Developing a CARE wide Accountability Framework
MAPPING REPORT
Clare Smith, independent consultant, 20 January 2010
Contents
Executive Summary / 3Background / 5
Part One: Understanding accountability
1.1 What is accountability? / 7
1.2 What are we accountable for? / 11
1.3 Who are we accountable to? / 14
1.4 How do we do it? / 17
1.5 Why is accountability important? / 21
1.6 Where are the gaps? / 22
Part two: Towards a CARE-wide Accountability Framework
2.1 On experiences of using the HAF / 28
2.2 On the purpose of the AF / 30
2.3 On the scope of the AF / 31
2.4 On measuring compliance with the AF / 36
2.5 On implementation of the AF / 38
Part three: Proposed Accountability Framework for CARE
3.1 Conclusions from mapping / 42
3.2 Proposal outline / 42
3.3 Draft AF / 43
3.4 Next Steps / 45
Annexes
1. Terms of reference
2. List of key documents reviewed
3. List of people interviewed
4. Breakdown of survey respondents
5. Inception report
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
18. Proposed draft Accountability Framework
19. Plain language explanation of Accountability Framework
List of Abbreviations
1 final version 20 Jan 2010
Executive Summary
This mapping study was commissioned by the CI Program and Operations Committee (POC) as a critical first step in developing a CARE-wide Accountability Framework (AF), responding to both internal and external calls for CARE to have such a framework. It builds on the experience and model of the CI Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) which is currently being piloted[1].
The report is based on extensive interviews and 148 survey responses from within CARE, interviews with peer agencies, and a review of key documents. The range of views expressed across different members, functions and levels of seniority within CARE was broad. Nevertheless, a consensus emerged on most issues. These relate to both where CARE currently is in relation to accountability, and where people would like the organisation to be.
Primarily, there was overwhelming consensus that the central focus of accountability should be on what we deliver – i.e. achieving CARE’s vision of sustained impact on poverty and social injustice. Secondarily, but also important, CARE needs to be accountable for the way it works, including performing to the highest standards, complying with regulations and ensuring the welfare of staff.
The key findings are that
· Accountability is important to most staff and there is a readiness to incorporate this more fully in CARE’s work;
· There are many examples of existing good practice on which CARE can build;
· The most significant gap is that CARE is not sufficiently accountable externally to communities and partners with whom it works;
· The challenge is how to reconcile the demands of existing accountability commitments (principally to donors) with the aspiration to be more accountable to communities. This is not an either/or choice, but rather a question of how we do both;
· There is also a desire for more accountability internally between and within different CARE members. For many people, this is a critical step towards improving external accountability.
An accountability framework can help CARE to respond to these findings by offering ways to:
· Unite around a common language and approach;
· Make an unequivocal declaration of its commitment;
· Communicate this commitment more consistently with others;
· Facilitate implementation of its accountability.
CARE staff want an Accountability Framework that is relatively simple and builds on existing commitments, rather than create more work for already overloaded managers. It should apply to all of CARE, acknowledging that some parts can move faster than others and that CARE staff work across very different political, institutional and regulatory environments. They also want there to be a compliance mechanism – there is no appetite for another repackaging of business as usual or “just nice words on a poster”. Once again this compliance should be light touch, not duplicative, and appropriate to context.
The proposed Accountability Framework highlights key stakeholder groups that are priorities for CARE’s accountability:
· 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
CARE’s primary accountability is to its impact groups, with special emphasis given to women and girls.
The Accountability Framework also identifies eight key processes that are needed to ensure that accountability is put into effect:
Accountability processes
· 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
Accountability enablers
· Demonstrate attitudes and behaviours that reflect our principles and values
· Develop appropriate systems to support accountability
· Encourage leadership in accountability at all levels
There is clear synergy with other initiatives under way in different parts of CARE, most notably the Programme Shift.
The recommendations for next steps are to:
1. Produce a revised version of this present draft AF for the purposes of wider consultation.
2. Include Board members across CARE during early consultations.
3. Pilot the AF in a selected number of different CARE organisational units,
4. Develop draft guidance on how to put the AF into practice, and adapt it to local contexts.
5. Communicate the AF development process across the whole of CARE
6. Consider setting up an external reference group to support CARE
7. Agree a high-level statement, alongside CARE’s Vision & Mission, of what CARE will hold itself accountable for
8. Plan for the adoption of the AF as a change management process across the organisation, which entails
a. Harnessing the energy of existing initiatives
b. Engaging leadership
c. Building organisation wide commitment
d. Realigning organisational systems
e. Allowing each part of CARE to adapt the framework to their context
f. Providing a support structure for staff
g. Supporting engagement in inter-agency collaboration
This report is in three sections: Part One explores the definition of accountability and its various components, concluding with a summary of key gaps in CARE. Part Two looks in more detail at the expectations of staff in relation to the proposed Framework. Finally, in Part Three the proposed structure for the Accountability Framework is presented, with suggested next steps for its further development.
Background
The CI Program and Operations Committee (POC) met in June 2010 in Geneva and agreed to lead the development of a CARE-wide Accountability Framework (AF).
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 such an accountability initiative.The development of the framework would build on the experience and model of the CI Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) which is currently being piloted[2]. It would pull together existing internal and external principles, standards and codes that we use in our operations into a single umbrella Accountability Framework for the whole organisation.
