lessons for future programming, emergency projects conduct final
evaluations at the end of most projects.

CARE took a leadership role in humanitarian coordination meetings.
Challenges and areas to improve
 Involvement of communities at the stage of project design. Due to the nature of the
emergency projects and often short time spans given by donors to submit proposals, it
has been a challenge to effectively include communities in bottom-up proposal
developments processes. Recognising there is limited time to conduct a grass root
community need assessment during the proposal development period, CARE Ethiopia
emergency unit has has started developing shelf concept notes involving the
beneficiaries

Creating a formal complaint mechanism. Lead member and CI CEG help will be
requested to establish a complaint system.

Project information to be provided in a transparent and easy to understand manner to
communities (e.g., language barriers).

International partners also mentioned that CARE seems to be focused on donor and
government requirements, less on the people that are being served.

The HAF also pointed to frustration regarding equity among temporary staff that has
been hired on short-term contracts for emergency projects. It is difficult to see how to
alter this in light of funding realities and existing labour laws, however, the CO
committed to reviewing the current system and informing all staff about the outcome.

CO staff encouraged lesson learning AAR type of activities as part of the mid-term
evaluations (i.e. when there is still time to adjust program activities while programs are
ongoing) and engaging in cross learning with other partners in Ethiopia and other CARE
Country Offices.
Follow up actions
 There is leadership commitment to align humanitarian response systems and capacities
50
to the HAF.

A new Humanitarian Accountability Advisor has been recruited to help this process of
alignment. One role of this post is to raise awareness and provide trainings on
humanitarian accountability to all staff. The Advisor is part of an informal inter-agency
working group that meet to share approaches, challenges and tools on humanitarian
accountability.

A complaints mechanism appropriate for rapid humanitarian response (in periods of
acute emergency) will be piloted and integrated into rapid response systems.

A Forward Accountability Task Force has been established (see below) to help ensure
that efforts to integrate the HAF are linked with CARE Ethiopia’s wider development and
accountability work. This is important as the context of chronic poverty and
vulnerability in Ethiopia means that CARE’s impact groups for long term programming
are often the same communities affected by periods of acute stress. Improved
collaboration between the emergency and program development teams has been
identified as important in giving more attention to key cross cutting issues, including
accountability, DRR and gender.

The Forward Accountability Task Force has been tasked with monitoring progress in
implementing the AAR recommendations.
Field office
At the field office level, ongoing efforts to strengthen forward accountability include:





51
Staff attended a two day training workshop covering basic elements and tools of
accountability, including on: providing information, participation in decision making,
working with local structures, complaints and response mechanisms, attitudes of staff,
profiling people affected by CARE’s interventions, tracking change, feedback
mechanisms and responding to feedback.
Field Offices have established a Forward Accountability Task Force and prepared an
Action Plan to promote forward accountability at the grass roots level. In Afar, the field
office's Annual Operations Plan included forward accountability as a key priority for the
field office for FY11.
Field Office Leadership Teams are responsible for increasing staff understanding and
actions, including communicating with the community on accountability, and are
coached in this role by the Accountability Advisor.
All field offices have a renewed focus on gender responsive programming, promote
gender equality and women’s empowerment.
The Community Review and Reflection Process (CRRP), social audits, and panel
monitoring with partners are all accountability mechanisms that are being implemented
by our different programs. Feedback from these exercises is used to improve the quality



