CARE SEA Review Report

A Report based on a review of CARE’s Efforts on Prevention and Response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse

July 2008

The Review Team:

Joan Connors, Independent Consultant

Madhuri Narayanan, CARE USA

Gerson Nombora, CARE Mozambique

Marc Flegenheimer, CARE International Secretariat

Please email comments to:

Madhuri Narayanan, Senior Advisor, Gender Equity and Diversity, CARE USA:

Preface

This review was lead by an independent external consultant, Joan Connors and coordinated by CARE USA’s senior GED Advisor, Madhuri Narayanan. The co-coordinator of SEA Advisory Group, Amelia Siamomua and all other members contributed to the preparation of the terms of reference for the review, discussion of key findings and drafting of recommendations.

The core review team consisted of Joan Connors and Madhuri Narayanan with additional support from Marc Flegenheimer, Human Resources Coordinator, CARE International Secretariat for the visit to CARE Burundi and Gerson Nombora, Programme Coordinator from CARE Mozambique for the visit to CARE Jordan. The review team would like to thank the Country Directors of CARE Burundi (Kassie Mcilvaine), CARE Jordan (Harriet Dodd) and CARE India (Elizabeth Sime)and staff for their cooperation, contribution and patience during preparation, implementation and report writing phases of the review. Further, CARE would like to thank its staff, institutional partners and program participants who shared their time and valuable insights with the team.

The initial drafts of the review report were prepared by Joan Connors and then taken over and completed by Madhuri Narayanan due to unforeseen delays.

Finally, this review would not have been possible without unrestricted funding support and strong organizational commitment for learning demonstrated by CARE USA’s leaders and senior managers.

Table of Contents

Executive summary______

1Introduction______

2Background and context

2.1West Africa and the international response

2.1.1The ‘West Africa scandal’______

2.1.2The international response______

2.2CARE’s response to West Africa – the ‘Phased Approach’

2.3Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response (SCHR) Peer Review

2.4Action since 2006 – this SEA Review

2.4.1Key questions and process for this Review

3Findings

3.1Comprehensive standards on PSEA______

3.1.1Standards - their importance, their content

3.1.2What CARE is doing well – standards at headquarters and country-offices______

3.1.3What CARE must improve – complete standards______

3.1.3.1Unclear stance on sexual relationships with adult project participants______

3.1.4What CARE must improve – consistent standards______

3.1.4.1Confederate structure leads to inconsistent standards______

3.1.4.2Relationships with external agencies at risk______

3.1.5Major international NGOs differ in their approaches to comprehensive SEA standards______

3.2Awareness______

3.2.1What CARE is doing well______

3.2.1.1Awareness-raising among project participants – promising signs______

3.2.1.2Awareness-raising with staff

3.2.1.3Some management success stories______

3.2.2What CARE must improve______

3.2.2.1Confusion about the meaning of ‘SEA’______

3.2.2.2Poor awareness about complaint mechanisms______

3.2.2.3Poor awareness amongst most managers______

3.2.2.4Contextualization misunderstood______

3.3Reporting______

3.3.1What CARE is doing well______

3.3.1.1Staff obliged to report______

3.3.1.2Complaints mechanisms established______

3.3.2What CARE must improve – complaints mechanisms ineffective______

3.3.2.1Barriers to complaining for staff

3.3.2.2Barriers to complaining for beneficiaries______

3.4Investigations______

3.4.1What CARE is doing well – capacity to conduct safe and fair investigations

3.4.1.1Clear guidelines for investigators

3.4.1.2Strong investigative capacity

3.4.2What CARE must improve______

3.5Follow up______

3.6Managerial oversight

3.6.1What CARE is doing well______

3.6.1.1Dedicated staff resources______

3.6.1.2Funding for special projects______

3.6.1.3Establishment of the SEA Advisory Group______

3.6.1.4SEA Review______

3.6.2What CARE must improve______

3.6.2.1Significant gaps in leadership and incentives______

3.6.2.2Poor awareness among middle managers______

3.6.2.3Multinational and decentralized structure

4Recommendations______

List of Figures

Table 1: IASC Principles______

Table 2: CARE-USA’s Three-Phase Plan______

Table 3: Selected findings of the SCHR Peer Review of CARE-International______

Table 4: Benchmarks for good practice on PSEA______

Table 5: Case study on consequences of inconsistent internal standards on PSEA______

