Accountability to Affected Populations: Integrating to Start Funds' processes and programming

For a humanitarian system to be effective and accountable, decision-making power must be in the hands of the people affected by crises.  

Accountability to affected populations (AAP) is central to the intended system change impact of the Start Network. But to what degree is it possible to better incorporate accountability principles and good practices in the Start Fund’s processes and programming?  

This question was at the centre of the Start Fund’s 2023 external evaluation. The evaluation also explored:  

• Whether there is evidence to indicate that local and national NGOs (LNNGOs) are more accountable to affected populations than international counterparts; 
• What key challenges the Start Network members faced in ensuring accountability; 
• What adaptations would be useful; 
• What opportunities the hub model offers in terms of enhancing accountability. 

To disseminate the findings of this study and to provide Start Network member agencies with an opportunity to share their best practices and challenges on accountability, the Start Fund MEAL team delivered its first bi-annual Learning Event, focused on accountability to affected populations in short-term humanitarian responses. 

What have we learned?

A review of key project documents implemented and completed between July 2022 and October 2023 showed that, since 2017 (when the last evaluation on accountability was conducted): 

• 100% of projects provided information about the response to communities (increased from 56%) and 100% of projects provided information through multiple channels (increased from 27%); 
• The proportion of projects that included Complaints and Feedback mechanisms (CFMs) increased from 55% to 100%. 

However:  

• Less than 1/4 of projects mentioned accessibility to CFMs for people with disabilities and only 7% mentioned accessibility for people with disabilities to information-sharing systems. 

Participation from different groups within the community (i.e., people with disabilities) varied according to the stage of the project cycle. 

What about differences between INGOs and Local and National organisations (LNNGOs) in approaching AAP? 

The evaluation did not find consistent trends in AAP approaches between INGOs and LNNGOs. This disputed the assumption in the desk review of Start Fund processes and procedures conducted by the evaluators that LNNGOs are more accountable to affected populations than international counterparts. 

The evaluation found that both INGOs and LNNGOs experienced challenges matching their staff profile with the diversity of languages in the implementation area.   Leveraging community-level volunteers to conduct translations was the most common solution to this challenge. 

How to involve and engage different groups from the community? 

To effectively engage different groups, participants commented that considering the context is crucial. Women, for example, are not a homogenous group with the same needs and preferences everywhere. Agencies need to account for this and ensure equitable access to CFMs and information channels from the start, adapting to cultural norms and communities’ expectations. Gender inclusion, protection and disability must always be considered together. 

How to support women in making their voices heard was one of the challenges that event participants discussed. ActionAid Nigeria shared that they always get the community’s buy-in on women participation from the very beginning of a project, making it not about power-sharing but about bringing different voices together to find the best solutions. Engaging community members including women, in practical, hands-on activities, where everyone could, for example, use objects to express their opinion, as opposed to be ‘put on the spot’ and involved in a verbal discussion, was found to put women more at ease and encourage them to participate. 

Leveraging existing community structures and local leaders came up in the evaluation as a common good practice across agencies to ensure participation. However, in cases where community structures or local leaders’ decisions are not really inclusive and reflective of communities’ needs, directly engaging with community members from these groups is advisable. Engaging with official structures with outreach to different population groups can also be helpful. 

Generally, whenever participation is reduced by external factors, be it natural disasters, conflict or a politically sensitive environment putting people’s personal safety at risk, it is good practice increasing information sharing, so that people understand why they are (or are not) receiving a certain type of assistance. 

Who decides what participation is? 

Many of the participation examples in the projects evaluated were deemed to be limited to data collection and communities receiving assistance and information on distribution logistics, rather than making or influencing programmatic decisions.   

Interestingly though, in Nigeria, despite the many security challenges and limited information-sharing, focus groups participants — particularly women — experienced a high level of participation, and both genders felt that information sharing was satisfactory. Even small levels of consultation were really appreciated by women and led to a higher perception of their involvement in decision-making. 

What happens to community participation after a project ends? 

Participants to the learning event agreed on the importance of sharing recommendations with local stakeholders on how to maintain community participation after the end of a project. Local governments and agencies coming in to implement new projects should coordinate and build on established accountability mechanisms and platforms. 

Off-the-shelf solutions won’t do; context is everything and affected populations must be consulted on what their preferred communications channels are and should decide who can speak on their behalf. 

Community representatives should then be supported on how to advocate on different issues: protection pathways, self-coordination, human rights law, with international agencies keeping a facilitation role.

Looking forward 

Funding and time shortages emerged as two key, internal barriers for Start Network member agencies to increasing accountability to affected populations. 

We are looking at a few options to address these, including: 

• Considering including a designated budget line for accountability in proposals or issuing guidance on which AAP-related costs can be reported as project rather than support costs. 
• Improving Start Network change request process, so to ensure even more flexibility for agencies in adapting to communities’ needs. 
• Recommending existing resources & tools that partners can use to improve accountability approaches at different stages in the project cycle. 

Accountability to affected populations will continue to be at the heart of everything Start Fund is set to achieve and the foundation for effective locally-led action.