of our interventions and helps us to better align with our strategic objectives. These
mechanisms also enhance information sharing, help to guide us in the development of
new tools, and positively contribute to staff training on accountability.
Field Offices have identified two persons as work on complaints and response
mechanisms
All project managers submitted the fourth quarter report in Amharic to the concerned
woreda and regional partners and other stakeholders. The field office leadership team
paid a two day field visit to a productive safety net program in order to speak directly
with staff, communities and local stakeholders.
The South Gondar field office has incorporated participatory action research in the
WASH projects to understand better effective forward accountability mechanisms.
Box 3: Community Review and Reflection Process (add specific example)
Social Audit (add specific example)
Panel Monitoring (add specific example)
Panel Monitoring is a participatory monitoring mechanism with a group made up of project
staff, government partners, and some community members. The panel oversees activities at
the field level, identify constraints, strengths, weaknesses etc. and recommends appropriate
action.
Independent Ethiopian Voices
At the national level, in June 2009, CARE Ethiopia established its first ever voluntary
Advisory Board made up of a diverse group of Ethiopians who are committed to the social
and development of Ethiopia. The Advisory Board is mandated to provide feedback and
challenge to the overall direction being taken by the Country Office leadership. Whilst this
is not a formal governance structure, in the sense of a Board of Directors, it provides
valuable perspectives from wider civil society, and helps to hold leadership to account
beyond their own line management and senior leadership teams.
Box 3: The process of establishing the Advisory Board was an iterative process that built on
experiences collected globally, regionally and in Ethiopia over an 18 month period (from
2007-2009). External technical assistance helped to develop the by-laws, and to recruit its
nine members, ensuring a diverse group of individuals and voices to inform and challenge
CARE Ethiopia’s thinking.
Since the inaugural meeting in June 2009, the Board has met on a quarterly basis and
provided valuable input into different important internal and external strategic and
operational issues. Topics have ranged from the role and relevance of international NGOs in
Ethiopia and what that means to CARE; climate change and CARE’s recommended role in
the global, national and local discourse and actions; and the 2010 elections and analysis of
52
what the results mean to the humanitarian and development agenda in the next 5 years.
In October 2010, the Advisory Board held its first quarter FY11 Board meeting in Awash,
hosted by CARE Ethiopia’s Awash Field Office and Field Office Leadership Team. The Board
visited several project sites and activities in Afar and discussed the Program Shift, the
pastoral school aged girl impact group, and current projects underway in the area. Members
then provided verbal feedback and committed to completing a new draft peer review tool,
to collect comments, feedback and suggestions on the content and modalities of our work
based on their observations, background reading, and time together.
The Country Office values this new feedback mechanism as an important way to support
and enhance their commitment to accountability and transparency, by inviting external
expertise to help guide their internal reflection and analysis.
Promoting accountability of others
In CARE Ethiopia’s HIV&AIDSs program, “Getting Ahead”, and “Springboard” projects are
directly engaging our beneficiaries in exciting accountability based work through the
Community Score Card tool. This is a participatory, community-based monitoring and
evaluation tool that enables citizens to assess the quality of public and other services
against community developed indicators. It is used to inform community members about
available services and their entitlements and to solicit their opinions about the quality of
these services. The process provides an opportunity for direct dialogue between all the
service providers (government, INGO, and community based organizations) and the
community representatives through interface meetings using agreed upon tools and
indicators. CARE has worked carefully to build trust and confidence among different
stakeholders to enable honest reflection in a safe space, and has principally played the role
of facilitator to introduce, test, refine and apply the tool consistently over time. This tool has
proved effective as one that promotes forward accountability of public service providers by
empowering communities with a constructive means to feedback and influence
improvements in the quality of local basic services, as well as improving relations and trust