Table 6: Staff misunderstandings of SEA, SH, SGBV______

Table 7: Feedback from project participants on complaints mechanisms______

List of Annexures

Annex 1Burundi Country Office Report

Annex 2India Country Office Report

Annex 3Jordan Country Office Report

Annex 4BSO SEA Tally Sheet Information Summary

Annex 5IASC Core Principles in CARE and Peer Organization Policies and Codes of Conduct

List of Abbreviations

CARE / CARE Confederation
CI / CARE-International
IASC / Inter-Agency Standing Committee
IASC Principles / Inter-Agency Standing Committee Six Core Principles Relating to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
IASC Task Force / Inter-Agency Standing Committee Task Force on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crisis
NGO / Non-Governmental Organization
OECD / Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
PSEA / Prevention and response to Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
SCHR / Steering Committee for Humanitarian Response
SEA / Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
SGBV / Sexual and Gender-based Violence
SH / Sexual Harassment
UN / United Nations Organization
UNHCR / United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
WFP / World Food Program

Executive Summary

CARE has always placed high importance to core values of dignity, security, non-discrimination and equality and endeavours to continuously improve its staff policies to ensure that there is zero tolerance for any discriminatory, harassing or exploitative conduct in its workplace. Prevention and response to sexual exploitation and abuse continued to remain high on the organizational agenda within CARE over the last five years and a peer review in 2006 showed that CARE was roughly in keeping with other large international NGOs in the prevention and response to SEA, and there was a sense within the Confederation that CARE was moving steadily towards an SEA-free environment.

This Review was commissioned by CARE-USA in October 2007 to test that assumption. It reviews CARE’s PSEA work to date, identifies gaps and recommends further action. Multi-level and strategic, it considers key initiatives and policies as well as the views of CARE project participants, CARE staff, and CARE management. On the whole, it reveals a number of achievements. However, it clearly indicates that the Confederation lacks the coherent vision and commitment needed to protect project participants from SEA by staff and partners. SEA remains a real risk to the dignity and safety of CARE’s beneficiaries, as well as a strategic risk to CARE’s operations and its reputation as a trusted partner for people in need.

Summary of findings

Standards and Policy

The standards introduced by CARE-International, operational members and country offices, do affirm the rights of project participants to be free from SEA. They also obligate staff members to report SEA. That said, they fall short of the international standards for PSEA, in particular the IASC Principles.

A related finding is that CARE lacks standards on SEA which are internally consistent and which match those of its external partners. Such inconsistencies are understandable given CARE’s confederate structure. That said, they may hinder CARE’s performance in humanitarian emergencies where teams are diverse and premiums on inter-organizational cooperation are high.

CARE’s failure to adopt IASC Principles jeopardizes the full range of its relationships with donors, NGO partners and beneficiary communities.

CARE is a key UN implementing partner in many parts of the globe. As such, CARE is obligated to uphold the standards in the Secretary General’s Bulletin on measures to prevent and respond to SEA. Failure to do so can result in termination of the contract.

The lack of consistency in CARE’s PSEA standards likewise makes it harder for CARE staff to work on teams with staff from other large organizations which have adopted IASC Principles, this at a time when CARE seeks to play a leadership role among major international NGOs and to partner widely in carrying out its programs.

The same inconsistency makes it harder for CARE to tell project participants and community members about their rights and help them raise concerns. Community members, especially in humanitarian emergencies, do not necessarily know that a given humanitarian worker is employed by CARE, let alone that CARE is a confederation and that staff are employed under different contracts.

Awareness

The strongest protective standards are meaningless if stakeholders do not understand their rights and duties. Understanding in turn requires effective awareness-raising, that is, comprehensive and appropriate projects to inform potential victims, complainants and subjects of complaint about the content of SEA standards, the process for raising concerns and the consequences of non-compliant behaviour.