Specifically, the POC proposed that this work be advanced based on a mapping study to be conducted as the critical first step in the Accountability Framework development process. The mapping exercise would analyse current accountability thinking and approaches within CARE and propose a draft framework, and gaps to be addressed. This in turn will lead to further consultation and piloting to ensure that the framework reflects the needs, experience and diversity of CARE.
This work is part of the mandate of the CARE International Program and Operations Committee which reports to the CARE International Executive Committee. This particular piece of work is being managed by a Task Force which includes representatives of CARE Lead Members, CARE Member Partners and Country Offices. This work is also linked to the work of the CARE International Governance and Nominations Committee which is supporting the development of a CI-wide information disclosure and complaints policy.
Objectives
The objectives of the mapping exercise as stated in the Terms of Reference (see Annex 1) were as follows:
1. Compile and analyse information on current approaches to accountability within CARE and by peer organisations
2. Provide recommendations to inform the development of the AF
3. Produce a draft AF.
Methodology
The mapping exercise was conducted by Clare Smith (independent consultant, formerly Accountability Advisor for CARE UK) working with Lora Wuenneberg, CARE USA Director of Donor Compliance, to help ensure an organisation-wide perspective was brought to the mapping exercise.
The methodology involved the following key stages:
1. Desk research: a review of key documents related to quality and accountability initiatives within and external to CARE, including documents associated with:
- development and piloting of the CARE HAF
- development and piloting of other quality and accountability initiatives within CI
- development and piloting of accountability frameworks by similar INGO organisations (namely ActionAid, Christian Aid, Oxfam, World Vision)
- key interagency quality and accountability initiatives
A list of all key documents studied is provided in Annex 2.
2. Key informant interviews: Twenty four key informants were interviewed (by telephone or in person, excluding CO visit) as follows:
Interviews by CategoryLead Member – International Operations / 2
Lead Member – International Programs / 3
Lead Member – Humanitarian Unit / 1
Country Directors / 4
CO – Q&A / 2
DRDs – Program Quality / 1
DRDs – Program Support / 1
CI – PECCN / 1
CI – Humanitarian / 1
Total Staff
INGOs (ActionAid, Christian Aid, Oxfam, VSO) / 5
National NGOs / 1
Accountability focused NGOs (Keystone) / 1
Independent consultants / 1
Total / 24
In addition, group consultations took place with Accountability Advisors of 6 ECB agencies, and DRDs. A full list of all interviewees is provided in Annex 3.
3. Country visit[3]: a country visit took place to CARE Tanzania to learn about the successes and challenges of CARE Tanzania’s approach to accountability and its implications for the development of a CARE wide Accountability Framework. The visit consisted of meetings with managers (program, HR and finance), field staff, implementing partners, project participants and a national research NGO working on poverty alleviation and accountability issues.
Web based survey: An email survey was widely circulated and completed by 148 staff[4]. Approximately two thirds of respondents were based in COs or Developing Country Members where programmes are implemented and one third from CARE Member HQs (including RMUs) and the CI Secretariat. Of the respondents from Member HQs, two thirds were Lead Member staff. Over half of respondents came from leadership or senior management positions, balanced by a sizable number from the rank and file (a quarter). The spread across functions was uneven, generally skewed in favour of the programme perspective. This is where the greatest bias in the survey lies.
Whilst the majority of survey questions were closed questions, the survey provided several qualitative spaces for respondents to express their views more openly which were amply used.
Several respondents expressed appreciation for the survey, either for the personal reflection it engendered or for the signal they felt the organisation was giving on the importance of some of the issues contained. Others did not complete the survey, or found certain questions confusing. A breakdown of respondents is included in Annex 4.
4. Analysis: The overall project approach and analytical framework was based on a set of principles agreed upon by the AFTF to help guide the process of developing a CARE wide AF. See inception report, Annex 5.
Part One – Understanding Accountability
This section maps some of the current thinking and approaches to accountability within CARE – summarising the key ideas and issues raised by staff in interviews or through the survey. It brings together perspectives of accountability from the viewpoint of different people’s roles and functions. Where available, approaches and lessons of peers are also shared.
1.1 What is accountability?
There is no single, widely accepted definition of accountability.
Descriptions of accountability range over a spectrum from the more conceptual (“accountability is about power”) to the more practical (“accountability is about information sharing or financial transparency or compliance mechanisms”). Others take a principled approach (“accountability is about handing power back to communities”) or focus more on outcomes (“accountability is about meeting the needs of our stakeholders”). This range of definitions is reflected in CARE’s responses:
v For many in CARE, accountability is about CARE’s values and demonstrating these.
v Accountability is considered to be a critical in achieving impact, a view shared not just by programme staff. In this sense, it is understood to be a core component of CARE’s approach to achieving its vision of impact on poverty and social injustice.
v At the same time, many staff describe accountability in terms of their day-to-day obligations: complying with policies and procedures, meeting donor regulations, or accounting to their line management.
v Also common is a view that accountability is the sets of behaviours and practices that shape CARE’s relationships with stakeholders, such as information sharing, openness, participation, feedback, respect and trust.
Within this wide range of views, the following key concepts emerged as important to staff in terms of how CARE defines and approaches accountability. These are consistent with definitions and approaches being adopted by CARE’s peers[5]. See Annex 6 for CARE and peer agency definitions.