between the service providers and the community.
Bringing it all together – moving towards institutionalisation
In November 2010, CARE Ethiopia established a new central Forward Accountability
Working Group – comprising of both program and program support - to help bring together
the CO’s various initiatives on accountability, and to promote practical implementation,
coordination, cross learning and innovation.
One issue that will be explored, for example, is the diverse accountability systems within
different projects and programs, in order to approach communities as ‘one CARE’. The
53
working group will lead a review of existing internal and external complaint mechanism(s)
and tools under development for different programs and refine a complaint mechanism to
be piloted and rolled out in both humanitarian and development projects.
The group will periodically facilitate an assessment of CARE’s strengths and gaps in relation
to forward accountability, to enable the country office to track progress and identify areas
for improvement.
Members will act as ambassadors of accountability and will provide encouragement to
others – including modelling behaviours and practices – as well as supporting information
sharing, awareness raising and training. The group will also help document evidence of
accountability, including encouraging partners and staff to share their own success stories
to help in the endevour of continual learning and transformation, and to continually raise
the standards of accountability and ways in which CARE Ethiopia can demonstrate it, as
individuals and as an organisation.
The group will help link accountability work into the annual analysis and planning initiatives
of the organisation, departments and teams. Of course, accountability is not a standalone
entity, but rather a cross cutting issue that needs to be effectively and consciously
addressed in all of our committed initiatives, partnerships, and through internal systems of
compliance and management.
Some initial lessons Learned
Leadership is an essential ingredient “From my perspective the CO leaders are a model for
us. They try and model accountability in the work that they do and in how they behave
themselves. They have shown that accountability is very important to the Country Office.
They have dedicated time and resources. They are testing new and creative mechanisms
themselves. This is a demonstrated commitment that is essential for me as the context in
Ethiopia is very challenging. ” (CARE Ethiopia staff member)
HAF benchmarks provide a useful tool for identifying areas for improvement The
introduction of the HAF gave more attention to accountability as a priority issue in
humanitarian response. Conducting the rapid HAF (as part of the lesson learned process)
helped staff understand the HAF and to demystify accountability. Consulting with
stakeholders using the HAF helped participants of the AAR understand where weaknesses
are and to give attention to those issues. However the challenge remains in how to
incorporate the HAF benchmarks into daily work especially considering operational
challenges.
The HAF can be/should be adapted to CARE’s ongoing development work - CARE Ethiopia
has included complaints mechanisms in programming long before the introduction of the
HAF. However, through the HAF exercise and reflections, CARE realised that some
54
mechanisms weren’t strong enough. Communities did not always know how to use them,
or did not feel safe using them. HAF has put complaints mechanisms higher on the agenda
for the CO for humanitarian and development teams.
55
CARE UK Accountability Workshop - Campaigning case study
1. Making “Voices Against Violence” accountable
CARE is committed to ensuring that our campaigning work is grounded in evidence, and
forwardly accountable to the people we aim to serve. In the case of Voices Against
Violence, this means women who live in conflict and post-conflict zones.
The aim of Voices Against Violence is to improve protection from sexual and gender based
violence for women in conflict and post-conflict zones, and to increase support for survivors.
Campaigning is relatively new for CARE International UK, and we have a lot of work still to
do to make sure campaigning is accountable. But here are some steps we have taken so far
to start us on the journey:
o Based the campaign on solid evidence and advocacy asks, developed by CI members and
relevant country offices.
o Built campaigning links with CARE Uganda, with mutual support and feeding in of
messaging.
o Campaign manager’s trip to Uganda enabled us to speak directly to women affected by
the issues, developing a greater understanding of the impact on people’s lives, and
getting feedback and input from Ugandan women into the campaign.
o Invited CARE Uganda’s Gender Adviser to take part in our International Women’s Day
events in the UK.
o Hold regular conference calls and update emails with CARE Afghanistan and CARE Nepal,
