Rapid Accountability Review
IDPs Emergency Response
CARE International in Pakistan
Naveed-ul-haq*
June 2010
*Naveed-ul-haq has been involved in humanitarian principles and quality management standards since 2006. He has conducted various trainings and monitoring & evaluation assignments at community, national and regional levels. He has developed various tools and methods to help organizations in filling gaps between theory and practice in the humanitarian sector. He has been providing strategic guidance to HAP Secretariat in Geneva and HAP members in Pakistan since 2007 to promote HAP Standard and its compliance.
This Rapid Accountability Review captures the compatibility between CARE International Humanitarian Accountability Framework and current level of practice of CARE in Pakistan and identifies areas of improvement to ensure organizational compliance to its HAF.Table of Contents
Introduction 3
Executive Summary 4
Methodology 4
Findings and Recommendations 4
Benchmark 1: Leadership on accountability 4
Benchmark 2: Impartial assessment of needs, vulnerabilities and capacities 5
Benchmark 3: Design and internal monitoring processes 5
Benchmark 4: Participation of disaster-affected communities 5
Benchmark 5: Systems for stakeholder feedback and complaints 6
Benchmark 6: Information-sharing and Transparency 6
Benchmark 7: Independent reviews, external evaluations and learning 6
Benchmark 8: Staff capacity and human resources management during emergencies 7
HAF Performance Targets 7
Outcome 1: CI's response to humanitarian disaster will be more timely 7
Outcome 2: The quality & accountability of CI's response to disaster will increase 7
Outcome 3: CI will become known for its competence in the three core sectors 8
Outcome 4: Emergency Expenditure and Funding 8
Outcome 5: Emergency Capacity Cost Recovery 8
Observations 8
Conclusion 9
Annex 1
Annex 2
Annex 3
Introduction
CARE International’s humanitarian 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.
The pilot version of CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) was launched in February 2010 and represents a statement of CARE’s accountability commitments during all stages of emergency preparedness and response. CARE defines accountability as the means by which it fulfils its responsibilities to stakeholders and the ways in which it is accountable for the decisions, actions and impacts. The HAF draws together the existing internal and interagency standards and codes for humanitarian quality and accountability that CARE has committed to, including:
· CARE International’s Program Framework
· CARE International’s Humanitarian Mandate
· The Code of Conduct for International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief (RCRC Code of Conduct)
· The Sphere Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards for Disaster Relief
· The Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP) Standard
· The Good Enough Guide: Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies
· The People in Aid Code of Conduct.
The HAF recognises that it is important to adopt a “good enough approach”, which means that simple, practical measures to accountability may be necessary during the initial phases of an emergency, which should be improved over time. The HAF consists of three components:
1. Eight Humanitarian benchmarks with corresponding indicators that describe the steps CARE needs to take to meet agreed internal and interagency standards for quality and accountability.
2. Five response targets with corresponding indicators that measure CARE’s performance during an emergency response:
3. A compliance system to regularly assess how well CARE is meeting the benchmarks and response targets. The rapid accountability review and AAR are critical components of this compliance system.
In preparation for CARE Pakistan’s After Action Review (AAR), a Rapid Accountability Review (RAR) was conducted in May 2010 by an external independent consultant to assess CARE Pakistan’s performance against Benchmarks and Performance Targets given in CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF).
The following were the three objectives of this review assignment.
1. Provide an “external” perspective on CARE Pakistan’s performance in IDP’s (Internally Displaced Persons) emergency response to be fed into the AAR.
2. Develop a draft assessment using a standard format which will feed into an annual performance metrics report that is presented to CARE International’s Board.
3. Contribute to organization learning for CARE Pakistan, partners and with CARE International.
Executive Summary
The Rapid Accountability Review has been welcomed by the CIP team. The review shows that CIP is currently 60% compliant (Annex-2) to the benchmarks set in the Humanitarian Accountability Framework developed by CARE International in February 2010 year. This review may be considered as a start of a regular appreciation process for individuals that perform well on the Q & A and hence should become a motivation enhancer. This process should also be considered as an opportunity to start understanding the existing internal and external relationships. That would further lead CARE International in Pakistan (CIP) in developing equitable and dignified relationship between and among various stakeholders.
