Event series on strengthening accountability and inclusion: Making collective accountability to affected populations a reality

Event polls

During the event, we also asked participants to respond to a few live polls. You can find the final results of these exercises below. 

Do you have an example of a collective approach to accountability that you have found to be successful?

• Working with government, local CSOs, and other INGOs on a joint outward messaging and inward feedback mechanism.
• www.talktoloop.org
• Protection Referral Systems
• Engaging local partners, empower children and communities
• A specialized organization called by the UN in the field to do a collective assessment on AAP by interviewing the communities; the results were given back to the NGOs; capacity building was provided; started a common conversation on it
• When I worked in South Sudan in 2014/15 there were community representatives attached to each cluster, which was partly successful, who worked as an intermediary
• PFIM - People First Impact Method – Participatory Video – Survivor and Community Led Response
• The collective approach in Mozambique during the Cycone Idai Response
• ensure the participation of the affected population in the project cycle, and to ensure accessible complaint, suggestions and feedback mechanism .
• Post distribution monitoring of cash assistance intervention – Involvement of Organisation of People with Disability in designing response plan
• Accessible feedback mechanism
• Right Based Approach to participation and accountability
• FGD and Satisfaction Survey HH visits
• In Iraq, the UN system piloted a country-wide AAP mechanism. The mechanism would collect feedback from communities, analyse it and circle back to individual agencies.
• Assessing communication preferences first and building CFM on that - eg. People tend to want the chance to have face to face feedback formats, and the gender/ethnicity/age of the person they speak to is incredibly important
• Listening to affected people, response to them and external dialogue/disclosure
• Staff or volunteer needs to abide according to each organization´s guidelines
• Collective final impact evaluation recommendations turned into policy guidance for future programming
• The mechanism had a few gaps: 1. it was too slow. 2. it was "competing" against many other AAPs (PSEA network, agency level) 3. implementers were afraid to suffer kickbacks from donors as a consequence of feedback
• Inter-agency PSEA network groupings in various locations: pooling awareness raising material development, outreach activities, and reporting channels
• What Matters newsletter (Rohingya response) – Collecting multiple agency CFM data and have a collective analysis of feedback and complaints, share insights to the practitioners to change programmes strategically to put community at the center."
• Two-way communication, feedback...
• Multi-actor and multisectorial CFM
• Capacity building across organization and local partners, that build a massive awareness a massive community in North East Syria response in Save the children program

What needs to change to move towards more effective collective approaches?

• Improve referral mapping
• Standardize access to feedback channels in a response
• Listening to the affected populations on what they need and want
• Limit the number of complaint and feedback mechanisms per area but instead put in place one multi-sectorial and multi-actors mechanism
• Involve affected populations in humanitarian leadership structures
• To improve ownership
• Stop equating AAP with feedback mechanisms, focus more on participation and information-sharing components.
• Every organization needs to do follow up closely on their approach on their activities.
• Design new mechanisms by working in different groups of interests in order to diversify and includes. Continuing negotiation with leaders, stakeholders and their staff
• Have effective leadership, activate policies and good governance
• Assess needs in a wide, participatory way (not only when you need to write a project). Collect and capitalize on feedback. Respond to feedback. Include locally-led decision making processes (ie client selection, community score-cards etc).
• Require members of affected populations to approve humanitarian agencies' funding proposals to donors.
• Move from bureaucracy towards a flexible approach
• Commitments from top management.
• Revision of Mechanism of Accountability and Monitoring according to the Situations and Regions.
• political will to listen and change based on peoples views.
• Act upon the feedback provided
• Recognize the community's capacity
• Recruit more SOCIALLY diverse staff from the North and the South: people who know people, humble, who listens and avoid this Upper Interntaional elite
• How do we integrate existing local feedback mechanisms in our own AAP system
• Donor flexibility, timely implementation, resource allocation