to share advocacy and campaigning plans and messaging.
o Developed links with Great Lakes Advocacy Initiative, to get input from SGBV activists in
Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi.
o Developing a focus group of campaigners in the UK, including representatives from the
African Diaspora, to monitor our campaigning messages and give feedback.
There still remain many obstacles and issues to running a truly accountable campaign, and
this is an issue of great debate currently within the sector. Some questions to think about
include: How can we give a genuine voice to women affected by conflict rather than
speaking on their behalf? How can women affected by conflict input meaningfully into our
campaign? How can we ensure we have fully informed consent of beneficiaries to use their
personal stories?
2. Accountability in campaigning: a case study
Unearth Justice
‘Unearth Justice’ is a campaign run by CAFOD on the extractives industry. Mining is often a
cause of conflict, environmental destruction and toxic pollution. The campaign calls on
56
governments and mining companies to end this injustice, and give poor communities a
greater say in whether mining is allowed, how it operates, and who benefits.
A three year planning process preceded the launch. This included a consultation of overseas
and UK staff and partners. After consideration of responses by UK staff, economic justice
was recommended to the board as the theme of the CAFOD campaign, with a focus on
mining.
When the campaign was launched in 2006, the partners had a very strong presence, with
case studies from Honduras and the DRC. There was a speaker tour and partners were
present at the launch. This was followed in 2008 by a photo exhibition, in addition to mass
actions targeting jewellers. CAFOD has privately engaged with three individual mining
companies.
CAFOD invested in campaigns resource people to be the link between CAFOD and partners,
visiting communities and getting feedback.
The partners were very positive about the campaign, and asked for a greater say in the
planning phase as well. However, beneficiary involvement in the campaign also generated
some tensions. Those partners against mining per se saw CAFOD as being to being too mild
in their commitment to ‘constructive engagement’.
Source, presentation by Clare Lyons (CAFOD) to Beneficiary Voice Peer Exchange, 2009
http://www.cafod.org.uk/policy-campaigns/unearth-justice
By Lee Webster, CARE UK Campaigns Manager
57
ANNEX 16 - How proposed benchmarks fit with HAF and programming
principles
AF Benchmarks
HAF Benchmarks
Programming
Principles
1. Participation
4. Participation
PP 1: Empowerment
PP 2: Work in partnership with
others
PP 5: Promote the non-violent
resolution of conflicts
2. Transparency and
information sharing
6. Transparency and
information sharing
PP 1: Empowerment
PP 5: Promote the non-violent
resolution of conflicts
3. Feedback and complaint
5. Feedback and
complaint
PP 4 :Address discrimination
PP 5: Promote the non-violent
resolution of conflicts
4. Learning
7. Evaluation and
Learning
PP 1: Empowerment
PP 2: Work in partnership with
others
PP 6: Seek sustainable results
5. Demonstrating quality,
effectiveness, impact
2. Assessment
3. Design & monitoring
7. Evaluation & learning
PP 6: Seek sustainable results
6. Leadership
7. Staff attitudes, capacities
8. Systems
1.Leadership
1.Leadership
8. People (Human
Resources)
PP 1: Empowerment
We stand in solidarity with poor and
marginalized people, and support
their efforts to take control of their
own lives and fulfill their rights,
responsibilities and aspirations. We
ensure that those people who are
affected are involved in the design,
implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of our work
58
Examples of how the AF
contributes to our PP
 access to information that
enables people to make more
informed decisions
Examples of how PP underpin our
AF
Empowered individuals are better
able to claim and experience
genuine accountability.
 building skills and spaces that
enable people to influence
decision making
 individuals need the capacities
and skills (to negotiate, speak in
public, facilitate decision making
etc)
 promoting a type of learning
that values different
perspectives and influences
decisions
 it requires challenge to
structures that exclude certain
groups from information,
participation and voice in
decision making
 relationships are vehicles for
both empowerment and
accountability (e.g. building
collective strength through
group membership to demand
accountability)
PP 2: Work in partnership with
others
We work with others to maximise the
impact of our work, building alliances
and partnerships with those who take
similar or complementary approaches,
are able to work on a larger scale,
and/or who have responsibility to fulfil
rights and alleviate poverty through
policy change and enforcement.