Methodology
As guided by the scope of this assignment the HAF document provided the primary framework for the Rapid Accountability Assessment, using appropriate questions to interpret the indicators mentioned in the HAF Benchmarks to assess program quality and accountability to stakeholders and HAF Performance Targets to measure CARE’s performance.
A mixed methods approach was used, including key informant interviews, focus group discussions, document review and observation.
The following were the steps involved in conducting this review:
· Review of CARE HAF and other relevant documents
· Initial meeting with the relevant staff of CIP
· Field visit to Buner to meet the NGO partner, beneficiaries, government agencies and other NGOs
· Interviews with CIP staff that included telephonic interviews with ex-CIP staff, a list of staff interviewed and other meetings for the rapid accountability review is attached as Annex 1.
Findings and Recommendations
Below is a summary of the findings against each HAF Benchmark and Performance Target. Scoring, findings and comments against each key indicator are captured in Annex 2 on the prescribed format. Guidelines for conducting similar Rapid Accountability Review in future are attached as Annex 3.
Benchmark 1: Leadership on accountability
Findings
CARE Pakistan leadership demonstrates its willingness and commitment for improved accountability to beneficiaries. This commitment is reflected in conceptual clarity, their level of awareness and knowledge about relevant standards and principles.
Recommendation
The CARE Pakistan website and other regular communication should reflect its commitment to various standards, codes of conduct and principles. The commitment can further be highlighted by more frequent reference to HAF document in future program designing, reporting and monitoring activities.
Benchmark 2: Impartial assessment of needs, vulnerabilities and capacities
Findings
The assessment of needs and vulnerabilities is given considerable importance at planning phase by adhering to CARE Emergency Toolkit. The assessment process is substantiated by drawing secondary information from government and non-government sources as well. The capacity assessment of the Country Office (CO) is done regularly to match the beneficiary needs and respond to the vulnerabilities.
Recommendation
The assessment process can further be improved by conducting consultative meetings with other agencies with result oriented, structured and specialized approach.
Benchmark 3: Design and internal monitoring processes
Findings
CARE Pakistan gives significant importance to learning management by adhering to AAR and UBORA processes. There is limited participation of disaster affected people in design and monitoring of CARE’s projects for IDPs response. Monitoring results are shared with partners but not with other stakeholders and the required changes are suggested in reports. The system needs improvements with respect to introducing prompt changes at the field level.
Recommendation
The internal monitoring system should be clearly communicated to partners to build trust and ensure compliance with principles and project objectives.
Benchmark 4: Participation of disaster-affected communities
Findings
CIP implemented the IDP response through partner organizations and relied on their participatory tools and processes. The beneficiaries are involved during assessment and implementation of the projects but there are some gaps with respect to sharing the need assessment results with the beneficiaries. Moreover there is limited evidence to demonstrate that partners had ensured beneficiary and government participation during monitoring evaluation aspects of IDP response.
Recommendations
· Tools to explain and conduct detailed stakeholder analysis should be developed and implemented to establish system for community participation.
· The need for participatory approach (designing and monitoring) should be clearly communicated to the partners along with possible repercussion for not adhering to the approach.
· It would be really helpful to develop a participation strategy covering definition, levels, tools and approaches of participation for CIP in different situations or contexts.
Benchmark 5: Systems for stakeholder feedback and complaints
Findings
A comprehensive complaints handling mechanism for all stakeholders could not be identified, a rudimentary complaints mechanism for beneficiaries exists at Partner level. There is no direct link between CIP and beneficiaries in the complaints handling procedure. Local government, partners and beneficiaries are involved during assessment, implementation and monitoring but no mechanism has been identified for local government and other stakeholder to become part of formal or informal way of evaluation of the IDP response.
Recommendation
A comprehensive system for complaints handling and feedback from all stakeholders need to be established and referred in contractual responsibilities.