CARE has achieved some promising success in informing project participants and their communities of their rights with regard to sexual violence generally, if not PSEA specifically. Despite the challenges, the Review found that each of the three country offices had undertaken successful projects to empower community members to prevent exploitation and abuse. In each location, project participants gained insight into power dynamics in their intimate relationships, their families and their communities that lead to victimization.

CARE’s ongoing efforts at awareness-raising among staff include activities suggested in international standards. Some – though by no means all – CARE middle managers demonstrate sophisticated understanding of SEA issues and how PSEA can be integrated into programming. CARE line managers are also succeeding in incorporating cultural considerations when applying the policy.

CARE personnel at all levels confuse sexual exploitation and abuse with sexual harassment and sexual and gender-based violence.They perceive SEA to be on a continuum with sexual harassment, sexual exploitation and, ultimately, sexual abuse. This in turn undermines the key message regarding what they are allowed and not allowed to do. Similar confusion was also apparent in CARE’s awareness-raising efforts with project participants. In the reviewers’ conversations with more than 50 program participants, weaknesses in project participants’ awareness of core messages – what they are entitled to, how they could complain, and what would happen if they complained – were readily apparent. With some exceptions, SEA awareness among middle managers was notably low.

While recognising the inherent value in the process of contextualization, the review points out the dangers of authorising contextualization in the absence of clear ‘organizational bottom lines’ and supervision from headquarters. In some cases, ‘contextualization’ became an excuse for individuals to unilaterally weaken the standards of protection available to vulnerable women and children.

Reporting

In keeping with IASC Principles, all headquarters-level mechanisms impose on CARE personnel a duty to report SEA. They likewise provide for confidentiality and for protection from retaliation. None, however, impose penalties for not reporting. Confidentiality is assured to the extent possible.

Country office procedures likewise impose on staff a duty to report and provide for confidentiality. Many also prohibit retaliation.

Whilst it is commendable that CARE has introduced complaints mechanisms for staff and beneficiaries, it needs to seriously consider how these mechanisms can be improved. A key finding of the Review was the absence of any SEA reports to CARE from any complainant group – CARE personnel, project participants and communities. The absence of reports should not be construed to mean the absence of SEA. Because CARE’s complaints mechanisms are designed with the needs of staff in mind, they are generally unsuitable for use by project participants and communities to report SEA.

Investigations

Although CARE has not conducted investigations into allegations of SEA (having received no reports via its complaints mechanisms), it has taken steps to ensure its capacity to meet this benchmark when investigations are carried out. CARE-USA’s legal department maintains a set of best-practice guidelines for the investigation of allegations of fraud and misconduct. CARE’s investigators have also been trained in accordance with BSO-specific guidelines on SEA investigations. Together these complementary frameworks ensure CARE an adequate framework for investigating SEA allegations. CARE is a leader among international NGOs in training its personnel in the skills needed to investigate allegations of SEA, with nearly 25 staff trained by BSO on SEA investigations.

Managerial Oversight

CARE-USA has taken a lead on PSEA work, demonstrating a significant commitment to addressing SEA through the dedicated of financial and human resources and the establishment of a specialised PSEA forum.

The Review findings, especially those on standards and contextualization, point to CARE’s internationalized and decentralized structure as contributing factors in the challenges to incorporating PSEA principles across the Confederation. On the one hand, CARE is a confederation, so no one member has power over the others. On the other, it is a ‘multinational’, with country offices that exercise a fair degree of autonomy. Neither of those things is bad in and of themselves. But they do present challenges in terms of addressing SEA, protecting CARE’s reputation and upholding the values on which its good reputation is based.

Summary of recommendations

Based on the foregoing, and in the interests of furthering CARE’s commitment to prevent and respond to SEA by its personnel, these recommendations are made.

Inform the CI and lead member Boards of Directors of this Review’s findings and the risks SEA poses to the Organization.

Seek a mandate from the CI and lead member Boards of Directors to establish SEA standards consistent with IASC Principles across the Confederation.