 role of transparency and
information sharing in building
trust
 participation that goes beyond
implementation to include
participation in analysis,
planning and in defining mutual
responsibilities and expectations
towards a shared goal.
 assessing the effectiveness of a
partnership towards maximising
impact
Puts the spotlight on two way
relationships and mutual
accountability
 respect for each other’s values
and experiences
 being clear on each other’s non
negotiables
 two way information sharing,
dialogue and learning
 holding each other to account
 learning with and from others
PP 3: Ensure accountability and
promote responsibility
We seek to be held accountable to
poor and marginalized people whose
rights are denied. We identify those
with an obligation toward poor and
marginalized people, and support and
encourage their efforts to fulfil their
responsibilities
PP 4: Address discrimination
In our programmes and offices we
oppose discrimination and the denial
of rights based on sex, race,
nationality, ethnicity, class, religion,
age, physical ability, caste, opinion or
sexual orientation.
PP 5: Promote the non-violent
resolution of conflicts
We promote just and non-violent
means for preventing and resolving
conflicts, noting that such conflicts
contribute to poverty and the denial of
rights
 being accountable ourselves
gives CARE legitimacy to
influence the accountability of
others.
 AF recognises poor and
marginalised people as CARE’s
primary stakeholders
 through being more accountable
we learn about issues of
discrimination we might not
otherwise have known about
(e.g. through increased
participation and voice of
marginalised groups, through
safe feedback and complaints
mechanisms etc.)
 we need to understand the
barriers to people’s participation
and voice, or information
 information and transparency
can help reduce mistrust and
tensions
 accountability need to be
conducted in a conflict sensitive
way (so information or
participation does not cause
harm)
 safe feedback and complaints
mechanisms can help to identify
and address conflict
 project design and monitoring
need to capture possible
negative unintended impacts
and we need to be responsive to
them
59
 CARE recognises that power
relations between girls and boys,
men and women are unequal.
This requires accountability to
be scrutinised in terms of
gender.
 factoring in inadvertent impacts
is never so important than in
times of conflict.
PP 6: Seek sustainable results
Working to identify and address
underlying causes of poverty and
rights denial, we develop and use
approaches that ensure our work
results in lasting and fundamental
improvements in the lives of the poor
and marginalized with whom we
work.
 accountability helps our
interventions to be directed by
people themselves, their
genuine needs and aspirations
 Puts the spot light on our
accountability for long lasting
impact, and for acting on our
learning.
 using learning, feedback, and
performance assessment to
improve our work and achieve
greater impact
 Requires that we value process
(e.g. participation as a right in
and of itself) alongside
development outcomes
ANNEX 17 – How proposed benchmarks map to existing standards and
policies
see separate file
60
18. Proposed draft Accountability Framework
Using our power responsibly
Accountability is both a means for CARE to improve the relevance, quality and impact of our
work, and an end in itself, as our stakeholders – especially the communities and impact
populations with whom we work – have a right to hold CARE to account.
Accountability is an appropriate shift of the balance of power back towards poor, vulnerable
and disaster affected people.
61
Policy Statement
CARE International’s Vision, Mission and Humanitarian Mandate statements establish the
core mandate of CARE’s work to fight poverty and social injustice. We work in partnership
with others to address the underlying causes of people’s poverty and vulnerability in the
poorest communities around the world. And we respond to humanitarian emergencies as
an essential part of CARE’s work to fight poverty and injustice. To make all this possible we
mobilise resources and supporters, and seek to influence public opinion and decisionmakers.
This Accountability Framework is a statement of CARE’s commitment to accountability in all
the work that we do. It is fundamental to putting CARE’s mandate into practice.
We define accountability as the means by which we fulfil our responsibilities to our
stakeholders and the ways in which they may hold us to account for our decisions, actions
and impacts. It is about accepting responsibility for the intended and unintended
consequences of our work.
We strive to be accountable to all our stakeholders, but first and foremost we hold
ourselves accountable to the poor, vulnerable and disaster affected people and
communities with whom we work, especially women and girls.
CARE’s key stakeholders include:







People, especially women and girls, on whose lives CARE seeks to have an impact
Communities affected by our programmes
Our partners, allies and organisations we support
Our staff and one another
Our donors and supporters
The governments that host us
Those we seek to influence through our advocacy
We strive to be accountable both for our contribution to achieving lasting change in
people’s lives and for the way that we work, including how we:
• Uphold our values, principles and standards
• Fulfil our agreed goals and commitments
• Wisely use the funds entrusted to us
• Ensure the welfare and support of our staff
• Manage and reduce our environmental footprint
• Respect the statutory requirements in the countries where we work.
See the table of CARE’s key principles and commitments below.
62
For CARE, putting our accountability into practice is about building two way relationships
based on trust. This means involving our stakeholders in our decisions and activities, being
open and transparent about our work and achievements, systematically listening to
people’s opinions and concerns, learning with others from our collective experiences, and
putting right what may have gone wrong. It requires respectful and responsible attitudes,
appropriate systems and strong leadership.
Through this Accountability Framework, we commit to:
1. Apply the following EIGHT Accountability Benchmarks in our work.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Give stakeholders a voice in our decision making
Communicate in an open and honest way
Actively seek feedback and complaint from others
Demonstrate the impact, quality and effectiveness of our work
Learn with and from others
Demonstrate attitudes and behaviours that reflect our principles and values
Develop appropriate systems to support accountability
Encourage leadership at all levels.
In applying these benchmarks we strive to balance the different needs of our different
stakeholders. However our primary accountability to communities means that we give
priority to their needs, priorities and perspectives.
Each benchmark has key indicators which are drawn from good practice and the standards
and codes that CARE has committed to. Each part of CARE undertakes to develop the way
these benchmarks are applied as appropriate to the context. We adopt a ‘good enough’
approach, which means we recognise that simple, practical measures to accountability are
necessary in the first instance, which should be continuously improved over time.
2. Demonstrate our compliance with them by regularly reviewing how well we are meeting
the Benchmarks and identifying targets for improvements.
We do this through monitoring, review and evaluation. Our approach to reviewing
compliance is based on learning, supportive relationships, local voices and is context
specific.
All staff are responsible for implementing our work in accordance with this accountability
framework , and CARE managers have a specific responsibility to support them in doing so.
We do all this because CARE has a responsibility to be accountable and people have a right
to expect this of CARE. CARE’s work will keep getting better and better if we strive to open
ourselves up to influences that make us constantly strive to excellence.
63
CARE’s Core Commitments Our accountability framework is fundamental to achieving CARE’s vision and mission.
It supports CARE International’s Values and Programming
Principles which must be upheld in all of CARE’s programmes and in everything that we do, as well as the policies, standards and codes, and goals that CARE has also committed to:
Our vision We seek a world of hope,
Our values CARE International lives by the
tolerance and social justice, where poverty
has been overcome and people live in dignity
and security.
following values:
CARE International will be a global force and
a partner of choice within a worldwide
movement dedicated to ending poverty. We
will be known everywhere for our
unshakable commitment to the dignity of
people.
Our mission CARE International’s mission
is to serve individuals and families in the
poorest communities in the world. Drawing
strength from our global diversity, resources
and experience, we promote innovative
solutions and are advocates for global
responsibility. We facilitate lasting change
by:
• Strengthening capacity for self-help;
• Providing economic opportunity;
• Delivering relief in emergencies;
• Influencing policy decisions at all levels;
• Addressing discrimination in all its forms.
Guided by the aspirations of local
communities, we pursue our mission with
both excellence and compassion because the
people whom we serve deserve nothing less.
International legal framework
64
Our programming principles CARE
International upholds the following
principles in our programmes and in
everything that we do:
• Promote empowerment
• Work in partnership with others
• Ensure accountability and promote
responsibility
• Address discrimination
• Promote the non-violent resolution of
conflicts
• Seek sustainable results
Our commitment to ethical
fundraising
(link - CI Fundraising Code of Ethics and
Standards of Good Practice)
(link – Due Diligence)
Our commitment to ethical
purchasing
(CI ethical purchasing policy)
Our humanitarian mandate In line with Our commitment to gender equality
our vision and mission, our humanitarian
and women’s rights We will put gender
mandate is to meet immediate needs of
disaster-affected populations in the poorest
communities in the world in a way that also
addresses the underlying causes of people’s
vulnerability. (link – CI Humanitarian
Mandate)
As part of our mandate, CARE has committed
to the following internationally recognised
standards for humanitarian response. (links)
• Red Cross and NGO Code of Conduct in
Disaster Relief
• People in Aid Code of Good Practice in the
Management and Support of Aid Personnel
• Sphere Humanitarian Charter and
Minimum Standards for Disaster Relief
• Humanitarian Accountability Partnership
Standard
CARE is guided by CARE’s Emergency
Protocols in the pursuit of high quality rapid
response.
Our commitment to the safety of
staff and communities...
(link - CI Safety and Security Principles
(link - CI Policy for the Prevention of Sexual
Exploitation and Abuse)
(link - CI Child Protection Policy)
(link – Do No Harm Policy)
equality and women’s rights at the heart of
everything we do.
We will hold ourselves accountable to the
commitments and standards contained
within our global gender policy.
(link - CI Gender Policy)
Our commitment to the
environment and people affected by
climate change We will develop and
report on challenging targets to manage and
reduce our environmental footprint by 2014.
We will become a climate smart organisation
– developing policies and practices that deal
responsibly with the challenges of climate
change.
(link – CI Climate Change Strategy)
Our commitment to accountability
We adopt the following policies as part of
our accountability
• CI Information Disclosure & Complaints
Policy
• CI Evaluation and Learning Policy
• CARE Operating Standards (PQ, HR, Finance
• CARE Policy on Conflicts of Interest
• CARE Fraud Policy
ACCOUNTABILITY
ENABLERS
ACCOUNTABILITY PROCESSES
OUR EXISTING WORK AND
FUTURE PLANS
What we are
accountable for and to
whom.
1. Give stakeholders a voice in our
decision making
2. Communicate in an open and honest
way
6. Demonstrate
attitudes and
behaviours that
reflect our
principles and
values
3. Actively seek feedback and
complaint from others
7. Develop
appropriate
systems to support
accountability
4. Measure and demonstrate the
quality and effectiveness of our
work
8. Encourage
leadership at all
levels
5. Learn with and from others