Benchmark 6: Information-sharing and Transparency
Findings
CIP does not have a well articulated communication strategy explaining about key information, staff roles, standards, beneficiary selection criteria and complaints handling mechanism. Some of the project related information is provided to various stakeholders as per project schedule. The communication by CARE with stakeholders highlight its emergency response but without strategic vision.
Recommendations
· CIP may develop a communication strategy explaining messages, media, senders, receivers, timeframe and allocate adequate resources (human and financial) to implement the strategy.
· It would be useful for CIP to develop an inter-sector coordination and communication as well to have a holistic picture in its response and monitoring activities.
Benchmark 7: Independent reviews, external evaluations and learning
Findings
Independent reviews and external evaluation serve an important purpose to enhance organizational learning. CIP has not conducted any such evaluation at the end of any project during the IDPs response. The close out meetings with partner does not include beneficiary participation. This Rapid Accountability Review may be considered as part of external evaluation process where beneficiaries have also been involved. However the findings of earlier After Action Reviews were taken into consideration for this IDP response.
Recommendation
CIP needs to establish a Learning Management Framework for consistent learning and improvement. The Framework would guide the learning process at regular intervals.
Benchmark 8: Staff capacity and HR management during emergencies
Findings
The CIP staff is clear about recruitment, performance appraisal and CARE Program Principles and values. The team is aware about Sphere and HAP Standards but not the Do No Harm approach.
CIP considers take into account appropriate competencies and behaviors required for specific job but there is no specific reference to accountability to beneficiaries. The requirement of relevance to HAF with individual JDs could not be identified. It is important to note that CIP conducts staff performance appraisals on quarterly basis.
Recommendations
· CIP needs to develop a list of core competencies and attitudes required from all aid workers to ensure quality and accountability of the services and practices.
· CIP should include partner capacity development component in all project proposals keeping in mind that level of partners’ staff competencies with respect to principles of impartiality and neutrality need to be improved and partner organizations also hire new (short-term) staff for emergency response.
· A detailed workshop is required for the CIP team on CARE International HAF document.
HAF Performance Targets
Outcome 1: CI's response to humanitarian disaster will be more timely
Finding
CIP Decision making is smooth and well coordinated. Moreover the internal communication at organizational and CI level is strong and well established.
Outcome 2: The quality & accountability of CI's response to disaster will increase
Finding
CIP is in process of identifying local NGO partners in Pakistan, particularly in 50 disaster-prone districts in four provinces. Moreover it is currently going through Rapid Accountability Review (RAR) and AAR that would further provide recommendations for improved quality and accountability.
Recommendation
CIP requires improved monitoring and evaluation mechanisms to ensure compliance to internationally accepted standards and principle while working through local NGO partners.
Outcome 3: CI will become known for its competence in the three core sectors
Finding
CO Pakistan has responded and managed frequent large-scale emergencies (earthquake 2005 & 2007, floods, IDPs response) in core sectors of Health, Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH), and NFI distribution. Further competence can be achieved by building the capacity of local NGO partners on accountability and quality aspects.
Recommendation
CIP should develop and roll out local NGO partner capacity building program on CARE’s HAF, HAP and Sphere Standards and Do no harm principles.
Outcome 4: Emergency Expenditure and Funding
Finding
CIP has developed competence in proposal development to raise funds and established linkages with donors at national and international level. It is further in a process to advocate with donors to understand the trade-offs between working directly and working through Implementing Partners (IPs).
Recommendation
It would be useful for CIP to consider conducting a formal study to narrate its successes over the last 5 years in Pakistan to improve its image and funding pool.
Outcome 5: Emergency Capacity Cost Recovery
Could not ask question about this aspect and would be discussed with Management during next meeting
Observations
The following were the major observations during this assignment related to accountability and quality management.
1. Security situation plays an important role in defining the level of participation and nature of monitoring activities.
2. Partner selection criteria and process is very important for future success of CIP in responding to emergencies.
3. Staff members within the CIP team having knowledge and commitment to its internal and external standards and principles would enhance level of compliance in future.