Establish clear expectations and accountabilities for the prevention and response to SEA.

Integrate PSEA into program design, monitoring, evaluation and ongoing learning.

1Introduction

Human dignity. Security. Aid for those in need, without discrimination of any kind. These are the values that inspired the founders of CARE to rush ‘CARE packages’ to European survivors of World War II. This original act of humanitarianism gave CARE its sterling reputation for aiding those in need, a reputation which CARE burnished over 60 years by feeding and caring for survivors of war and natural disasters and combating the devastating affects of poverty around the world.

As an institution, CARE understood early on how power affects relief operations. It was therefore gravely concerned by reports from Nepal and West and Central Africa in 2002 that implicated humanitarian workers in the sexual abuse of refugee women and girls. These claims provided a shocking counterpoint to the espoused values of organizations such as CARE, and implicit support for critiques of international NGOs as unaccountable to external stakeholders. At the same time, the so-called ‘West Africa scandal’ introduced a new phrase and challenge into the humanitarian lexicon: ‘prevention and response to sexual exploitation and abuse’ or ‘PSEA.’

CARE took an early lead on PSEA amongst the large international NGOs. Already in 2002, CARE-USA spearheaded the development of an action plan on SEA within the Confederation; it dedicated resources to PSEA and oversaw subsequent work. By 2006, a peer review showed that CARE was roughly in keeping with other large international NGOs in the prevention and response to SEA, and there was a sense within the Confederation that CARE was moving steadily towards an SEA-free environment.

2Background and context

2.1West Africa and the international response

Though the problem of SEA is probably as old as organized humanitarianism itself, most work on preventing SEA began in 2002 in response to the so-called ‘West Africa scandal.’

2.1.1The ‘West Africa scandal’

The ‘West Africa scandal’ is shorthand for the allegations that emerged from the ManuRiver states at the end of the 1990s. In February 2002, a joint assessment report of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and Save the Children-UK reported that girls as young as 13 in Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone were coerced into exchanging sex for food, commodities or essential services by peacekeepers, UN and other humanitarian workers. The claims were publicised in the media and sparked international outrage and calls for reform.

2.1.2The international response

Following a UN investigation, the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) tasked its SEA Task Force[1] to identify gaps and develop remedial measures relating to SEA. The IASC Task Force found that the West African case highlighted broader weaknesses in humanitarian organizations, in particular, the absence of codes of conduct for staff and mechanisms for receiving and responding to actual reports of SEA. In 2002, it made recommendations to address SEA in the humanitarian context, which became known as the IASC Principles.

Table 1: The IASC Principles
1. Sexual exploitation and abuse by humanitarian workers constitute acts of gross misconduct and are therefore grounds for termination of employment.
2. Sexual activity with children (persons under the age of 18) is prohibited regardless of the age of majority or age of consent locally. Mistaken belief regarding the age of a child is not a defence.
3. Exchange of money, employment, goods, or services for sex, including sexual favours or other forms of humiliating, degrading or exploitative behaviour is prohibited. This includes exchange of assistance that is due to beneficiaries.
4. Sexual relationships between humanitarian workers and beneficiaries are strongly discouraged since they are based on inherently unequal power dynamics. Such relationships undermine the credibility and integrity of humanitarian aid work.
5. Where a humanitarian worker develops concerns or suspicions regarding sexual abuse or exploitation by a fellow worker, whether in the same agency or not, he or she must report such concerns via established agency reporting mechanisms.
6. Humanitarian workers are obliged to create and maintain an environment which prevents sexual exploitation and abuse and promotes the implementation of their code of conduct. Managers at all levels have particular responsibilities to support and develop systems which maintain this environment.
What is a ‘humanitarian worker’?
All workers engaged by humanitarian agencies, whether internationally or national recruited, or formally or informally retained from the beneficiary community, to conduct the activities of that agency.
Inter-Agency Standing Committee Report of the Task Force on Protection from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse in Humanitarian Crises (2002), (C)(8).

Table 1: IASC Principles and definition of ‘humanitarian worker’