People, especially women and girls, on whose
lives CARE seeks to have an impact
Communities affected by our programmes
Our partners, allies and organisations we
support
Our staff and one another
Our donors and supporters
The governments that host us
Those we seek to influence through our
advocacy
65
ACCOUNTABILITY BENCHMARKS
ANNEX 19. Plain language explanation of Accountability Framework
What is CARE’s Accountability Framework?
1. CARE has decided that it will be accountable for the following things:
 How it spends its money
 How much difference it makes in people’s lives
 How it treats the people that it works for
2. The people CARE is accountable to are:
 The communities where we work
 Our partners
 Our staff
 Our donors and supporters
 The governments that host us
 Those we seek to influence through our advocacy
Being accountable means taking responsibility for our behaviour and listening to others opinions about
ourselves.
3. Experience has shown us that the best was to be accountable are:
 Give people a voice in our decision making
 Openly inform people about what we have done and plan to do
 Have a channel for people to seek redress if things go wrong
 Responsibly work to the highest standard possible
 Actively invite feedback from others
4. To show that we take accountability seriously, all people in CARE must:
 Assess how accountable they are
 Set targets for improvements
 Periodically report on progress towards these standards
5. We do all of these things because:
 CARE has a responsibility to be accountable
 People have a right to expect this of CARE
 CARE’s work will keep getting better and better if we open ourselves up to influences that
make us constantly strive to excellence.
66
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ACD – Assistant Country Director
AFTF – Accountability Framework Task Force
AF – Accountability Framework
CI – CARE International
CD – Country Director
CMP – CARE Member Partner
CO – Country Office
DAP – Disaster Affected Population
DCM – Developing Country Member
DECAF – Disasters Emergency Committee Accountability Framework
DRD – Deputy Regional Director
ECB – Emergency Capacity Building
EPP – Emergency Preparedness Planning
GED – Gender Equity & Diversity
HAF – CARE Humanitarian Accountability Framework
HAP – Humanitarian Accountability Partnership
INEE - Inter Agency Network for Education in Emergency (INEE) Standards.
KPI – Key Performance Indicator
LEGS – Livestock Emergency Guidelines and Standards
LM – Lead Member
LRSP – Long Range Strategic Plan
OE – Organisational Evolution
PIA – People in Aid
POC – Programme & Operations Committee
PP – CARE Programming Principles
PSEA – Prevention of Sexual Exploitation & Abuse
Q&A – Quality & Accountability
RMU – Regional Management Unit
SEEP - Small Enterprise Education and Promotion Network
S&S – Safety & Security
67
68